 We continue our meeting today with the second evidence session on the Abortion Services Seaf Access Zone Scotland Bill with the member in charge of the bill, Gillian MacKy. Welcome to the meeting, Gillian MacKy. Simon Cuthbert-Kair, Deputy Director for Public Health Capabilities, and Ruth Wilson, Senior Policy Advisor at the Scottish Government. I understand that the member has a short opening statement. Mae'n gwaith i ddigonion i'n gwaholeidau gyda'r cymhwysel, ond rydyn ni'n gobeithio gyda'r bydd. Bydd mwy o'r bydd arbennig gynnig o'r byd gyda'r bydd, y bydd cymhwysel a'r parlymu'n ganfwy多fydd â cymhwysel a'r bydd am wnaeth i gael ei risi a'r holliau gwneud, yn ei ddylgrifydd hynny. Rydyn ni'n gael ei wneud mynd i ddigonion i'ch contraryn alawm, yn yr unrhyw gydag allwch y ffordd yn gyllwybodol ddweudio ti wedi bod cyfle hwnnw bwysig wedi'i untwg, a bod y bydd gwasanaeth ni wedi cael ei bryd y cyfle a rungwg ar hynny yn y porf. Felly, rydych yn cael ei bwysig yn cael ei hyfforddiol a'r gweithio arddangos o rhagleniadau a gwrthedd i gael ei neud, gan fil o bheithreduol o'r cyfle a masai yn llyfrgei cyfle o'r cyfle a gweithredu o'r cyfle o'r cyfle o arnynny. Fy chi oedd y ffordd ymdogdd mor hynny'n irrespective of their views on abortion. It should matter especially to this committee, which has rightly been fighting over the last three years to understand and dismantle the barriers that prevent people getting the healthcare they need, when and where they need it. In making this argument, I accept that many of the people who participate in anti-abortion activity outside hospitals do not believe their actions make it harder for women to access healthcare, that, in fact, they believe they help women. Without being too blunt, those beliefs do not change the reality that some women find their activities distressing and alarming. The minister earlier noted the powerful testimony of the witnesses who appeared before you in February and, like her, I think that it needs no embellishment. I will say that, unfortunately, the experience of those witnesses are not unique. In meetings with healthcare providers and responses to my consultation and in conversations with women, the message is the same. Anti-abortion activity can make accessing abortion treatment harder than it should be. At worst, as Professor Cameron noted, it can mean women delaying treatment that can increase the risk of complications. Even in less extreme cases, it can increase anxiety at a time when many women are already anxious. We have probably all gone for a medical procedure and lain awake the night before, wondering if it will hurt or if something will go wrong. Worrying about what will happen inside the clinic. Imagine fearing what might happen outside the clinic too. If there will be people there trying to influence your decision or calling your names, no one should have to endure that. The anxiety is not just about being judged. It can be about feeling exposed at a time when privacy matters most. Nobody goes for a gallbladder operation and expects strangers to question their choices in the car park. Those seeking abortion should have the same benefit. No matter why they go, they have made a very personal choice. No matter how much progress has been made, there is still stigma around abortion and, for some women, a real sense of shame. Going at all can take courage, and that should not be compounded with fear of being identified or exposed. That fear may have an even greater impact in remote or rural areas where anonymity is often harder to come by at the best of times. Given all that, abortion should be the very last healthcare service that we allow to be subject to unwanted influence or harassment, the very last area as opposed to the only one. I will conclude by making two further points. Firstly, I have been told that this bill is not necessary, and I wish with all my heart it was not. However, you would not have heard the evidence that you have in the last few weeks if existing law was sufficient. There is no current solution that offers consistent protection and does not require women to experience harm before action is taken. Secondly, I am not a tall cavalier about the rights to freedom of expression, religion and assembly. I would never vote for a bill that threatened them, never mind champion it through Parliament. I am confident in the work that we have done to ensure that the right balance has been struck by this bill, and I will happily say more on this as I am sure you will all ask. However, in essence, I think that it is proportionate to ensure that for 200 metres from the grounds of only 30 premises in the whole of Scotland, women cannot be targeted for accessing healthcare to which they are legally entitled. I am really interested to know a bit about the consultation on the bill and whether you feel that you are able to reach out. You yourself have said that there are people with opposing views in that area in terms of access zones. How you went about the consultation made sure that you did seek the views of both? The consultation was open between May and August in 2022. We had nearly 12,000 responses to that. Many of them had very entrenched views, one way or the other. We had a series of questions as well as free text boxes for people to be able to give their opinions and further context as to why that was their opinion on different measures within the bill. It took an awful long time to analyse all of that data as a result. For me, some of the themes that came out of that consultation in particular were that people were very quick to make the whole issue about abortion, which is why I have been very clear that that is for me about access to healthcare services. There was a real want from those who were for the bill for that consistent approach across the country and for action to be taken quickly on any escalation of behaviour in various places. In terms of the consultation, it was advertised through Parliament and all the normal ways that members' bills are advertised. The number of responses that we received to that gives some weight to how widely we consulted. I will add on from that to people who came back to say that they were fearful of having those zones. Did they offer alternatives? Did you look at the alternatives that were offered? If I am honest, there were very few that offered any alternative and very often that alternative was just not having the zones at all. That probably lends itself to some of the other testimony that you have heard over the past few weeks that the position from people is either to have the zones or no zones in many cases. We did hear a lot of views from people on vigils indicating about literature that was being given out to people seeking healthcare and their view on why they had to provide it. I wondered if you had anything in the consultation around that and if you had formed a view on the issue around literature? We did hear both from organisations and individuals about the literature that was being given out. The medical misinformation from it was cited in a variety of responses. It is obviously something that people have seen at some point or another. We heard that from some of the clinicians that were on