Chamber and committees

That is a really good question, and it is one that I have been playing out in my mind. The bill is set out to protect women who are accessing abortion services, and you heard some very powerful evidence from women who have obtained abortions about how they felt and the impact that walking past demonstrators had on them.

The police would make that judgment. The activity will be captured, depending on the facts and the circumstances around what is happening.

I do not have such an example. If I can come back to the committee with an example, I am happy to do so.

To go back to the silent prayer issue, I think that it is important to highlight that the Supreme Court also recognised silent prayer in its views on the Northern Ireland legislation, and acknowledged that it could cause distress.

As for other types of protest, as I have said previously, the legislation is narrow and specifically covers people who protest against abortion or who offer the pro-life message. Other demonstrations do not fall under the legislation.

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.

I believe that the lady whom you are referring to was in England on those occasions. I reiterate that the bill offers protection in very limited circumstances within the 200m perimeter around a hospital. The bill does not prohibit specific behaviours. The offence is of influencing, impeding access or harassing, alarming or distressing someone. The police will look at the context in order to decide whether to proceed with a conviction.