Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am very keen to speak to Isabel specifically about the matter—I just do not want to leave the point lying. Obviously, I am not suggesting that you should be allowed to pray only in a private space—that is, a church—but it is certainly what we are encouraged to do from a Christian perspective.

As for your point about our rights, Bishop Keenan, the fact is that people’s rights are conditional, because sometimes they are contested and can clash with each other. Again, on the idea that some should have the unconditional, unfettered right to do some things, that will clash with other people’s right to do other things, and the question is how we balance those rights. I think that we will all acknowledge that there is a balance-of-rights perspective to be taken into account here.

On the question of proximity, before the buffer zone was brought in in Birmingham, you prayed adjacent to the facility. Even before the buffer zone was brought in, you would not have been allowed to pray inside the facility—in the waiting room or, indeed, in the room where the procedure was taking place. Do you agree that placing some kind of limit was acceptable? It would not have been appropriate for you to pray in the room where the procedure was taking place while it was taking place. Do you therefore agree that this is not a black-or-white matter of restriction or no restriction, but that it is about where we place the restriction?

On that point, part of the evidence that the committee has heard—it is important for us to talk about this—is that we are not talking only about women who are going into premises potentially to have an abortion but about all people who are accessing a service. We have heard evidence that women who have had a miscarriage or stillbirth are deeply distressed to see those images. They might be accessing the premises for a completely different reason. In most cases in Scotland, the premises are a hospital, so people could be accessing the building for all sorts of reasons that are totally unrelated to reproductive healthcare. However, seeing those images can be deeply distressing not just for pregnant women but for people who have had that kind of experience.

What is your perspective on that, Eilidh? To what extent can the concerns about judgment be addressed through guidance from the Lord Advocate on prosecution or operational guidance for Police Scotland, and are there parallels with other areas of law?

You referred to Jesus talking about going into private rooms to pray. That is in Matthew 6, and what comes immediately before that is criticism of those who pray performatively for others to see them. You also mentioned Jesus going to the temple, but the temple is the place where people expect to see others praying. There is a distinction, I think, between praying in a faith setting or in a faith institution—in our case, in a church—as opposed to in a public setting such as this one. I accept that not everybody who takes part in pro-life vigils comes at the matter from a Christian perspective—although that is largely the case with the panel today—but what I am struggling with from the Christian perspective is that, in the scripture, Jesus, immediately before introducing the Lord’s prayer, is very critical of those who pray performatively and calls on people to go and pray in private spaces.

If what you are saying this morning is that the important thing here is not protest but prayer, I have to say that I cannot understand the basis for that as a point of belief, given that scripture tells me that we should not pray like that. Indeed, Jesus is quite explicitly critical of people who do so.

I am particularly interested in Isabel Vaughan-Spruce’s perspective on the matter. I think that you mentioned in your opening comments that your volunteers in Birmingham now pray outside a church, much further away from the abortion provider. If it is prayer rather than protest, is it not okay to do it at or outside the church rather than at the abortion provider?

I will press you a wee bit on that. The bill provides for 200m zones. In some cases—certainly in Scotland—a person would still be on the provider’s campus even outwith that 200m zone. I want to ensure that I am getting your perspective correctly and that we are recording it correctly. Are you saying that it would be acceptable for no protest to take place on the provider’s campus, even if it was beyond 200m, but that, when the area is a public space or a public highway, that should not be restricted?

I completely understand why the emphasis is on the provisions around silent prayer. What is your perspective on vigils, or what some people characterise as protests? Your perspective is that silent prayer should certainly not be restricted, and I completely understand that perspective. Where do you come down on the issue of the placement of people holding placards with provocative messages on them or images of an unborn baby or a fetus? We have seen examples of that, and we have heard evidence of images being projected on to the wall of a hospital. Obviously, walls have windows, so the images would also be projected into the rooms of a hospital.

I understand and respect your perspective on silent prayer, but it is really important for us to understand your perspective on other kinds of activities that have taken place in Scotland which are more visual and provocative. I know that people would characterise things differently, but what is your position on activities where there is more to them, if you understand what I am asking?

That takes us to quite an interesting place. There is a large amount of overlap between what you and the previous witnesses have said. We have heard quite a lot of evidence that existing laws cover breach of the peace, harassment and so on. The challenge is that Parliament has been presented with instances, which have been well covered in the media, that the vast majority of the population would regard as unacceptable behaviour, and in which they would consider that harassment and intimidation had taken place, but the police felt unable to intervene under the current legislation.

I am not talking about the vigils, protests, prayer groups and so on that take place; we have heard about images being projected on to the wall of a hospital and into a hospital. We heard evidence about instances outside the Sandyford clinic in Glasgow, where people have used a speaker system so that, as well as their having harassed people who were going in, people inside the building could hear the people outside as they said very provocative things.

The challenge for the committee is to assess why action was not taken in those instances. Was it because the law as it stands is inadequate, or is there a barrier to enforcing the law as it stands? I am interested in Catriona McMillan’s and Eilidh Dickson’s perspective on that. Many of the discussions come down to questions about how we expect the bill to be enforced and about the judgment that would have to be made, as per the example that was given in the previous evidence session about the arrest that did not lead to a conviction, which Stephen Allison mentioned.

I would be interested in your perspective on the extent to which this differs from other areas of law, where we expect, in the first instance, the police to make a judgment and then the procurator fiscal to do so at the next stage. How many of the concerns could be addressed not in the bill but through guidance, which could be either Lord Advocate’s guidance or operational guidance for Police Scotland?

The Rev Stephen Allison’s comments respond in part to questions that I posed in the earlier part of the meeting, and were really interesting. I agree that, in general, we should not legislate on the basis of theology. However, some religious practices are prohibited in law for reasons that we would all generally regard as justifiable, because they are about the balance of rights, protection of vulnerable groups and so on.

I am interested in the Free Church of Scotland’s perspective on a question that Dr Gulhane posed to the previous panel. Do you agree that it is unacceptable for protests that display graphic images to take place in proximity to a hospital or an abortion provider? In the previous session, Dr Pickering mentioned images of dismembered fetuses. I am interested in your perspective on that, given the previous panel’s very valuable evidence, which was largely from the perspective of the Catholic system of belief.