the panel a couple of weeks ago. The level of misinformation in some of those leaflets is quite scary. Some of what they are asserting presupposes that people are not getting the appropriate information once they go into services. You heard from Alice Murray on the first evidence panel of the level of counselling that she had to go through as part of her abortion. We definitely did hear about the literature that was being handed out. That was definitely one thing that caused alarm for those who access services. My question is very similar to what I asked the minister earlier. In your opening statement, you talked about how you would not support any curtailment of protests for other very legitimate reasons. I would like to ask how you could square that with what the police and the solicitor that came before us said when I asked directly about whether I would be able to, for example, go and protest about Elgewell, which is a legitimate protest to have. They said that they felt that this legislation would not allow me to do that. I think that there is a misunderstanding there. You have had correspondence from the law society as well who believe that the bill is tightly enough defined and written so that it wouldn't curtail other protests. The other thing there as well is that the Supreme Court judgment for the bill in Northern Ireland, which this bill is very similar to, didn't flag up any issues in terms of infringing on other pieces of protest. Given the other evidence that is in front of you and how tightly the bill is drawn around abortion services, I do not have any concerns about infringing on other pieces of protest. You referenced the letter from the law society. One of the right towards the end—I will paraphrase it, but essentially they have said that you could put in the overarching principles on the face of the bill to try to help to make it more clear. Is that something that you might be willing to do? As Dr Gullhane, I am sure that the letter came in quite late yesterday, so I haven't had a chance yet to have a chat about any potential ramifications of putting that into the bill, but I'm certainly happy to have conversations about whether that would be appropriate between stage 1 and stage 2. Again, in your opening statement you talked about protest. I just want to separate out traditional protest with placards and shouting, because the evidence that we've heard has been very clear that nobody is in favour of that. I want to come to silent prayer, which is something that, again, I asked the police directly about. They said that they would not ask somebody why they were there if they were stood silently, and they most certainly would not ask about what they were doing there. Given that the bill includes silent prayer, but the police do not look like they would do anything, I am a bit confused as to how that would work in practice. We should be clear that silent prayer is not written in the bill itself. As a behaviour, there are no prescribed behaviours within the bill itself, but the police in their written submission said that how they engage with protesters and police protests currently is through dialogue. That is slightly at odds with what the evidence that yourselves were given a couple of weeks ago. I am sure that we are all aware from having taken part in protests and various other things as part of our work or as part of our activism, police do regularly engage with protesters to either facilitate or solve any issues. I do not see how that want to have dialogue changes just because of the setting that it is taking place in. It may be something that the committee wishes to clarify with Police Scotland as to whether what is in their written submission is correct or whether the oral evidence to committee is correct. The bill does talk about intentionally or recklessly influence. Can I be clear, though, that your bill would not cover other staff who are going to work for something completely different, but we have heard evidence that are affected by protest? Could you just give a little bit of clarity as to—could you give me a scenario? I am going to work and I am in hematology and I am going in there, but I found that the protest outside the hospital, which was for abortion upsetting, would the bill cover my being upset and me feeling as though I certainly was not being influenced but I have been made upset by it? I think it would not stop someone from making a complaint, but I think the police would attend and would then make a view of what the behaviour was that was going on and what impact that could potentially have on those accessing abortion services. While that individual clinician could make the complaint, they are not the target of the legislation, it would depend on what else is going on in that situation as to whether what was going on was influencing those who were accessing services. To give you an example, if the clinician was a hematology clinician, as the example you gave, and there was someone outside with a banner similar to what we are seeing at the moment, they could make the complaint, but the police still could come and say that that would have an effect on those accessing services and they are within a safe access zone. It could be captured, but it very much depends on the scenario that is there in front of the police when they attend. Finally, medicine moves on and things change. We are seeing that women are accessing abortion in very different ways than they did 10 years ago. GPs and pharmacies provide services on other places. The bill does allow scope for expansion into those areas and we heard from the minister that that is to be flexible. However, if you were to expand into GP and pharmacy 200 metres, that is a lot of Scotland that is going to be covered by this legislation, which is very different to your tightly drawn up 30. What reassurances do we have that that type of thing would not necessarily happen? We would first of all have to see activity similar to what we are seeing outside hospitals at those premises in the first place, which we haven't seen up until now, which is why they are not covered and why particularly we are using the 1967 abortion act under the designated services that we are using. The minister indicated that there would have to be a level of consultation and would have to look at how the behaviours were manifesting and the impact that they were having, similar to what we have done here to ensure proportionality, to extend that to any other site. It is right for us to retain that flexibility, because, as she said, medicine moves on, but the protesters' tactics have also changed over years as well. I think that to leave out those premises is potentially tempting fate and potentially displacing protests into those other places, so I think that we need to ensure that there would be appropriate consultation if it was moved to those premises, too, but I don't foresee that being needed at the current time. So perhaps not leaving out the ability to, but maybe making it so that it's not just at ministerial discretion and that Parliament might be involved in some way? There will need to be some parliamentary oversight of that. Again, I'm happy to speak to people between