 Good morning and welcome to the ninth meeting of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee in 2024. I have received no apologies for today's meeting. Today the committee will take evidence from two panels on the abortion services safe access on Scotland bill. As she is the member in charge of the bill, Jellian Mackay will not participate in the committee's scrutiny of the bill by virtue of rule 9.13A2B. Ross Greer is attending in her place as a committee substitute by virtue of rule 12 2a.2. By virtue of rule 12.2.3a, Gillian Mackay is attending the meeting today as the member in charge of the bill and will also be giving evidence on the bill as part of the second panel session. As part of the committee scrutiny of the bill, we held two informal engagement sessions to hear from individuals. We heard private testimony from women who have had negative experiences of being exposed to anti-abortion activity outside of abortion services. We also heard from women who have accessed abortion services and subsequently taken part in pro-life vigils outside abortion services. I would like to express our gratitude to these women for sharing their experiences with the committee, as well as those who gave formal evidence to the committee during our public sessions and those who responded to our call for views. Those testimonies have been fundamental in the committee's scrutiny of the bill. Our first evidence session this morning is with the Minister for Public Health and Women's Health, and I welcome to the meeting Jenny Minto, Minister for Public Health and Women's Health, Simon Cuthbert-Kair, Deputy Director for Public Health Capabilities, Joanna Irvin, Solicitor and Ruth Wilson, Senior Policy Advisor Scottish Government. I understand that the Minister has a short opening statement. I appreciate your scrutiny. I know that you will have detailed questions, so I will offer only general comments on why the bill matters. In so doing, I hope to address some of the concerns around it, even among those who support its intent. The fundamental, and I hope, inarguable starting point is that no one should experience harassment, intimidation or unwanted influence as they access essential healthcare. Yet, as you have heard in the last few weeks, that is exactly what happens to some women when they seek an abortion, which is first and foremost healthcare. For some of those women, that interference is happening at a time when they are already particularly vulnerable or distressed, and for all of them it is happening at a time when privacy and respect should be assured. Instead, they can be met with vigils, graphic images and sometimes shouting and name calling. I could not articulate the impact of that experience more powerfully than the women who have appeared before you already have, and I will not try. I will just ask you to remember it is as you consider the bill and to give it the enormous weight it deserves. Because this bill aims to prevent what happened to them and, in doing so, provide access to healthcare without obstruction, which is protected by article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is, of course, still appropriate that the potential impacts of the bill on the rights of freedom of expression, religion and assembly are considered. There are two, broadly, two concerns that the bill itself weakens those rights and that it may erode those rights by setting precedent for restrictions elsewhere. Freedom of expression and assembly and freedom of thought, conscious and religion are, of course, fundamental. However, under the European Convention on Human Rights, they are not absolute. They may be interfered with, provided the interference goes no further than necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. As I have established, protecting women's access to essential healthcare services is a legitimate aim, and I can assure members that significant work has been done to ensure the restrictions are no more than necessary. Contrary to the charge that the bill limits all protest and safe access zones, it targets only activity that, intentionally or recklessly, has specified effects, for example influencing a decision to access or provide abortion services, and those restrictions attach to only 30 premises in Scotland and extend only for 200 metres beyond their grounds. Everywhere else in Scotland, anyone can express opposition to abortion however they please, provided it is lawful. They can protest outside court buildings and on street corners. They may erect billboards and lobby any member of this Parliament. All the bill will prevent if it passes is the direct targeting of individuals as they take what may be the most deeply personal decision of their lives. That also explains why the bill does not set a precedent. There is no other medical procedure that attracts the kind of activity abortion services do, and no other form of protest that targets such a personal choice. That is all the bill recognises. It safeguards access to healthcare, and in doing so it protects the article 8 rights and the privacy and dignity of women when they most need it. I will conclude by saying that I was shocked years ago when I first encountered anti-abortion activity outside clinics in Oregon in the United States, and it is disheartening that this activity has only spread. However, I hope that this legislation and others like it reassures women that their rights matter, their health matters, and we will defend both as vigorously as we can. Thank you, minister, for your opening statement, and we will now move to members' questions. Thank you, minister, and thanks for your opening statement, which I think links to the theme that I have been asked to cover, which is about the impact of people's access and services for healthcare and those who wish to have their rights to their views on the matter. I wondered whether you could be clear about the bill that you believe that we can do both of those things with the bill, and how you think that will look if the bill was in place. As I have said, women should be able to access abortion services without unwanted influence, harassment or public judgment. When we have been creating the bill, we have been looking very carefully at the balancing of the rights within the ECHR. The bill is very targeted. We have specifically said that it is within the zones 200 metres from the protected premises, the boundaries of the protected premises. We have also been very clear that, as I have said in my opening statement, that those protesting or holding vigils, as has been described in the evidence to the committee, can still do so, but not within the 250 safe access zones. With the work that we have