Seòmar agus comataidhean

The answer is potentially a bit of both. I know that the minister has undertaken to write to the committee on that. I do not want to prejudge what the minister will come back with, but I think that the reasonable person test will be present throughout this piece of legislation.

The bill provides for the power to reduce the size of a zone. I very much hope that the legislation would have the desired effect and that we would not see any more activity around hospitals. I cannot say in advance how far we might reduce the zones if the behaviours that we are currently seeing ceased or moved to more appropriate places, as we have been calling for throughout the passage of the bill, but it is right that we have that power.

I know that the committee has heard a variety of views on a minimum reduction distance as well as on the potential for a maximum extension distance. I am more than happy to engage with committee members and others on their thoughts and views on that between stage 1 and stage 2.

I think that there is a misunderstanding there. The committee has had correspondence from the Law Society of Scotland, which believes that the bill is defined and written tightly enough not to curtail other protests.

The other thing to mention is that the Supreme Court judgment on the bill for Northern Ireland, which this bill is similar to, did not flag up any issues of infringement on other protests. So, given the evidence in front of you, and given how tightly the bill is drawn in focusing on abortion services, I do not have any concerns about it infringing on other protests.

To my mind, that would not be covered under the intent aspect of the provisions, and I do not think that it would come under the reckless aspect, either. Recklessly causing an offence is covered in quite a lot of law across the Scottish statute book. I do not believe that a priest simply attending to visit parishioners would be covered. Many of them also work in hospital chaplaincies, and I do not think that that would be covered, either.

During the previous evidence session, the minister outlined the need for consultation, and the timelines for that, when new services come online and when zones, potentially, need to be changed. In my consultation, we heard from people who support the bill that urgency is needed when those zones need to be changed, because, generally, they will change because something has happened—a behaviour has developed that has infringed the zone or has made it difficult for it to operate, and there is a need for an extension. I absolutely appreciate that some who support the bill also feel that there needs to be a level of parliamentary oversight to that. Again, I am more than happy to speak to members about that between stage 1 and stage 2, but there needs to be a balance between having the flexibility and ease to move quickly enough and having the appropriate oversight.

Yes.

That is similar to the question that Ross Greer asked about a minister going to a hospital to visit a parishioner and someone phoning the police just because he is there. That would not be enforced under the bill. Using the example that you gave, I would say that hospital chaplains have every right to be there. They are staff on the site, just as many others are.

That does not necessarily mean that people will not call the police in that situation, although I hope that they will not. Again, we might need to do a piece of awareness raising on that as part of the work on the bill. Even if we wrote such an exemption into the bill, that would not prevent someone from potentially misunderstanding and calling the police in the first place. That might open up a loophole that is not there currently, because those matters are not covered by the bill.

As we are coming to the end of this session, I will just say that I am more than happy to have a further in-depth conversation with Mr Sweeney if that would help allay any concerns. We can have those conversations between stage 1 and stage 2, if there is any further context that Mr Sweeney wishes to go over.

I do not know that any clinician who was striking would say, “Don’t go to your appointment.” I do not think that I have ever heard that from a trade union. Pickets are about working terms and conditions. Clinicians would never want their patients not to have access to the services that they are entitled to, because that would probably be against their job in the first place.

As I am sure that you are aware, that letter came in quite late yesterday, so I have not yet had a chance to have a chat about any of the potential ramifications of putting those principles into the bill, but I am certainly happy to have conversations between stages 1 and 2 about whether that would be appropriate.

We should be clear that silent prayer, as a behaviour, is not written into the bill itself—there are no proscribed behaviours within the bill. In its written submission, Police Scotland said that it currently engages with protesters and polices protests through dialogue, which is slightly at odds with the evidence that the committee was given a couple of weeks ago.

I am sure that we are all aware from having taken part in protests as part of our work or our activism that the police regularly engage with protesters to facilitate matters or to solve any issues, and I do not think that that desire for dialogue would change simply because of the setting for a protest. The committee might want to clarify with Police Scotland whether what it said in its written submission or what it said in its oral evidence to the committee is correct.