Seòmar agus comataidhean

I believe so. We have heard evidence from Alina—I think that that was her name—about the impact that silent prayer had. There is a possibility that it can influence people, but I am also looking at this from the perspective of how it can intimidate people.

This is something that I have been talking about with my officials a lot. We have to remember that, with any activity that is captured by offences, it will all be dependent on the facts and the circumstances happening around that activity.

We have spoken to Police Scotland and the Crown Office about this, and we will continue to do so as the bill is developed, but I think that what we are looking at is the context and impact of an activity. Indeed, the key element of the bill is women’s ability to access abortion services safely.

As I said to Tess White, prayer within a church or chapel within a safe zone is not captured by the legislation; neither are conversations that happen within private dwellings. Anything that is public facing would be captured, including, for example, somebody standing in the garden of their house handing leaflets over the hedge. What occurs within buildings, such as conversations, is not captured, but anything that could have an impact in the safe zone is. I think it was Professor Cameron who gave the example of a projection on to the Chalmers sexual health centre from another building. If that were to happen again, it would be captured.

Wherever they are, churches often have signs outside them. The example that you have just given of a sign about repenting of sins is quite a common, which I view as not being intimidating. However, the signs that we have seen at abortion demonstrations are more so. There is a judgment to be made about whether something is seen as intimidating and whether the intent is of harassing, causing alarm or distress.

That is a really important question. I cannot overemphasise the amount of work that officials have done in ensuring that we get the right size of zone. I know that Gillian Mackay’s consultation proposed 150m. Since seeing the results of that consultation, we have looked at the areas that 150m zones would capture. For example, some stakeholders commented on the fact that some people will catch buses to health centres or hospitals, and feel that bus stops are places where there could be protests or vigils. Therefore, we mapped all 30 facilities to ensure that we would cover an appropriate size of area.

I note that, when it was looking at the Northern Ireland legislation, the Supreme Court said that zones could be extended to up to 250 metres.

It is also important to recognise that, in Scotland, abortion services are, in the main, carried out in hospitals where people are accessing other services, which is different from what happens in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, where there are specific centres.

The bill lays out the £10,000 fine and the unlimited fines with no custodial penalty. When I first started discussing the bill with officials, one of my questions was about how we would deal with repeat offenders. That is for the courts to decide, but we have taken an approach that is consistent with other legislation.

I am not aware of any infringements, but I am happy to write to the committee on that. It is clear that each case has to be considered on its merits and the appropriate sanctions decided.

My predecessor, Maree Todd, hosted a short-life working group that brought together the different groups to see how the situation could be approached. Could we use byelaws or would we have to go through legislation? Could we use mediation services?

The former First Minister also hosted three round-table meetings that brought stakeholders in to give their views. Gillian Mackay’s consultation had almost 12,000 responses from both sides of the argument. We have also taken legal advice specifically about the balance between the different rights that we have.

The Scottish Government absolutely recognises that people have the right to religion and to protest. That is why we believe that the proposals are proportionate in ensuring that we balance those rights with the rights of women to access healthcare safely and in privacy.

We are working on that and having discussions with the health boards. I also met representatives from local authorities a couple of months ago to discuss the issue.

We have not scoped out the guidance yet, but we are working on it and that work will continue in parallel with the bill as it progresses.

When we were constructing the bill, we needed to look at future proofing it, and the way that women access abortions and the locations where abortions may be provided may change in the future. We currently have no plans to extend to other places. Just now, it is specifically about safe access zones, to the extent of 200m, around 30 locations that currently provide abortions.

We need to be able to modify the bill as required, to respond to changes in healthcare. That is important. I would be interested in seeing in your committee report the evidence that you have acquired on whether there should be a minimum and maximum area for safe zones. We are currently looking at 30 premises, but we must be able to future proof as healthcare abilities change.