done to speak to stakeholders on both sides of the argument, the amazing response that there has been to Ms Mackay's consultation also brought that out. We feel as though we have the right balance. If I reflect on the Supreme Court ruling of Northern Ireland legislation, we fall into the same wording that has been used within the Supreme Court ruling, in that we believe that we are proportionate, which is the key thing to balance between the different human rights. I have heard the views of those holding vigils about the kind of information literature that is provided for women to support them in their choice. I wondered if you had a view on that in terms of both what is provided to women in support within the clinics and the view of those holding the vigils, which is required to give them some additional information to help them with their choice. Is that a view that you would hold, or do you have some opinion on that? Abortion is very regulated within healthcare, and I think that that is incredibly important. You heard some very important evidence from women who had accessed abortion services by saying that, in fact, they were slightly surprised at the level of questioning advice that they got to ensure that they were making the right decisions for themselves. I thought that that was very powerful. You also heard from Professor Cameron about the level of support that members of staff give to women in exploring or seeking abortion. I felt that that was very powerful. It was clear when some of the leaflets were shared with members of the committee that, from the protesters, the people holding the vigils, they did not contain the right medical information within them. I find that concerning. I think that it was noted in evidence that some women having received the leaflets, the staff in the facilities had to provide more assurance, which is right, because all the questions should be asked. I go back to what I first said, in that abortions are very regulated, the healthcare provided is very regulated and supported, and it is from those healthcare professionals that people, I believe, should be seeking that level of advice and support. That is very helpful. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming, Minister. Just a question of interest as a practicing NHS GP. I've got a few questions. The primary concern that I have is from evidence that I've heard about the right to protest for other reasons. When the police were here and the defence list were here, I asked specifically about our right to, for example, go to a hospital and protest against LGML and say that this is unacceptable. There was also some discussion about if you're an employer trying to prevent some protest from happening because you don't like that from happening. The bill says intentionally or recklessly influence. If I was there protesting LGML and we saw some people outside Parliament wearing scrubs and with blood, I suppose one from a distance could be concerned, so that might be reckless in influencing. I would just like to know your take on the fact that the police said that this bill would prevent other forms of protest? I recognise that that was raised within the evidence sessions. However, the bill is very narrow and it is specifically talking about abortion services, the safe access zone for abortion. From my perspective, and all the work that we've done, we're very clear that there's no mission creep in the bill. It is specifically for those protesting around abortion services. It was also raised in one of the evidence sessions about whether there could be picketing or the leafleting of staff members. Again, we highlighted the picketing trade union act that was brought in and said that that is not overridden by the legislation and that all the work around a picketing, so allowing or informing that there could be a picket, that would all be okay. With regard to the LGML demonstration outside Parliament, yes, that was shocking. I wasn't at it myself, but I heard about it. I can't talk for the women that are accessing abortion services but I think that it's been very clear from the evidence that they have given that the protests or the vigils that they find most upsetting are the ones specifically on abortion. The law society wrote to us. I'll just read the paragraph out to you and see if you would agree maybe of doing this. If the committee remains concerned that the bill may be used to or set a precedent for curbing other legitimate protests, it may wish to consider the suggestion that they made in the overarching principles that on the face of the bill to assist with the proper balancing exercises required for ECHR compliance, in this case the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, articles 10 and 11. To put the overarching principles on the face of the bill. I heard Dr Katrina Morrison giving her evidence. Clearly, this is exactly what should be happening in this committee. Is gaining evidence, which I'm very happy to consider. I look forward to reading the committee's report on stage 1 of the bill. Can I separate out protest, which is people with placards and pictures and shouting and screaming to silent prayer? I think that there are two very different things and from every one that we heard protest in the form I described was everyone said that as unacceptable. The silent prayer part is where people disagree. When I asked the police, the police said that they would not ask why somebody was there and they certainly wouldn't ask what they were thinking or whether they were praying. So having this in the bill, the police are not going to enforce it in any way, which is what it sounded like. Could you help explain that? So we've been very clear in the bill that it's not specific actions, it's the intent of these actions and I think you've got very strong evidence from women that were concerned about walking past, maybe a group of people who were standing silently because it could be deemed as that silent judgment. I think that where we've got to be cognisant is that different people experience things in different ways. It's not for me to say how the police would look at any actions, but they would look at it in a wider context as well, what else is happening around about it. I go back to the point that, as I said in my opening statement, the zone, the safe zone is 200 metres, so the behaviour can happen elsewhere, it needn't necessarily happen right beside the hospital. I think I was struck as well by the theological debate that happened in one of the earlier sessions about where it's appropriate to pray and if it is appropriate to pray so close to a facility that is providing abortions where you could impede people's access, you