Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much for that.

I totally accept that my amendment 21 is not the right way forward, but would Gillian Mackay be willing to have further discussions about making sure that what happens in a room in a school or a hotel or in a church building with the doors closed is not caught unintentionally? I appreciate that the minister said that, in her view, that would not be the case, but I think that there is still some concern among the faith community that that might happen unintentionally. Would Gillian Mackay be willing to have a further conversation about that before stage 3?

I thank the Government and the committee for their remarks.

Amendment 22 not moved.

Amendments 23 and 24 not moved.

Section 6 agreed to.

After section 6

Amendment 25 not moved.

Section 7—Extension of safe access zones

Amendments 26 to 30 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

I am always for cross-party co-operation. If either the minister or Gillian Mackay is happy to work on the amendment, I am certainly open to the suggestion.

The purpose of my second amendment in the group is to exempt schools, places of worship and other non-public places, such as hotels and libraries, from the bill. The aim is to exclude what happens inside the building but not what happens outside it. I will comment on each amendment in turn. Again, what I say will be based on the Edinburgh context, but I am sure that it will also apply to other parts of Scotland.

We all agree that it is important that we allow a multitude of points of view to be presented in schools in order to give children a broad basis for understanding issues. If schools were included in the bill, we would severely limit the ability to provide that. Furthermore, where a school is run by a faith-based organisation, the bill would preclude it from affirming any part of its doctrine that fell foul of the buffer zone. For example, in Edinburgh, there is a Roman Catholic school within 200m of a premises. I am sure that we would not want to limit what happens inside the school with regard to debate, but I am concerned that that could happen if the bill is passed without my amendment being agreed to. The same is true with regard to places of worship. As currently written, the bill would stop churches, mosques, synagogues and other holy buildings hosting any speaker or event that was different from the views on abortion. That is a clear infringement of religion. I emphasise again that this is not about what happens at the doorstep; it is about what happens inside the building.

Venues such as libraries and hotels often host meetings and conferences for a wide variety of interest groups. I do not want to bore the committee but, in the Edinburgh context, if my measurements are right, we would exclude the Edinburgh international book festival from hosting a debate on any issue around abortion, because it is within the 200m range. I am sure that that is not what Gillian Mackay or the Government wants to do. It would be wrong to prohibit the holding of such meetings if the intent is not to harm or harass anyone but simply to discuss the topic.

I understand that the way that I have drafted my amendment makes it a blunt instrument. Again, I am using it as a probing amendment to see where Gillian Mackay and the Government are on the matter. I will not move the amendment, but I am genuinely looking for some reassurance. I seek an understanding from the member and the Government of how we will ensure that we do not stop freedom of speech in such venues in the future.

My third amendment relates to hours of operation. We have discussed previously the balance between freedom of speech, expression and religion and women’s ability to access these services in a safe way. In order to maximise the former and minimise barriers to the latter, my amendment seeks to limit the effect of the law to the operational hours of protected premises. I can see no reason why anyone would want to do this, but I also believe in the right to freedom of speech so, if somebody wanted to go and protest outside a building that was closed and which no one was going into, they should be allowed to do that. That would seem to be a reasonable compromise—I understand the strength of feeling on both sides—and it would ensure that the law remained as effective at stopping harassment as it would be without the amendment.

I emphasise that the amendment is in no way intended to be a wrecking amendment. It is not a bad-faith attempt to make the bill less effective. It is a well-intentioned effort to find a compromise that will allow for the right to freedom of speech and, at the same time, allow women to feel absolutely safe when accessing services.

I move on to my fourth amendment—amendment 22. I note for the record that I will move this amendment. I also declare that I am a former church minister. This amendment seeks to carve out an exception in the law for those who are carrying out chaplaincy services at protected premises. The importance of the services that are rendered by chaplains of all faiths must not be underestimated. They often meet people who are at their lowest point and they provide impartial care that can be key to a patient’s recovery. They are a fundamental part of hospital care. We deal with the spiritual as well as the physical. For that reason, it is crucial that chaplains are free to have open, honest and frank discussions that cover a wide range of issues. It should be up to the patient and not the law to decide the content of those pastoral conversations.

To be clear, I note that the exception would not give chaplains licence to press people into one decision or another. It would not give them the ability to set up a stall or to protest. It would not even necessarily give them licence to bring the topic up. However, it would allow them to respond to patients who are seeking guidance or a faith perspective on their care options. I hope that the committee will agree to the amendment to ensure that women can have access to the pastoral care that they want at the time when they want it.

I move on to section 5 of the bill. I understand that there are those who are angry with amendment 21. I have been accused in the press of trying to wreck the bill with it, and it has been called a back-door effort to allow protesters to skirt the law. I say for the record that I am trying to do no such thing. I have been painted as being in favour of the protests and as endorsing the way in which people go about demonstrating. I note for the record that, even though I believe that people should have the freedom to gather and demonstrate, I do not agree with some of the tactics that have been used in demonstrating outside clinics. I do not think that they are effective or helpful and I have never taken part in any of those events.

However, on three days a week, I stand at a bus stop that is within 200m of the Chalmers clinic in Edinburgh. I do not plan for what I am going to pray for, but sometimes, as a Christian, I pray at that bus stop. I do not always pray for the same things, but occasionally I might want to pray around the issue of abortion. Given the way in which the bill is currently written—I would be interested to know whether the minister agrees with this—that prayer would be breaking the law and I should be prosecuted. Even though there is no outward action and only I and God know what I am thinking, I would be breaking the law.

Putting aside the question of how it would be possible to enforce that, do we as a Parliament really want to be in the business of policing thought in that way? Do we really want to infringe on religious freedom in that way? My amendment 21 would not allow groups to plan and gather in safe access zones or allow people to organise a rolling vigil. It seeks to protect individual silent meditation and prayer. I urge the Government, if it is not willing to support the amendment today, to provide some clarification of where the law is on that issue.

I turn to my final amendment—you will be glad to hear that, convener. Amendment 25 follows on from what my colleague said earlier. It would add a defence of reasonableness to the bill that is exactly the same as the one in the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. It would help to protect freedom and ensure that the law is not applied overly harshly. As the minister said early in the debate, it is really important that we future proof the bill so that it stands not just for today, for tomorrow or for five years, but for decades to come. I hope that my amendment can achieve broad support. After all, no one is suggesting that reasonable behaviour should be prosecuted. The amendment guarantees that that will not be an issue.

Thank you.

That is helpful.

You touched on the elephant in the room—that is, money. To what extent is cost the single biggest factor limiting possible changes to disability benefits?

I suppose that, to an extent, this is an academic discussion until either Government actually tries it out. Obviously, you have conversations with the DWP in private. In those conversations, has there been any fleshing out of how to find a way? Have you tested the DWP by asking, “If we do X, what will happen?”

Good morning to you and your colleagues, cabinet secretary. The DWP told the committee that it would “find a way” to ensure that people receive their entitlements to reserved benefits. Does that alter your thinking about the risk of any divergence between attendance allowance rules and the new rules in Scotland?

Good morning to you all, and thanks for coming today.

We already mitigate some costs—for example, through free bus travel, through free personal care and, although eligibility for it is not based on financial grounds, through the blue badge scheme that you have just mentioned. I presume that you do not want to get rid of any of those, but are those not mitigations for a mobility component not being included within attendance allowance or the new benefit?