Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.