could cause alarm or distress, but it is for the police to determine what they would need to be able to prosecute. Finally, the bill does have the ability to extend to other places. For example, GP pharmacies, and we certainly did hear about it from evidence of other people suggesting that those areas might be protected. My consensus, if you have 200 metres around every GP practice and every pharmacy, most of Scotland might get covered by the bill. I'm asking about the proportionality of that extension, while hospitals and clinics are differently, that extension into other areas would be of concern. When we were constructing the bill, we needed to look at future proofing it and the way that women can access abortions and the locations where abortions might be provided might change in the future. We currently have no plans to do that, and it is specifically just now the 30 locations that currently provide abortions to the extent of the 200 metres. I think that we need to be able to modify the bill as required, and I think that that's important. We need to be able to do that to respond to changes in healthcare. I think that we might be interested in the evidence that you have gained in your committee report on that, if you think that there should be minimum and maximum for safe zones or not. We are currently looking at 30 premises, but we have to be able to future proof as healthcare abilities change. Is it the Scottish Government's intention that someone who is engaged in silent prayer without placards, rosaries or any other visible thing that would pick them out would be caught by section 4, the section 4 criminal offence? I go back to the intention. If it was the intention to impede, alarm or distress women attending abortion services, then silent prayer would be included. However, we have not specifically laid out what the actual acts are. We have said what is the intention of the acts. Obviously, in law, it is important to be crystal clear. People need to know if they are committing a criminal offence or not. The police need to know. How will we place the intention in someone's mind as they silently pray? In evidence to you, the police made it clear that they wouldn't be asking people if they were praying, which I believe happened to one of the women who gave evidence to you. As I said earlier, there would have to be other things around the actual demonstrations that they would look for. You used the phrase silently judging. How do I know if someone is silently judging me? I think that that is a really good question. It is one that I have been playing about in my mind. It comes down to how the bill is set out to protect women accessing abortion services. You heard some very powerful evidence from women that have obtained abortions about how they felt and the impact that walking past demonstrators had on them. I do not diminish any of that. We absolutely heard that. I suppose that what I am trying to get to is that, as we are creating law, is it possible in law to protect citizens from silent judgement? I think that what we are protecting individuals and society from is the intent of causing alarm, distress and impeding access. Okay, so to go back to the question about section 4, it is the Government's intention that silent prayer, so without any placards, without any other paraphernalia, that silent prayer be caught under that bit of legislation? So silent prayer is a form of vigil protest that is impacting on women attending abortion clinics. And how will that be enforced? How will we know what somebody is silently judging or praising or whatever they are silently doing in there? So the police would make that judgment and the activity will be captured, will be dependent on the facts and the circumstances around what is happening. Do you have an example of how that might work in practice? The police said that they would not ask somebody what they were thinking about and whether they were praying, so... I don't have an example, however, if I can come back to the committee with an example, then happy to do that. Okay, Ivan McKee. Yeah, I'll just follow up on some of the points that were asked me. I mean, sorry to dig in, and that's a quite important fundamental issue around whether the intent of the bill can deliver what it's required to deliver, while also bearing in mind some of the other issues that it raises. Do you think that silent prayer can influence people? I believe so. I think that we've heard evidence that you heard evidence from Alina, I think, her name was, about the impact that she had. So I think that there is a possibility that it can influence people. However, I'm looking at it also from the perspective of how it can intimidate people as well. Right, okay. So, as Ruth Magal said, if it's something that's silent and there's no other visible signs and you talked about context and what's going on around about it, it's important, but if there is none of that, then would the position be, or your position, the Government's position, be that it isn't full and full of the restrictions and the measures that are within the bill. If that's all there is, just somebody standing silently praying with no visible signs or nothing around it, because you keep coming back to this context point and the policeman decision on the context, but if there is none of that context and it's just a silent prayer, how would you make that illegal? It is something that I've been speaking a lot with my officials. I think that we have to remember that if an activity will be captured by offences, it will be dependent on the facts and the circumstances that is happening around that activity. We have spoken to Police Scotland and the Crown Office about that, and we'll continue to do so as the bill is developed, but I think that it's looking at the context of the situation and the impact that it has on the key element of the bill, which is women being able to safely access abortion services. I'll keep going back to the point, but I'm sure that that's the whole point. This is important because you understand why it's important in terms of criminalising silent prayer. If there is no context, I'm struggling to see how that can be criminalised. If I'm seeing you right, you're saying that the police would make that decision as you're passing the buck on to them. I'll keep going back to the point that I wanted to make. You made the point rightly so that one of the very important things here is how the women who are accessing the service feel about what's going on, and we've also taken evidence that suggests that that well from a distance any protest could be deemed as being a problematic environment that could be difficult for women accessing those