Seòmar agus comataidhean

Whatever we do, there should be a level of consultation, because this is about extending zones into public land. There must be a level of consultation, particularly where private dwellings could be captured by any extension. I think that the minister gave an indication earlier that a level of engagement and consultation would take place for any extension.

On what happens inside private dwellings or churches, private conversations are not covered under the bill, as the minister said. Things would have to happen from those premises that could be heard or seen within the zones, as I am aware that the committee has heard in evidence.

In the previous session, there was a good airing of what signs would or would not be captured under the bill. I hope that the committee feels that it has had a full exploration of that.

It is essential that such premises are covered by the legislation, for exactly the reasons that Colin Poolman gave early in the series of evidence sessions. The bill could be undermined by an anti-abortion organisation buying a property within the zone, using it as its headquarters, projecting images from it on to services, putting up large signs in the garden or handing information over the wall, as happens in some of the states in the US that do not exempt private dwellings.

We have the balance right, but we will need to ensure that we communicate well with people who live in a zone and with religious organisations that have places of worship in a zone to ensure that they fully understand what we are doing with the bill.

Yes—absolutely.

No—I apologise if I was not clear on that. This is about the functions of the zones. The committee has explored the example of images being projected on to the Chalmers sexual health centre. I cannot here and now think of an example of a particular behaviour whose impact would mean that we might have to extend a zone for a particular reason, but there are potential behaviours to consider. We have seen behaviours in other places around the world that, if they were imported here, might make the function of the zones within 200m difficult—that would depend on how the behaviours were manifested. That is why flexibility is so important. Oversight and our ability to respond in a timely manner are important, too.

We heard from organisations and individuals about the literature that was given out, and the issue of the medical misinformation that it contained was cited in a variety of responses. Obviously, people have seen that literature at one point or another—some of the clinicians who appeared before the committee a couple of weeks ago spoke about it. The level of misinformation in some of the leaflets is quite scary, and some of the assertions in them presuppose that people do not get the appropriate information once they go into services. On that point, I note that, in the first evidence session on the bill, Alice Murray told the committee about the level of counselling that she had to go through as part of her abortion process.

We heard about the literature that is handed out, which is definitely one thing that causes alarm for those who access services.

My answer to your question—if I have understood it correctly—would be that people who seek guidance from a hospital chaplain, of whatever denomination, are not covered by the bill, because that is a consensual conversation that the patient is seeking out. They are seeking out guidance, which is not covered by the bill. The issue could be included in guidance for health boards, but it does not need a specific exemption in the bill, because consensual conversations are not covered.

The post-legislative scrutiny—we will stop using that phrase in a minute—of various acts that we have passed in this committee has proved very useful. To me, that route is the appropriate mechanism for ensuring that we can appropriately scrutinise the legislation’s effect and make sure that it is having the effect that we want it to have.

I think that the bill has sufficient flexibility on that. Currently, we see protests only at specific types of settings, so it is right that the bill is limited to the 30 premises that are captured by the 1967 act. There would be a difference if GP surgeries or pharmacies started to be designated under that act, but they would still be captured with the relatively small number of premises that are included now. As drafted, the bill provides enough flexibility to ensure that, should we see behaviours at services where we do not see them at the moment, we could move to protect those services as appropriate.

A lot of that is about proportionality. One of the things that was cited in the Supreme Court judgment for the Northern Ireland bill was that the punishment involved only fines. That was considered with regard to proportionality. Given that that set a precedent, it would have potentially been unwise to depart from something that was so heavily referenced in the Supreme Court judgment for that bill.

The Scottish Government also has a presumption against short sentences, and offences under this bill would likely fall in that category, so it would be counter-productive to even put that in the bill. As the minister said in the previous session, there is flexibility in the fines system to deal with repeat offenders and people who commit particularly flagrant breaches of the zone.

No, it would not be. In the first instance, I doubt that many people know what that flag is, but it would not be covered under the bill.