Chamber and committees

Thank you for that question, which is really important. Everyone here recognises the pressure that the Scottish Government’s budget is under. However, as I said earlier, we have set aside £1.7 million to support the plan in the next financial year. It is my job, with my critical friends, to ensure that our funding allocation is directed in the right way.

I do, absolutely. That came across in the committee’s evidence sessions. As I watched them, I could see the importance of having that anecdotal evidence. I appreciate that it is not data, but it adds to the data and makes it more accessible. That is why I am pleased that Public Health Scotland has appointed the co-ordinator whom I mentioned. I am also pleased about the collaboration that is happening across the sector. As Dr Clutterbuck said in his evidence, that is not new. In fact, this area of medicine has been a trailblazer in recognising the importance of various elements working together. The health boards, and indeed the whole of the health sector, can look at that.

I understand people’s frustration. Am I working hard to move things on? Yes, I am. Further, I hugely respect the work that was done prior to my taking on this role.

Clearly, if we are talking about a new building, there would be a timeline for that, which would allow for consultation. However, I hear what you say about what would happen if we planned to quickly extend or reduce a zone. Therefore, I am very happy to come back to the committee on that. We also need to recognise that it is important to ensure, when changing a zone, that people who are holding vigils, as well as those who are seeking services, are made aware quickly.

That would be my view. However, I will write to the committee to confirm that.

I think that I was clear in my opening statement that anti-abortion demonstrations will still be able to occur in Scotland. We have been very clear about that. The only places for which we are legislating that they cannot happen—if the bill is passed—are within protected safe zones around establishments in Scotland that provide abortion services, of which there are currently 30.

That is a really important question. Rather than ask Johanna Irvine to reply at this point, I think that we will write to the committee with a response to it.

I think that that is a similar example to the one that Mr McKee gave. As I indicated, churches often put out signs, and their intent is more welcoming. I agree with Ross Greer that intent does not exist in that example, and that it is not reckless, either.

I do not believe that they were. My officials engaged regularly with anti-abortion groups when shaping the legislation.

That goes back to your previous question about balancing the different rights of people. We have done a lot of work to ensure that we have the right balance by indicating where a safe access zone begins and ends. If someone is accessing healthcare, they will want to do that ideally in the safest of environments, and because the bill is specific and is narrowly restricted to protests against abortion, we have balanced that correctly.

I accept that. That is why we have to ensure that the consultation is at the right level with the right people and that we always balance the different pieces of human rights legislation. The question 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 consult on.