services, including some of the protests that we've heard around about the LGML issue, or trade union activity, or whatever it happens to be, a bunch of noisy people with placards standing outside shouting their hands without leaflets. From a distance that could be anything and could be just as impactful on the women accessing the service. I just want to understand how you would square those two different views. Just going back to silent prayer as well, it's important to recognise that the Supreme Court also recognised silent prayer when it came into its views on the Northern Ireland legislation and recognised that it could cause distress. With regard to the other types of protest, I think that, as I've said before, this is very narrow legislation. It is specifically with regard to those who are protesting against abortions or offering the pro-life message. And other demonstrations don't fall into this legislation. I understand that they don't, but that's not the question. The question was if you're a woman approaching to access the service from a distance. We've heard evidence on that and women are actually saying that they couldn't even remember what was being said or what the signs were, because all they heard was the noise and the activity that was going around about them. How would you make the point that women wouldn't be impacted by noisy demonstrations with placards, regardless of the issue that they're going to demonstrate against? Abortion safe zones of 200 metres was constructed after a lot of evidence gathered around each of the facilities. They protect all accesses into facilities and also include bus stops that women may get off. If there are other demonstrations in that area, which is what we've been talking about, it will be clear that those demonstrations aren't about accessing abortion services, because the legislation has designated that safe zone. I've got Ruth Maguire first and then a couple of you, David, and then I'll just come to Rose, who's also worked at it. Can I just ask, just to get this clear in my head, and from what the committee's questioning has been, it doesn't sound to me like everyone is clear in their head. If this bill came into law and there was one to even three people standing within that 200 metre exclusion zone, and a woman who was accessing services saw them standing there and was concerned that they may well be preying silently, they would be able to make a complaint to the police or to the authorities that they felt intimidated by them without knowing why those individuals happened to be standing within that exclusion zone area. Can I maybe call in Joanna on that, please? It's open to anybody to make a complaint to the police about behaviour that they think warrants to be reported, but what the bill is doing is restricting behaviour that is deliberately designed to have a direct impact on women and staff who are accessing services. I absolutely understand that, Ms Irwin, but I'm trying to get in my head a very clear practical example of one, two or three people standing for whatever reason within that zone, not carrying placards, not vocally protesting, handing out leaflets, just standing there, but a woman who happens to be accessing services sees a group of people standing or an individual standing and interprets that as being they are standing there silently preying without any overt sign of that. They can then make a complaint to police about that, that they felt intimidated by an individual just being on the street. The bill does not change. Anybody could make that complaint just now without the bill being in place. It's open to any member of the public to contact the police. Because there's no law, if someone happens to be standing there, you could complain to the police that they're silently preying and trying to intimidate me or trying to change my intent to access that service. It's open to them as individuals, as members of the public, to approach the police. Then, whether or not that behaviour is an offence under section 4 of the bill, whether it meets those tests, those different tests and one of those behaviours, is a matter then for the police to determine in the circumstances based on looking at the types of behaviour, the nature of the behaviour and investigating it. Under current legislation, did you pick that up wrong? I'm not saying that. There are two separate things here. Any member of the public can make a complaint about to the police. That's within their rights to do that. Whether or not three people are standing there, it's not at the point whether there might be an offence or not. What the police then do is investigate to see whether or not that behaviour would amount to an offence under section 4 of the bill. It depends, as the minister is saying, on the facts and circumstances at the time, the nature of the behaviour, what is going on and that's for the enforcement authorities. What the bill does is makes it clear that it's actions that are about influencing, preventing access or causing harassment, alarm or fear. That is the test that would be applied and looked at by the police. Thank you, convener. Going back to silent prayer, one of the witnesses last week who gave evidence had been arrested twice by a police, had been questioned and openly admitted in silent prayer and there was no prosecution. If Police Scotland are not going to ask them if they're doing it, do you think we'll get any convictions here at all in Scotland? I believe that that lady who was in England was in her circumstances. I go back to say that the bill offers protection in only very limited circumstances outside the 200 metre perimeter around the hospital. The bill doesn't prohibit specific behaviours. The offence is to influence, impede, access or harass, alarm or distress someone and the police will look at the context around that to make a decision as to whether to proceed or not. The bill doesn't specify that silent prayer would be an offence. It's about behaviour that either has the intent of or that recklessly causes the effect of distress, etc. to women seeking abortion. If I could then play that out with some examples. If an individual is a patient accessing the hospital for whatever reason or they're a visitor, if on their way into the hospital within the 200 metre zone they stop and pray, would that be an offence under this bill? It could be an individual seeking the services of the hospital for whatever reason, either for themselves or because they're visiting somebody else. If they, on their way into the hospital for some other legitimate purpose were to stop and pray, would that be caught by that bill? No, because that is something that they are doing themselves. They're