stage 1 and stage 2 as to what that may look like. What I would say as well is that what strongly came out in my consultation for the bill was that those accessing services are looking for us to be able to move quickly when there are potential incidents as well. There's a balance there between parliamentary oversight and potentially dealing with something with a potential situation outside of settings. If I can continue with the use of examples, what the committee is really interested in is how the bill would operate in practice. The principles behind that are well understood and I think well supported. If I can give an example of a priest going to a hospital to visit a parishioner are totally normal and really important part of their role and the priest stops outside the hospital to pray. I've prayed outside hospitals on my way in for a variety of reasons. If a woman who is accessing the hospital for the purposes of an abortion sees the priest and is familiar with the Catholic Church's position on abortion, she could be alarmed, feel intimidated by that, that the fear and alarm provision could be there, would that be an offence even if the priest isn't there for the purpose of influencing a woman seeking an abortion? The fear and alarm could still be created. I presume that that wouldn't be an offence because at that point we are criminalising priests for dressing as priests in hospitals. To my mind, no, it wouldn't be covered under the intent side of things and I don't think it would come under the reckless side of the bill either. Recklessly causing offences is covered in quite a lot of law across the Scottish statute book. I don't believe that priests just attending to visit parishioners would be covered. Many of those priests will also work in the chaplaincy within hospitals as well, so I don't believe that that would be covered. Priest visiting a parishioner for the purposes of pastoral support would be the opposite of reckless, certainly. Just on that point, and again, I think that I'm really drilling down into that point, particularly in silent prayer, we can all understand the intent element of that provision where the intent is very deliberately to influence people who are having an abortion. You mentioned the second part of it, which is that it is recklessly having that effect. How exactly is that defined? You mentioned that present in other areas of law. I asked the minister before you met a cot. Is that covered by using the reasonable person test, or is recklessness defined in and of itself separately? I think that a bit of both is potentially the answer. I know that the minister has undertaken to write back to the committee on that, so I don't want to prejudge what the minister will come back with. I think that the reasonable person test will be present throughout that piece of legislation. If I could go back to basics, I know that broad principles are well covered. It is an important point, particularly because you brought up the evidence given by Police Scotland that written on oral evidence and made a reasonable point about the potential tension between those. Could you address the point that some people have put to us in evidence that the police have sufficient powers as it stands to deal with those who are behaving in an intimidating manner, regardless of their proximity to a hospital or anywhere else? To take that question slightly back to front, one of the strong things that we heard from the consultation was that, currently, women are having to be distressed or traumatised before we can take any action. That bill seeks to flip that round and have that deterrent effect in the first place, very similar to the legislation in Northern Ireland and the legislation in England and Wales. From the last time I spoke to officials in Northern Ireland, they had not seen any arrests or anything inside of those zones as a result of the legislation, so that bill will stop women being traumatised in the first place rather than having to react. What was the first part of your question? It was essentially that, so if I can paraphrase your position, correct me if I'm getting it wrong. As it stands, the police may well have the power to act in response to the distress happening women feeling intimidated, but current provisions don't provide a deterrent effect and you're seeking the deterrents by acknowledging that existing law would allow for action where behaviour does cross the line. Existing law would deal with criminal activity once it has happened, but that coming back to my other point is that women would have to be traumatised and distressed in the first place, whereas what we are seeking to do is ensure that that deterrent effect is in place so that women do not have to be traumatised as a result of going to healthcare that they are legally entitled to. Finally, on that point and again a general principle question, what makes you confident that this bill would survive what's probably the inevitable legal challenge? It's about a balance of rights, right to freedom of religion and expression of that, freedom of protest and assembly and right to access healthcare. Your bill is broadly similar to the Northern Irish and English equivalents, but there are some specific points of difference. Obviously, the Northern Irish bill in particular has survived, that's a premium court challenge, but your bill is not like for like with that, it's broadly similar not like for like. What makes you confident with the differences in your bill that you are still maintaining a balance that the courts would support and that is in keeping with ECHR? I think that the minister went through earlier on all of the stages that we've gone through, all of the engagement that we've gone through when making this bill and having a look at one of the major differences is that 200 metres and having had a look at the different way that services are delivered in Scotland versus England and Wales in Northern Ireland where it's generally standalone clinics, the hospital sites that we are dealing with are much bigger and have a much greater number of people accessing them, so therefore potentially a much greater number of people who could experience those protests. As the minister said, we were also having a look at how people make their way to their appointments, whether that is entrances to car parks, bus stops, all these sorts of things where there could potentially be that influence exerted and undermined the bill, but they are away from the front door. I believe that we've gone as far as we can in terms of the distance without crossing the line into unnecessarily excluding people more widely than they necessarily need to be. Given the different situation that we have compared to Northern Ireland, England and Wales, we have that balance right in terms of those protected features that we've had a look at and ensuring that outside of that 200 metres around 30 premises in Scotland, people can still make their views on a portion known. The other notable difference in your bill is that the private property provision, but I believe that colleagues are going to come in on that, so I'm happy to maybe come back, convener, if it's not covered, but I don't want to tread