���˿���

I think that the issue is the impact on people who access services and how one uses their property to attempt to influence someone else’s decision. Private property rights are covered in one of the pieces of legislation elsewhere—you will have to forgive me, though, as it has gone out of my head where that is the case. Is it the England and Wales legislation that includes private property rights?

It is complex. The police will have to deal with the balance as to whether someone is intentionally trying to influence people or is acting recklessly. Again, there is a context element to that.

The police use different legislation in relation to the marches in the west of Scotland. Other laws apply in safe access zones, so there is nothing to say that the police could not use other laws to effect the same outcome.

It goes back to what Police Scotland said in its written submission about the dialogue that it has with individuals. Where interactions take place, I do not doubt that the police will try to have conversations with people about why what they are doing might not be appropriate, which very much lends itself to the example that Ruth Maguire gave. A potential danger is that we try to bottom out every single behaviour and scenario that might occur without taking into account the multiple bits of context that might add up to the police having to take action instead of having a conversation with a person to ask them to take down a flag, or whatever item it is.

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.