not trying to impede or alarm or distress anyone else, which is what's captured by this bill. The question of law here is about the balance of rights. You mentioned in your opening statement that I very much associate myself with much of what you said there that essentially women's right, their BCHR right to access healthcare is being compromised at present. That needs balance with the BCHR right to freedom of religion. That right is an absolute. Your right to manifest your religion is not absolute. Balancing rights is tricky though and it's usually the kind of cases that end up at the Supreme Court or the European Court. Why are you confident that the bill gets that balance right, primarily between those two fundamental rights, freedom of religion and access to healthcare? When we've been constructing the bill, we have been getting evidence and consulting with a lot of stakeholders. Also when Gillian Mackay did her consultation, we've taken a lot of evidence from that. I think that we're being very specific in the areas that we are creating as abortion safe zones. As I've said before, there are 30 hospitals with a 200 metre zone around them. That is proportionate. The other area of section 8 is the privacy side as well in ensuring that women have the privacy to access abortion services in the right manner. Those who engage in the anti-abortion protest vigils, they would general characterise it as a vigil rather than a protest. Part of the evidence that they gave last week was a feeling on their part that this was an attempt to force anti-abortion perspectives out of public debate entirely to make it an unacceptable point of view to hold in society. That may sound like a daff question but, if I could just ask, do anti-abortion protesters have the general right to express that point of view and to do so through forms of protest, prayer vigils, whatever it might be? Is that a point of view that people would, even after the passage of this bill, still have the right to hold in Scottish society? I think that I was clear in my opening statement that anti-abortion demonstrations will still be able to occur within Scotland. We have been very clear on that. The only place that we are legislating for that—not to happen if the bill passes—is within the protected safe zones around 30 establishments in Scotland that provide abortion services. The effective operation of that within the zones, as others have already touched on, is going to depend, to a really significant extent, on the judgment of police officers who are likely either called to or already at the vigils protests, etc. They are then going to be asked to exercise their judgment about whether whatever the form of behaviour is in silent prayers—the one that has been identified as the most difficult to judge—whether that constitutes a potential offence because it is either seeking to or recklessly does have an effect as to influence women seeking an abortion. How will police officers be supported to make that judgment? Will there be operational guidance by Police Scotland? Will there be guidance from the Lord Advocate for the fiscal? The bill, in and of itself, does not provide enough information in that respect, because that is not what legislation is for, but how will we then support police officers if the bill is passed to enact it? They are going to be asked to make quite tricky decisions there. Police Scotland will provide training for its members. As the discussion has highlighted, it is a tricky area, and we have to make sure that we get it right. The important thing is, as I have said before, ensuring that women who are accessing those services can do it safely without impediment, without alarm or distress. I should also note that Police Scotland is independent from Government. I accept that point if the police are operational independent, but I am interested in whether there are other areas of law where we ask police officers to make decisions like that. Ultimately, in the first instance, it is a decision for the fiscal, for the courts, if it was to get that far. Are there other areas of law where we ask police officers, in the first instance, to be the ones to interpret the intent or the effect of an individual's behaviour? The behaviour in and of itself is not automatically necessarily criminalised. We are not criminalising silent prayer, but it is whether it has the effect of it. Are there other areas of law where we ask police officers to make that initial judgment about effect? That is a really important question. Instead of me handing over to Joanna, I think that we will write to the committee with a response to that. Thank you very much. I am interested in the decision that 200 metres safe access zone has proposed in this bill. How did we come to that choice to put that in the bill? Given that other pieces of legislation have different sizes in what they suggested would be a 50 metre or a 150 metre zone, would you be interested to hear your response about the evidence relating to how we established 200 metres in Scotland? I think that that is a really important question. I cannot under emphasise the amount of work that officials have done in ensuring that we get the right size of zone. I know that when Ms Mackay did her consultation, it was consulted on 150 metres. Since the results of that, we have been looking at where 150 metres go, what it captures. For example, some stakeholders commented on the fact that people will catch buses to centres or to the hospitals. They felt that that was an area where a protest or a vigil could be. We did a lot of mapping around all the facilities, all 30 of them, to ensure that we covered an appropriate size of area. I would note that the Supreme Court, when it was looking at the Northern Ireland, said that it could extend up to 250 metres. I think that it is also important to recognise that Scotland abortion services in the main are carried out in hospitals where other people are accessing other services, which is different from what happens in England Wales and Northern Ireland, which is specific centres. One of the things that has also come up in previous was that the Queen Elizabeth hospital has had protests there for eight years now. That is one of the reasons why 150 was not adequate. 