Chamber and committees

There are arguments both ways as to whether that should be a parliamentary decision. In the evidence that we gathered through the consultation, there was a mix of views about whether the decision should be for ministers or for Parliament.

There has to be appropriate oversight and scrutiny of any changes that we make to zones, for exactly the reason that you gave about people potentially being criminalised as a result. People who could potentially be impacted by protest want us to respond in a timely manner to any changes in behaviour that might make implementation of a zone more difficult. There is a balance to be struck between sufficiently quick movement and appropriate oversight to ensure that we as parliamentarians are doing our job appropriately and ensuring appropriate consultation and scrutiny.

What I am endeavouring to get across is that there is a balance there and, as with the entirety of the bill, there are those representing competing interests on both sides who would say, “Go quicker,” or “Go slower.” There is a middle ground to be found, where we respond in an appropriate time but with appropriate consultation, too.

Whatever we do, there should be a level of consultation, because this is about extending zones into public land. There must be a level of consultation, particularly where private dwellings could be captured by any extension. I think that the minister gave an indication earlier that a level of engagement and consultation would take place for any extension.

On what happens inside private dwellings or churches, private conversations are not covered under the bill, as the minister said. Things would have to happen from those premises that could be heard or seen within the zones, as I am aware that the committee has heard in evidence.

In the previous session, there was a good airing of what signs would or would not be captured under the bill. I hope that the committee feels that it has had a full exploration of that.

It is essential that such premises are covered by the legislation, for exactly the reasons that Colin Poolman gave early in the series of evidence sessions. The bill could be undermined by an anti-abortion organisation buying a property within the zone, using it as its headquarters, projecting images from it on to services, putting up large signs in the garden or handing information over the wall, as happens in some of the states in the US that do not exempt private dwellings.

We have the balance right, but we will need to ensure that we communicate well with people who live in a zone and with religious organisations that have places of worship in a zone to ensure that they fully understand what we are doing with the bill.

To my mind, that would not be covered under the intent aspect of the provisions, and I do not think that it would come under the reckless aspect, either. Recklessly causing an offence is covered in quite a lot of law across the Scottish statute book. I do not believe that a priest simply attending to visit parishioners would be covered. Many of them also work in hospital chaplaincies, and I do not think that that would be covered, either.

During the previous evidence session, the minister outlined the need for consultation, and the timelines for that, when new services come online and when zones, potentially, need to be changed. In my consultation, we heard from people who support the bill that urgency is needed when those zones need to be changed, because, generally, they will change because something has happened—a behaviour has developed that has infringed the zone or has made it difficult for it to operate, and there is a need for an extension. I absolutely appreciate that some who support the bill also feel that there needs to be a level of parliamentary oversight to that. Again, I am more than happy to speak to members about that between stage 1 and stage 2, but there needs to be a balance between having the flexibility and ease to move quickly enough and having the appropriate oversight.

Yes.

That is similar to the question that Ross Greer asked about a minister going to a hospital to visit a parishioner and someone phoning the police just because he is there. That would not be enforced under the bill. Using the example that you gave, I would say that hospital chaplains have every right to be there. They are staff on the site, just as many others are.

That does not necessarily mean that people will not call the police in that situation, although I hope that they will not. Again, we might need to do a piece of awareness raising on that as part of the work on the bill. Even if we wrote such an exemption into the bill, that would not prevent someone from potentially misunderstanding and calling the police in the first place. That might open up a loophole that is not there currently, because those matters are not covered by the bill.

As we are coming to the end of this session, I will just say that I am more than happy to have a further in-depth conversation with Mr Sweeney if that would help allay any concerns. We can have those conversations between stage 1 and stage 2, if there is any further context that Mr Sweeney wishes to go over.

I do not know that any clinician who was striking would say, “Don’t go to your appointment.” I do not think that I have ever heard that from a trade union. Pickets are about working terms and conditions. Clinicians would never want their patients not to have access to the services that they are entitled to, because that would probably be against their job in the first place.

As I am sure that you are aware, that letter came in quite late yesterday, so I have not yet had a chance to have a chat about any of the potential ramifications of putting those principles into the bill, but I am certainly happy to have conversations between stages 1 and 2 about whether that would be appropriate.

I would challenge the assertion that trade union activity would ever influence people not to access services. Often, trade union activity outside hospitals is about pay. It is not about saying, “Don’t go and have your ear, nose and throat appointment;” it is about saying, “We want better pay to provide your ear, nose and throat treatment.”

Many of the people who are outside hospitals are clinicians. They know very well the impact that protests and so on have on people’s ability to access services. I believe that clinicians would be the last people outside hospitals wanting to influence anyone other than their own colleagues with regard to whether they should join their ask for better pay, better conditions or whatever else.

I do not suppose for a minute that people coming from far away—particularly given the airing that this legislation has had and the level of public awareness of it—would contact the police because they could not see what was going on. Because of the exemption in the bill for trade union activity, the police would take no action. There is a piece of work to do to ensure that the public are aware of what is and is not allowed under the bill.