on anybody else's toes. Thank you, Mr Cave. Emma Harper. Thank you, convener. Good morning, colleague. On the other side of the table this morning, you've clarified the issue of 200 metres being established in Scotland compared to the 150 metres, which was part of the original consultation. When I asked the minister about it, I think that Queen Elizabeth was one hospital where 200 was part of the decision. Is that correct? Yes, it was, yes. In Scotland, 200 metres seems to be what would be established as the area that would be the safe zone. In my next part, I'm thinking about the ability to extend or reduce a site or even add a new site. I used an example of a new hospital, a replacement service in another area, for instance. That was one of the concerns that was around Scottish ministers making that decision to extend or reduce, without further parliamentary scrutiny, which is what Dr Calhany said about further scrutiny, as far as parliamentary statutory instruments or making sure that wider consultation was under way. Is that something that we might need to consider as we move forward? However, would that then potentially incur delays in establishing new or enhanced or reduced zones? The minister in the last panel outlined the needs for consultation and the timelines for that when new services come online, but also for when zones potentially need to be changed. What we heard in my consultation that any changes to the zone, people who support the bill, felt that there needed to be a level of urgency when those zones needed to be changed, because generally we'll be changing them because something has happened, a behaviour has developed that has infringed the zone or has made it difficult for those zones to operate and a need for an extension to be given. I absolutely appreciate that some who are supportive of the bill also feel that there needs to be a level of parliamentary oversight to that. Again, I'm more than happy to speak to members about that between stage 1 and stage 2, but I would say that there needs to be a balance between having the flexibles in the ease to move quickly enough, but with the appropriate oversight in there. Okay, and just related to my previous question with the minister as well, what about signage in areas? My understanding is that some people think that we'll just draw more attention to a site that is providing healthcare services, so what's your thoughts about signage? I think that there's a mixed view on signage across health boards. There are obviously some who have seen none or very little activity who may not want to draw attention to themselves, particularly in rural areas where they may not want that. Known ministers, under the bill, have a duty to maintain maps of the zones, so there will be an ability to communicate with the public how the zones are set out and any changes to them. It's something that we may have to continue to speak to health boards about as to whether they feel at particular places that signage is more or less useful depending on their individual circumstances and the frequency with which they're seeing protests outside hospitals. The proposal would be that there would be a map or an area created attached to an NHS facilities website without necessarily putting signage up 200 metres or extra around a facility. There could also be the ability to leave it flexibly for individual health boards to make decisions about particularly signage. However, as I said, there is a requirement for ministers to maintain a list and maps of the sites as they're designated, and I'll update that if there are any changes under the bill. Can I just probe with you a bit more on something that you said there, Gillian? You were talking about balancing the need to move quickly enough versus the parliamentary process. Now, fast law is not necessarily good law. Can you perhaps expand on what you meant there? Given that the level of concern that has been raised by the committee through oral and written evidence about how people feel that buffer zones would impact on their rights, on their right to protest or on their right to express a view. If you could give us a bit more of an idea of where the idea of not moving quickly enough might cause issues. Particularly in relation to the extension power, what we heard when I consulted was that people who were in favour of the bill, if something happened at a particular zone, a change in behaviour, a particular incident, those people giving evidence as part of that consultation wished for us to be able to amend zones in a sufficiently quick manner to prevent any further harm. In terms of that, if I can, sorry to interrupt, but what you're saying is that when you're talking about amending, you're talking about extending, we're not talking about making buffer zones smaller. So essentially in a response to what would then be a criminal act extending a buffer zone on a ministerial decision rather than through Parliament making that decision? I think there's arguments both ways as to whether that should be a parliamentary, and certainly from the evidence that we gathered through the consultation, there were a mix of views as to whether that should be a ministerial decision or whether it should be one for Parliament. There has to be the appropriate oversight and the appropriate scrutiny to any changes that we make to zones because of exactly what you said about people potentially being criminalised as a result. There is a want from those who potentially could be impacted by protests that we can in a timely manner respond to any changes in behaviour that may make the implementations of the zone more difficult. There is absolutely a balance there to be had between that sufficiently quick movement and the appropriate oversight to ensure that we as parliamentarians are doing our job there appropriately and ensuring that the appropriate consultation and scrutiny is undertaken. What I was endeavouring to get across is I think there is a balance there. As with the entirety of this bill, there are competing interests on both sides who would say go quicker and go slower on both sides. I think that there is a middle ground to be found there that responds in an appropriate time but with the appropriate consultation as well. When I was referring to a potential criminal matter, it would be within that the 200m potential that this bill, if passed, would cover. It would be about if there was an incident within that 200m zone that you would then be looking at expanding the zone further out. Am I correct in that? No. Apologies if I wasn't clear on that. No, no. It's about the functions of the zones themselves. I've explored the example of images being projected on to Chambers, for example. I can't think of a particular example of a behaviour here and now where we may have to go and know that that's having an impact and we may have to extend a zone for a particular reason. However, there are potential behaviours that we've seen other places around the world that, if they were imported here, they may make the function of the zones within 200m difficult depending on how those behaviours were manifested. I think that's why that flexibility is so important and the oversight and that