200 metres was agreed because of that specific issue around Queen Elizabeth, whereas other hospitals might not need to be as close to 200 metres. It might be depending on what the periphery is. That is a fair comment. In the work, we looked at whether we should do bespoke for each of the hospitals or whether it should be a consistent limit. It was felt on balance that the consistency was the best way forward, because that meant that there was clarity for women accessing services, for Police Scotland and for those who want to protest or demonstrate. That is why we went another reason for going with the consistency of 200 metres. On extending or reducing zones, when we build new hospitals and stop current hospitals doing the care that they are delivering, one of the areas of the bill raised concerns over the provisions of ministers being able to extend or reduce the zones rather than go through further parliamentary scrutiny or further statutory instruments. Do you have any thoughts about whether there should be further oversight as far as not just ministers extending and reducing but going through a further parliamentary process? When we were constructing the bill, we recognised that examples that you have just given new hospitals or perhaps locations change. We wanted to ensure that there was the right speed of response to ensure that the new buildings could be captured and to reduce if necessary, if a location changes or stops providing. We felt that there was a need for the prompt response to that. However, I know that there has been a lot of discussion and concern and also inputs into the consultation with regards to that. I would be very interested to read the committee's stage 1 report on the views that you have gathered with regard to increasing or decreasing the size of zones. What about signage for the zones? When I spoke to NHS Dumfries and Galloway, she said that signage would shine a beacon of light as to the services that are being provided. She thought that that would draw attention and make it more in-your-face about the healthcare that is being provided. What are your thoughts on signage around zones? I have heard both sides that it is important to show where they start and where they finish, but the point that you made about shining a beacon on where services are provided is that we have spoken to COSLA about that, and we will continue to have discussions as the bill progresses as to what we think is the appropriate thing to do. What we will be doing is having each hospital be required to have it on their website as to exactly what the zones are, so a map of that. That is a really important way of publicising that, but it will also ensure that everyone has the consistent information. As to signage, we are still discussing that and, again, I would be interested to hear on what proposals you make in your committee report. You mentioned the consistency aspect, which makes a lot of sense, and that would take some evidence on that as well. However, there is also the provision for ministers to increase or decrease the distance for specific locations, which, obviously, runs against the consistency, because as soon as you use that provision, you will be inconsistent. I just want to understand how you would square those two as a first question. The second point is that there is value, even just to give some comfort as to prevention of misuse or ministerial power, potentially, to put maximums and minimums in the legislation to put some guide rails, if you like, on either up or down where that could go. With regard to changing the size of zones and increasing and bringing new ones, anything like that would require a level of consultation to ensure that it is right. It would also clearly be in discussion with the health boards, because it would be the health boards that make the decisions as to where they will be locating their services. I have earlier said that I would be interested to hear your committee's views on maximum and minimums, recognising that that has been brought in in other jurisdictions. Just one final point on that, and maybe something that you want to come back on. You mentioned timing and prompt response in your answer to Emma Harper. If circumstances change, they need to be able to react quickly. I am not sure that people would be queuing up waiting for the new location and then would pounce on it, but I assume that that was the case, and you felt you had to have that in place. It would be a reason to have a ministerial directive rather than go through an SSI. You also talked about consultation, which is the right thing to do, but that is clearly also a lengthy process, so it might be helpful to comment on that. Just now I have come back with some indicative timelines as to why a process with consultation due consultation is prompt enough, but a process with due consultation and SSI is not prompt enough might be helpful. Clearly, if we are talking about a new building, then there will be a timeline for that. Therefore, that allows the consultation, but I hear what you are saying about if we were going to extend or reduce quickly. I see that so very happy to come back. I think that it is also come back to the committee on that, but we also need to recognise that the changing of zones as well is important to ensure that those that are holding the vigils are aware quickly, as well as those seeking services. Tiswy. Thank you, Gwena. Minister, just interested in your view in terms of balance and proportionality, so on the one hand, women's right to access healthcare and not be intimidated and harassed. Last week, we heard from faith groups that were very passionate about their right to pray. Also, we heard from a woman who had basically changed her mind at the last minute because of the influence. Thinking about the faith groups as well, there are chapels or places of worship at each hospital site. In your view, if certain faith groups need to pray and the point was made at the site, do you think it reasonable to say, well, you can go to the chapel and pray or the place of worship rather than feeling the need to intimidate or harass or whatever the definition of silent prayer, because the women would see that as many women do see that as harassment and intimidation? I'm just talking about balancing the needs of the women to access healthcare without fear of intimidation and the rights of the faith groups to pray at the site where they feel they need to pray. I'm sorry, Tiswy. I'm slightly confused. I'm not clear where you're thinking the chapel. So, if a woman was accessing abortion services and was in the protected building and felt that they wanted to speak to the spiritual adviser or the chaplain within the hospital, that's absolutely not captured by this legislation at all. Thank you, minister. It's for those people who, when the bill becomes law, that they want to pray, there will be the 200-metre buffer zone, but if they want to pray, to say to them, you can go into the chapel or the place of worship and you can silently pray there. I'm sorry. If it was a chapel or a church within the 250 buffer zone, then provided that they are doing that