Seòmar agus comataidhean

We would first have to see activity at those premises similar to what we currently see outside hospitals, which we have not seen. That is why such premises are not currently covered, and why we are using the designated services aspect of the Abortion Act 1967. The minister indicated that there would have to be consultation, and we would have to consider how such behaviours were manifesting and to assess their impact, in the way that we have done here, to ensure proportionality and to extend the scope to any other sites.

It is right for us to retain such flexibility, because, as you said, medicine moves on. However, the protesters’ tactics have changed, too, over the years. To leave out such premises would be to tempt fate and would potentially displace protests to those other places. We need to ensure that there would be appropriate consultation if the scope were to cover those premises too, but I do not currently foresee that being needed.

I would challenge the assertion that trade union activity would ever influence people not to access services. Often, trade union activity outside hospitals is about pay. It is not about saying, “Don’t go and have your ear, nose and throat appointment;” it is about saying, “We want better pay to provide your ear, nose and throat treatment.”

Many of the people who are outside hospitals are clinicians. They know very well the impact that protests and so on have on people’s ability to access services. I believe that clinicians would be the last people outside hospitals wanting to influence anyone other than their own colleagues with regard to whether they should join their ask for better pay, better conditions or whatever else.

I do not suppose for a minute that people coming from far away—particularly given the airing that this legislation has had and the level of public awareness of it—would contact the police because they could not see what was going on. Because of the exemption in the bill for trade union activity, the police would take no action. There is a piece of work to do to ensure that the public are aware of what is and is not allowed under the bill.

Do you foresee any other operational issues, especially in the early days of the scheme being live? For example, there have sometimes been issues with getting data across from HMRC. Do you see that being a potential issue? Are such issues being worked out at the moment?

That is great. Thank you.

In its evidence, the Law Society of Scotland said that arrangements for penalties and appeals should

“reflect the desire to ensure compliance, rather than being used as a mechanism to raise revenue”

and that the penalties should be well publicised. Are the potential penalties and consequences for non-compliance being communicated as part of your engagement with industry? Do you feel that the right balance is being struck between improving compliance and raising revenue?

I have no relevant interests to declare.

That is lovely. Thank you.

I have a quick question about the nature of the different protected sites in the pieces of legislation. In England and Wales, the approach is very much more on a stand-alone clinic basis than it is in Scotland, where we are looking more at hospital campuses and the nature of those sites. Is that a consistent theme across the other legislation, too? Are the sites in Scotland that we are trying to protect kind of unique compared with many of the sites that are covered in legislation around the world?

I will go to Ryan Murray first, because you raised in your opening statement the variability of implementation of the different SDS options. How can we raise awareness among older people in particular of the options under SDS? For many families, this might be the first time that they have had to access the care system at all and many—mine included, when we came to that point with elderly grandparents—just took what was offered rather than looking into the other options that were available. What should we do to address that, and the variability of the way in which different local authorities implement different SDS options?

I am very aware that, on the other end of things, for many young people, SDS is also quite difficult in certain local authorities.

In having the opportunity to do things differently, is there an element that is potentially adding more risk to an already overburdened system by looking at how things could be done differently? Maybe exploring them and giving them a try with certain people is just too much for some social workers, given their case loads when dealing with that, and giving people space is one of the things that can open up creativity across the piece.