we can respond in a timely manner is important as well. On the flip side of that then, if it was found that 200m exclusion zone was not required for a particular premises—I'll take the example of Queen Elizabeth Hostum, very familiar with that site—would you expect or anticipate or hope that the Government would move as quickly to reduce that buffer zone to a lesser amount of meterage? There are the powers in there to do that reduction piece as well if it is required. I very much hope that we don't see any more activity around hospitals and that the bill has the desired effect that it needs. I can't say how far in advance we may look to reduce them if the behaviours we're seeing cease or move to more appropriate places, as we've been calling for throughout the passage of the bill, but it's right that we retain that. I know that the committee has heard a variety of views on a minimum reduction distance as well as the potential for a maximum extension distance as well and again on that more than happy to engage with committee members and others as to their thoughts and views on that between stage 1 and stage 2. I suppose just to reflect your language back to you when you were talking about a timely manner in terms of expansion and move quickly and often in terms of expansion, would you be expecting the Government to have a similar attitude to reducing the 200 meters? That is all about proportionality, so if it is proportionate to reduce them, I think that the Government has to ensure that it looks at that in the same manner because it is about proportionality. Ruth Maguire, good morning. Just briefly on that, around ministerial powers and extension of zones, we have focused quite a lot on the big city centre, big city rather than big premises locations, but obviously it's quite diverse across the country and extending could take in quite large bits of the community or further bits of the community. Would it not be the case that, where it's not specifically just in the zone of a healthcare premise, there would be a need to consult again because it is about that balancing of rights? I think that there should be a level of consultation whatever we do because this is about extending zones into public land, so I think that there does have to be a level of consultation particularly where private dwellings could be captured in any extension power. I think that the minister earlier gave some indication that for any extension there would be a level of engagement and consultation taking place with any changes. Obviously, when we make laws, we're doing them on points of principle and it won't always be the same Government that's in charge. On a point of principle, are you comfortable with that level of ministerial power to curb protest? That comes back to what I just said to the convener. The desire that was expressed as was an ability to move efficiently. As we all know, there are parliamentary procedures that can take some time, very rightly so, to give that level of evidence taking in things. I absolutely accept the point that's been made by campaigners as well as yourself about a Government that was less sympathetic to abortion as healthcare could move in a different direction. I'm more than happy to speak to members between stage 1 and stage 2 as to whether we've got that balance right at the moment or whether there are any other things that we need to do to ensure that there's that comfort for people, that we have the relevant oversight for the bill. Moving on, as I questioned the minister earlier about protected premises, you were in the room, so I won't give you the pre-amble about the evidence that we've taken, because I'm sure that you're aware of it. I'm interested to know if, in your view, the definition of protected premises in the bill is sufficient to allow inclusion of other premises should they be required to be included. I'm talking here about GP surgeries, pharmacies, et cetera. I think that there is a sufficient level of flexibility within the bill around that. Currently, we're only seeing protests at specific types of settings, so I think that it's right that we limit it to the 30 premises under the 67 act that we have at the moment. Obviously, there would be a difference if GP surgeries or pharmacies started being designated under the 67 act. That would still be captured with the relatively small number of premises that we have at the moment, but I think that the bill, as it's drawn currently, provides enough flexibility to ensure that, should we see any behaviours that we are not seeing at the moment outside of the services that we could move to protect them as appropriate. I should be keen to hear your views on should those protected premises be widened. You've already answered a little bit about that in Sandish Gohani's question about coverage, particularly in urban areas where large volumes of towns and cities may be covered by a buffer zone in that instance. If you've given some thought about what impact that may have on anti-abortion protesters or vigil holders in terms of their rights, should other protected premises be captured underneath this act? I think that the flexibility in the bill allows us to take potentially targeted approaches depending on where we may see activity in premises that are not currently covered under the 30 protected premises. I think that we need to ensure that people have the ability to make their views known in other places. I don't take for granted the potential coverage that could be had if all GPs, services and pharmacies were taken under that. As I said, we're obviously not seeing any of that protest at the moment, so there is sufficient flexibility within the bill to be able to take reasonable and targeted approaches even for those premises that are not currently covered within the 30 that we're covering at the moment. I'm going to talk through areas that I covered in the previous session so that we're familiar with that. It's about the implications for churches located in safe access zones for private property within the zones, what is allowed, what isn't allowed, and if you foresee any issues around the restrictions in both directions, things being too tightly controlled, where that line is and also the scope for, for example, projecting from buildings that are further away than the 200m limit. On the private dwellings and what happens inside them and what happens in churches, private conversations, as the minister said, are not covered under the bill, things would have to happen from those premises. As I'm aware, the committee has heard in evidence that could be heard or seen within the zones. There has obviously in the last session been a good hearing of what potentially is or isn't a sign that would be captured. I hope that the committee feels that they've had a full exploration of that. I think that it's essential that we have those premises covered within the legislation for exactly the reasons that Colin Pullman gave early in the evidence sessions that the bill could be undermined by potentially an anti-abortion organisation, buying a property within the zone and using it as their headquarters, using it to project images on to services or to put up large signs in the garden