inside the building, then that's absolutely fine. That's not captured by the legislation. Minister, you'll be aware that the committee has taken evidence on the definition of protected premises, and we've had very differing views in oral and written evidence. Some organisation stakeholders were keen that that definition be expanded. Others were very against that and were very troubled by that. Could you perhaps outline the steps, the planning and the consultation that the Scottish Government will undertake to inform many decisions about extension of the definition of protected premises? The first conversation would have to be with the health boards, who are providing the services, to understand what changes they may be proposing or new buildings they may be intending to build. So, the consultation is with them. We would then consult with as similar bodies as we have spoken to with regard to this legislation to ensure that everything is captured, as we would intend through this legislation. If in the future there was a decision and you alluded yourself to health care provision changes and the way that it's delivered changes, if there was a decision to expand that to perhaps GP practices and, as Senator Gohani touched on this earlier on, pharmacists, etc, there would be a consultation on that? I would be very surprised if there was not a consultation because this legislation currently is looking at areas that provide abortions under the 1967 act. If there was a change there, then we would need to consult on it. Given that there would be further consultation, how would the Scottish Government ensure that human rights were respected within that, given that that would extend the buffer zones into many, many more premises and cover a much wider area across the country, particularly in urban areas? I accept that, which is why we have to make sure that the consultation is at the right level with the right people and always balancing the different pieces of human rights legislation. I think that the question there would definitely be whether it was proportionate, and we would have to make sure that that was the case. That is the key thing that we would need to be consulting on. I want to explore a wee bit round about other premises in the zone and some other aspects of that. First of all, we are going to place a worship that is in the zone. Can you explain what the restrictions would be on what could or couldn't happen in those areas? Is there also private premises that exist in the zone in terms of what people can say or do inside the premise what is visible or audible from outside the premise and where the lines are drawn there? As I have said to Tess White, prayer within a church or chapel within a safe zone is not captured by the legislation, as are conversations that happen within private dwellings. What would be captured, though, is if anything was public facing. For example, somebody standing in the garden of their house handing leaflets over the hedge. So what occurs within the buildings isn't captured in conversations, but anything that could impact from a pub in the safe zone. For example, I think that it was Professor Cameron who gave the example of a projection on to the Chalmers Street building from another building. If that was happening, then that would be captured. Okay, thanks. I'll just unpick that a wee bit, because again it's quite important that we can understand where the lines are here. Let's take an example of a place of worship that's within the 200 meter zone. Let's say they've got some signs outside that talk about repenting on your sins and so on. That's one example. Another example might be that there's a service and that they're singing and that's audio from outside and the messages may or may not be deemed to be relevant or not to what's happening in the healthcare centre. So how would you comment on where you see the line with regard to those kind of activities? Churches wherever often have signs outside and the example that you've just given repent your sins is quite a common one. I look at that as being not intimidating. However, the signs that we've seen with regard to abortion demonstrations are more so. I think that there is a judgment between what is seen as intimidating, what is the intent of harassing or causing alarm or distress? So in view of the Government, we didn't need to explicitly mention abortion services on any signage or on any singing or anything that was going on to fall foul of the legislation. That would be my view. However, I will write to the committee to confirm. I hope that you've indicated that, as far as you're concerned, chaplins working in hospitals and the conversations they have and the information they provide and any advice they give would be excluded. Is there an exemption for that and for what we've just talked about in terms of places of worship, etc, within the zone? Is that on the bill? There's not a specific exemption for the chaplaincy or the spiritual support within hospitals, because that would be, as I said earlier, the person accessing the services choice to speak to them, so that's not an exemption. Okay, and just another example looking at this from the other side, some of the hospital sites in urban areas in particular, you may have things that are visible from a distance much further than 200 metres, so you can have stuff half a mile or a mile away on a block of flats that's perfectly visible, so draping banners from premises like that is clearly outside the zone, so in theory that wouldn't be covered, is that correct? Yeah, we've said the zone is the 200 metres. Just very briefly, the fines or the punish the penalties that are imposed is fines, I think that's the same as Northern Ireland, I think that our fines are potentially higher than that. Where do you, what's the Government's perspective on the type of penalties that should be involved both with regard to persuading people not to further offend or not to offend at all and also where that, is there an impact there in terms of human rights legislation? Is there a line that you're walking and how do you look at both aspects of that? Yeah, so the bill lays out the 10,000 fine and then also the unlimited fines as well with no custodial penalty. It was when I first started discussing this bill with officials, one of the questions that I had was specifically around repeat offenders and how you would deal with that, but that is for the courts to decide, but we've again had a consistent approach with other legislation. And just finally, referencing the Northern Ireland experience, which I think that legislation is now in place now, are you aware of any infringements that have been charged or taken forward under