Chamber and committees

Would COSLA concur with that?

You mentioned needing to dig into the numbers and understand the context a bit more. A review of CSPs took place immediately after the Morgan review reported. Should it not have done that?

Thank you to both of you; that was a really useful way of specifically identifying the barriers.

My next question is for Vivienne Sutherland and Kerry Drinnan. We know that the single biggest advantage of having a CSP is that it gives a route to redress through the tribunal system. Are there any particular advantages to having a child’s plan, as an alternative? The child’s plan does not offer a route to the tribunal, but is there anything that you know about from your delivery work that makes the child’s plan an attractive alternative to a CSP? If we put aside the issue of having to tick the box of needing 12 months of multi-agency intensive support, are there situations or certain reasons that make a child’s plan more suitable?

I want to pick up on Margaret Akers’s point in answer to the first question about this being about prayer, not just protest. The right to prayer and the right to protest are protected differently and to different extents in different pieces of human rights legislation.

My first question, though, comes from my personal perspective as a Christian. As it is a theological one, Bishop Keenan, I hope that you will not mind if I come to you first. How important is proximity to prayer? I have to say that I am not aware of a reading of scripture that emphasises the importance of proximity for the purpose of prayer.

I am obviously not suggesting that you should—

I am very keen to speak to Isabel specifically about the matter—I just do not want to leave the point lying. Obviously, I am not suggesting that you should be allowed to pray only in a private space—that is, a church—but it is certainly what we are encouraged to do from a Christian perspective.

As for your point about our rights, Bishop Keenan, the fact is that people’s rights are conditional, because sometimes they are contested and can clash with each other. Again, on the idea that some should have the unconditional, unfettered right to do some things, that will clash with other people’s right to do other things, and the question is how we balance those rights. I think that we will all acknowledge that there is a balance-of-rights perspective to be taken into account here.

On the question of proximity, before the buffer zone was brought in in Birmingham, you prayed adjacent to the facility. Even before the buffer zone was brought in, you would not have been allowed to pray inside the facility—in the waiting room or, indeed, in the room where the procedure was taking place. Do you agree that placing some kind of limit was acceptable? It would not have been appropriate for you to pray in the room where the procedure was taking place while it was taking place. Do you therefore agree that this is not a black-or-white matter of restriction or no restriction, but that it is about where we place the restriction?

On that point, part of the evidence that the committee has heard—it is important for us to talk about this—is that we are not talking only about women who are going into premises potentially to have an abortion but about all people who are accessing a service. We have heard evidence that women who have had a miscarriage or stillbirth are deeply distressed to see those images. They might be accessing the premises for a completely different reason. In most cases in Scotland, the premises are a hospital, so people could be accessing the building for all sorts of reasons that are totally unrelated to reproductive healthcare. However, seeing those images can be deeply distressing not just for pregnant women but for people who have had that kind of experience.

What is your perspective on that, Eilidh? To what extent can the concerns about judgment be addressed through guidance from the Lord Advocate on prosecution or operational guidance for Police Scotland, and are there parallels with other areas of law?

You referred to Jesus talking about going into private rooms to pray. That is in Matthew 6, and what comes immediately before that is criticism of those who pray performatively for others to see them. You also mentioned Jesus going to the temple, but the temple is the place where people expect to see others praying. There is a distinction, I think, between praying in a faith setting or in a faith institution—in our case, in a church—as opposed to in a public setting such as this one. I accept that not everybody who takes part in pro-life vigils comes at the matter from a Christian perspective—although that is largely the case with the panel today—but what I am struggling with from the Christian perspective is that, in the scripture, Jesus, immediately before introducing the Lord’s prayer, is very critical of those who pray performatively and calls on people to go and pray in private spaces.

If what you are saying this morning is that the important thing here is not protest but prayer, I have to say that I cannot understand the basis for that as a point of belief, given that scripture tells me that we should not pray like that. Indeed, Jesus is quite explicitly critical of people who do so.