to hand information over the wall as happens in some of the states in the US who don't accept private dwellings. We do have that balance right, but one of the things that we need to make sure is that people who are within the zone are clearly communicating, people who live in the zone, and religious organisations who potentially have places of worship within the zone are well communicated with to make sure that they understand fully what it is that we're doing with this bill. Next, I just want to touch on something that's come up around about the trade union exemption. You're right when you described the impact on women access and services earlier on, the anonymity particularly in certain areas, the fact that there is a lot of activity can be problematic and so on and so forth, and the bill as designed is addressing, and as it says, those who are seeking to influence or prevent access are persuade people not to access services. I mean, take a step back and looking at this, there's hard-won trade union rights that are very important for many, many reasons that we all agree on, but if you looked objective at it, you would say, well, that is the whole purpose of a peaceful picket, is to stop people, persuade people not to access those services. So clearly this whole, in many ways the bill is balancing different competing rights, so I'd just like to kind of maybe explain for the record how you see the difference between preventing or seeking to influence or seeking people not to proceed them, not to access services. On one hand, if there is other activity, which I suppose you could argue, you could be held elsewhere, as we've outlined for anti-abortion protests, where do you, how do you characterise those competing rights and explain how that fits together? I think I would challenge the assertion that trade union activity would ever influence people not to access services. I think trade union activity often outside hospitals is about pay, that's not saying don't go and have your ear, nose and throat appointment, it's about we want better pay to provide your ear, nose and throat treatment and many of these people outside of these hospitals are clinicians. They know very well the impact that protests and things have on people's ability to access services. I really do believe that clinicians will be the last people outside of hospitals wanting to influence anyone other than their own colleagues, as to whether to join their ask for better pay, better conditions, whatever it else it is. I don't suppose for a minute that people coming from far away, particularly given the earing that the legislation has had and the awareness of it in the public, that people may contact the police because they can't see from far away what is going on. Obviously, because of the exemption in the bill for trade union activity, the police wouldn't take any action on that. I suppose that there is a piece in there to make sure that the public is aware of what is and isn't allowed under the bill as well. Clearly, if there is a strike, which thankfully there hasn't been, but there has been in other parts of the UK, then that is an effort to persuade people not to access or provide services. I don't know if any clinician striking would turn round and go, don't go to your appointment. I don't think that I've ever heard that from trade unions at all. Pickets are about their working terms and conditions. They would never want their patients to not have access to the services that they are entitled to, because that is probably against their job in the first place. Okay, thanks so much for clearing that up or putting that in the record. The other point that I was going to ask was about the penalties that are in the legislation. It is fine higher than in Northern Ireland, but it is stopping short of any custodial sentences. What is your perspective on what is appropriate? Again, a lot of that is about proportionality as well. One of the things that was cited on the Supreme Court judgment for the Northern Ireland bill was that it was just fines that were part of the punishment and that was considered within part of the proportionality. Given that it sets a precedent, I think that we would have potentially been unwise to depart from something that was quite so heavily referenced within the Supreme Court judgment for that bill. The Scottish Government also has a presumption against short sentences, which that would likely fall under. That is counterproductive in itself to even put into it. Obviously, as the minister said in the previous session, there are flexibilities within the fines to be able to deal with potential repeat offenders and people making particularly flagrant breaches of the zone. I would like to go back to Ivan McKee's question about private property in particular, because A1P, one of the European convention, the property rights section, is not an absolute right, but for one of the conditional rights, it is really quite strong because it was written in the anti-Soviet perspective of the important liberal defence of property rights. I accept that we do not have the right to do anything that we want within our private property, whether that property is within 200 metres of the hospital or not. That being said, this is an area where that balance of rights is really important. If I could pose another example to you in the similar context to the previous one, you have already explained that if somebody was to purchase a private property for the purposes of putting up a big sign that says abortion is murder facing the hospital, it is quite simple what the intent is there. I have Catholic friends who are very passionate about their faith, who literally fly the flag of the Holy See in their garden because they have a flagpole, which is an important expression of faith to them. I presume that that would not be covered by the bill, but I want to ask you that to put it on the record. No, I doubt that many people know what that flag is in the first instance, but no, it would not be covered under this. Does that point of knowing what it is, or is it not? The point that I would struggle with a little bit there is that there is a more recognisable Christian symbol, literally the cross or the fish or whatever it might be. Those are all symbols associated with a faith for whom a significant number of people, not all Christians, not all Catholics, but certainly taking the Catholic Church. Church teachings are very clear on abortion, they have every right to be clear on that. Would a symbol very clearly associated with an organisation, in this case a faith group, a church that takes an anti-abortion position? Would that be displayed in the window of a home or from the flagpole in the garden or whatever? Because that is a symbol associated with a church that holds an anti-abortion position, would that in and of itself be a breach of the provisions in the bill, or would there have to be something more? I think that in and of itself would potentially not be. In all the scenarios that we have played out over this session and the session with the minister, context and what is happening at that moment is going to be really key. I believe that something would have to additionally be