that legislation or has it had the intended effect of effectively preventing any protests as such? So I'm not aware of any infringements but I'm happy to write to the committee with regard to that, and I think that it's clear that each case has to be considered on its own merits and the appropriate sanctions decided upon in that. Thank you. A brief supplementary from Rose Greer. Thanks, convener. Just to follow up on Ivan McKee's question around church premises and the examples of signage. A church is within 200 metres and it has a sign outside that says something about a message about life. All life is precious. The church might intend that to be a message about peace in relation to the conflict in Gaza or something like that. If a person is going by that church to enter the hostel for the purpose of seeking an abortion and they see that that is a Catholic church, they know what the Catholic church's position is on abortion, they could find that to cause fear and alarm to them. They could find that to be intimidating. Am I correct in understanding the provisions in the bill, though that wouldn't be the church's intent, so that part of the provision wouldn't come into effect, but the other part is about, even if it's not intent, it could recklessly have that effect. Would I be correct in saying that something like that example wouldn't be an offence under this bill because under the reasonable person test, nobody would say that the church was behaving recklessly in that sense by having a message like that? I think that that is a similar example as to the one that Mr McKee gave. As I indicated, the church has often put out signs and their intent is a more welcoming one, so I agree with Ross Glea Greer that the intent isn't there, but it's also not reckless either. This is all very fascinating and interesting. I think that the stuff about signage and how things are received is the difficulty, because protesters or people taking part in vigils would think that they don't have a malign intent. It's the same with the church signage. Sometimes that can be quite stark messages. It's not always welcoming messages from Scripture, but it's not always welcoming messages from Scripture. I think that the work that we've done has looked at evidence from all sides. We've paid very strong cognisance to the evidence given by women who have been impacted by walking past those demonstrations or vigils. I go back to the point that I made right at the start. The legislation is to protect women accessing healthcare that they have been legally able to receive since 1967. The indications that we have heard and the evidence that you have received underline how distressing it can be to women. I highlighted in my opening statement the first time that I came across that was in the early 2000s in Oregon and how that impacted friends of mine. I come at it from that perspective. That's very important. In the questions that I'm asking, I'm in no way diminishing at all the impact on women, but I think that it is important that we explore this thoroughly. You spoke in general terms about balancing rights. Can you speak a little bit more specifically about the process that the Scottish Government went through when looking at the balance of rights and human rights implications of the bill? The Scottish Government, my predecessor Marie Todd, hosted a short life working group that brought together the different groups to see how the situation could be approached. Basically, could we use bylaws? Or did we have to go through legislation? Or could we use mediation services? Then there were also three round-table meetings hosted by the former First Minister, in which stakeholders were brought in to give their views. Gillian Mackay's consultation, I think that there were nearly 12,000 responses to that from both sides of the argument. We've also been very clear and speaking and taking legal advice as well about the balance between the different rights that we have. The Scottish Government absolutely recognises that people have the right to religion and protest, and that's why we believe that, with those proposals, we are being proportionate to ensure that we balance those rights with the rights of women to access healthcare safely and in privacy. How would the Scottish Government respond to claims that anti-abortion views were excluded from that process? Clearly, you've said that they weren't. I don't believe they were, and I know that my officials have engaged regularly with anti-abortion groups in shaping this legislation. There have been calls for post-legislative reviews to be embedded in the bill. How do you respond to that? Legislation needs to be reviewed, so I'm interested to hear what the committee responds to in its report. Section 11 of the bill enables the Scottish Government to issue guidance to operators of abortion services. Can you outline to the committee what you expect the guidance to cover? We're currently working on that and having discussions with the health boards. I also met a couple of months ago with some representatives from local authorities about that. We haven't scoped out the guidance yet, but we are working on that. As the bill progresses, that work will continue in parallel. We spoke about the right to access healthcare without obstruction. Is there an argument to be made that, in terms of privacy and feeling secure and safe in accessing healthcare, particularly for something that is deeply personal for women, there shouldn't be any protests outside those facilities? That goes back to your previous question about balancing the different rights of people. We've done a lot of work on that to ensure that we have the right balance by indicating where a safe access zone begins and ends. Ideally, if you are accessing health, you want to do that in the safest environment that you can. We are being specific and narrow with regard to the bill on protests against abortion. We've balanced that correctly. Would you acknowledge that it might be more distressing to walk past a group of men with placards, even if those placards were about fair pay or working conditions than it might be to walk past a couple of individuals silently? I think that it's very difficult to get inside the thoughts and views of a woman accessing abortion services. What I want to ensure is that they can do that as safely as possible to avoid demonstrations that are specifically directed at them at a time of great stress and emotional time. That is what the bill is setting out. I thank the minister and her officials for their evidence today. I will now suspend the meeting for 30 minutes and the committee will then resume by taking evidence from the member in charge of the bill.