there to involve that being a breach. As the minister said, that will be for police to deal with when they arrive to the scene of a complaint. I do not know that here in committee we can play out every single scenario that may or may not happen. It does not stop, as I have said previously, it may not stop someone from complaining about the fact that that is there, whether the police would take any action. Without any further context around it, I would doubt that that would be something that they would take action on. Just finally then, the general question, similar to the one that I posed before, what makes you specifically confident that the bill would survive a legal challenge on the basis of A1P1 property rights, rather than the balance between healthcare and freedom of origin? Is this a balance between right to access healthcare and right to private property? I think that it is about that impact on those accessing services and how you use your own property to attempt to influence someone else's decision. There is one of the other bills, and, forgive me, because it has gone out my head, is it England and Wales that does have private property rights in it? Yes, England and Wales also have private property, including in their zones. We have that balance, right? Again, it is not something that we have particularly come across so far in terms of testimony, but there could be a real undermining effect if they were not covered in this, as you have heard from other witnesses. I believe that we have that balance in our right to private conversations and private life in your home, but not using that to attempt to influence someone else's decision or undermine the effect that we are trying to have with the bill. Just following on from Ross Greer's question about visual symbols on private property, when you speak about that it would depend on context and whether they would influence someone's decision, is that about intention to influence about whether the individual is influenced? It's terribly complex, isn't it? It's not straightforward. It is complex, and I think that the balance between whether it is intentionally or recklessly is something that police will have to deal with. Again, there is a context element to that. Sorry, that has triggered something in my mind. The police officer giving evidence spoke about controversial marches that he was talking about in the west of Scotland, and that displaying a flag and opposing flag in your house, the police would ask you to take it down, because it could be seen to insight. Could it be the case that if your property was in exclusion zone, that overt depiction of your Christianity could be seen in that way? Obviously, who would decide? Well, the police there are using, in terms of the context in the west of Scotland, using different legislation to do that. Other law does apply within safe access zones as well, so there's nothing to say that they couldn't use other pieces of law to affect the same outcome. That points to what the police said in their written submission of that dialogue that they have with individuals where there are interactions taking place. I don't doubt that police will, as a first instance, try and have a conversation with someone about why what they're doing may or may not be appropriate, which very much lines itself to the example that Ruth Maguire has just given. I think that there's potentially a danger that we're trying to bottom out every single behaviour and every single scenario that may ever occur without the fact that multiple bits of context may add up to police having to take action rather than just having that conversation with people. Can you take it down? I think that when we're talking about that balance of rights, though, it is important for us to try and bottom out. I think that there's top-level things that every reasonable person would agree with, but what we want to avoid is unintended consequences. My other question was about proportionality, which I think that you've covered in answers to colleagues, but just to give you the opportunity, in case there was anything further that you wanted to say about the evidence that you gathered from those accessing services and those who want to partake in protest or vigil. Proportionality is at the heart of this entire bill, because we have to be aware that this is a balance of rights. People have the right to access healthcare, people also have the right to have their views known. I think that we strike that balance in the legislation well in the sense that for anywhere other than 200 metres around 30 premises around Scotland, people can absolutely do what they do right now. Even if you add it all up cumulatively, it's not a particularly large area given the landmass of Scotland, so it's a relatively proportionate impact, given the impact that the committee has heard both in evidence and I'm sure you've heard privately from people as well of the very disproportionate impact that it has on people accessing services and people being concerned to come to services. I think that the other piece on proportionality as well, which I covered earlier, is the different ways that services are delivered in Scotland compared to other places that have the legislation already. There are other services that are impacted at certain sites by these protests and I think that there's been a lot of coverage of that in the news from some of the clinicians at the Queen Elizabeth who work within neonatal intensive care that there are times where these protests can be heard within neonatal intensive care, which is horrendous for these parents going through some of the worst times of their lives. The audible protests at Sandiford could be heard within services as well and the variety of very sensitive services that are delivered at Sandiford. There was a real impact on staff as well as on patients as well within those settings, so given all of that in the round, I think that where we've come to, the balance is correct to be able to provide those services in the way that we want to and to be able to take a very specified exclusion area while people can make their views known everywhere else. I would very much like for people to come and protest outside Holyrood rather than outside hospitals. In terms of reviewing the legislation, what do you think would be an appropriate mechanism within the bill to ensure that continued proportionality, to ensure that rights are balanced, that women are protected? What would you see as being appropriate? Committees already undertake post-legislative scrutiny and there may be a mechanism in some of the bills that have already passed in this building that we could take influence from. Again, it's a conversation that I'm very willing to have between stage 2 and stage 3 to make sure that whatever we come to, if we deem it's appropriate, is the appropriate mechanism that we use to make sure that we keep an eye on the bill and that it's having the effect that we want it to. Would you agree that in terms of proportionality, when we're talking about rights, that post-legislative is an important tool to give everyone that comfort? Given the post-legislative scrutiny, we'll stop using that word in a minute, that we've undertaken in this committee on various bills has proved very useful. Again, if we do decide that that's a right we want to go down, it's the appropriate mechanism for me to ensure that we can scrutinise the effect appropriately and make sure that it is having the effect that we want it to. Emma Harper has a supplementary on that. Just a wee quick one on the back of Ruth McGuire's questions about West of Scotland and other laws that exist, such as the Public Order Act, for instance. What you said earlier about that is about preventing any act of intimidation or harassment or influence from happening in the first place rather than going after a person after an act has taken place. I know that other countries have created similar legislation. I used to go into the operating theatre for 30 years in the morning and sometimes would see protests next to my place of work. I was a young woman at the time when I worked in California. It's about intimidation of people accessing their work but also the people accessing health services. I'm interested to know what we will do to help to learn from other countries and how they have implemented legislation and then learned from them so that in our post-leg scrutiny we can then see if further information needs to be added or revised as we learn from other places. We've obviously taken influence from Northern Ireland and how that bill was constructed. It's always useful to have a look at how other legislatures implement similar bills. There are obviously, as I've laid out earlier, functional differences between those other legislatures and ourselves, but I think that the point that you picked up on staff is really important because the staff, as you've all heard, have been having to counter the misinformation, console patients, as well as their job of ensuring that healthcare services are delivered. They've gone above and beyond to make sure that the care provided to those people who are in distress, gives them all the options that they need but also allays some of those fears that they're having outside. Those staff absolutely deserve to be protected going to their workplace from intimidation and harassment. I think that rightly, and the bill also extends to supporting staff who may not be clinical in nature themselves but may help to the facilitation of abortions because we have seen in incidents in Glasgow in particular members of staff being filmed, and that's not something that we should be tolerating for NHS staff. I just wanted to bring up an issue that was raised in question in the witnesses last week. There was a member from the Free Church of Scotland who had raised some concerns about the impact of offences of the bill of the work of hospital chaplans and chaplans services. There might well be some scenarios where those intersect within the 200m zones, so thinking for example of the Royal Hospital for Children in Glasgow or the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow, there are sanctuaries, which are non-religious spaces, but they are sanctuaries where people might want to speak to a spiritual leader or a chaplain. Similarly, in the Princess Royal Maternity building in Glasgow on the 4th floor, there is a chaplaincy chapel. Do you think that it might be prudent to look at an amendment that would provide comfort or at least an exemption for people seeking chaplaincy services or chaplans that are registered with a health board? If I have understood your question correctly, people going and seeking out that guidance from a hospital chaplain of whatever denomination they may be, that is not covered by the bill because that is a consensual conversation that that patient is seeking out. That is a level of guidance that they themselves are going and looking for and seeking out, which is not covered by the scope of this legislation. I think that it could be something that could potentially be included in guidance for health boards, but I do not think that it necessarily needs a specific exemption within the bill because it is not covered because it is that part of consensual conversations. You do not think that there might be an inadvertent scenario where someone, a clergyman or whatever dressed in the garb might cause undue fear and alarm to someone accessing services that could then create an unfortunate situation or is that just an unreasonable potential enforcement of the bill? It is just more of it trying to work through these scenarios where it might be unfortunate. No, absolutely. I think that that similarly comes to the question that Ross Greer asked earlier on about a minister coming to the hospital and going in to visit a parishioner and someone phoning the police just because he is there. That is not something that would be enforced under the bill if they are hospital chaplans. As the example that you gave, they have every right to be there. They are staff on that site just as many others are. That does not necessarily mean that people may not call the police and I hope that they will not. Again, that is maybe a piece of awareness raising that we need to do as part of the bill's work. Even if you wrote an exemption into it, I do not think that that would stop someone from potentially misunderstanding and calling the police in the first place. It potentially opens up a loophole that is not there currently because those things are not covered by the bill. I am more than happy to have a further in-depth conversation with Mr Sweeney if that would help to lay any more concerns, knowing that we are coming to the end of the session more than happy to have those conversations between stage 1 and stage 2, if there is any further context that Mr Sweeney would wish to go over. That is very helpful. I thank Gillian Mackay for her evidence today and for the officials who have now sat through two evidence sessions with us. Thank you very much for doing that. The next item on our agenda is the committee's second consideration of a negative instrument, the National Health Service common staffing method, Scotland regulations 2024. The purpose of the instrument is to specify the minimum frequency at which the common staffing method is to be used in relation to specific types of healthcare and the staffing level and professional judgment tools that must be used as part of the common staffing method for specified kinds of healthcare provision. The committee first considered the instrument at its meeting on 5 March and agreed to direct to the Scottish Government, requesting further information regarding the instrument further to the correspondence that it previously received from the Royal College of Nursing. The committee received a response from the Scottish Government on 8 March. No motion to anull has been received in relation to the instrument. Do any members have any comments that they wish to make? I am not getting any indication that they are. I propose that the committee does not make any recommendations in relation to this negative instrument. Does any member disagree with this? Thank you very much. At our next meeting on 26 March, we will consider subordinate legislation related to minimum unit pricing of alcohol, and that concludes the public part of our meeting today.