���˿���

I want to ask a question about the discussion in the 2018 study. There was a business and regulatory impact assessment—a BRIA—on price elasticity of demand, which found that alcohol is generally quite an inelastic product; in other words, as price increases, consumer behaviour does not change very much. Basically, that means that a rent is created that flows to the retailer or vendor of the product at the expense of the consumer. It was observed that there were points where the price becomes more elastic, such as with off-trade cider. We have seen evidence of some of the particularly potent ciders reducing in popularity as a result of minimum unit pricing.

The most recent study by Public Health Scotland did not seem to address the analysis around price elasticity of demand. Might the minister or her colleagues be able to narrate what they have found in that regard? I know that the University of Sheffield model found that heavier drinkers were more responsive to price change. Nonetheless, people with alcohol dependence are more likely to continue to consume alcohol, although they will perhaps find themselves in a more financially distressed position as a result.

Thank you very much, convener. It is a pleasure to be back before the committee on such an interesting petition. It has elicited significant public interest, most recently in a BBC Radio 4 documentary called “Motorway City” by the journalist Allan Little, which covered in great detail the history of the construction and development of the Glasgow inner ring road and the current challenges that it faces.

The correspondence from Glasgow City Council is encouraging. It has established a working relationship with Transport Scotland, the statutory agency that owns the trunk road infrastructure through Glasgow, to look at options for mitigation, and members of the public, other stakeholders, the petitioner and adjacent activists have proposed discrete ideas around rationalisation of slip roads, capping and so on that are worth further investigation.

I wonder whether it might be feasible for the committee to consider inviting the officials from Transport Scotland, who ultimately report to the Scottish ministers, and indeed to this Parliament, to further elaborate on their perspectives on what options are available. The transport minister might also want to come before the committee to set out their position on how they propose to work with Glasgow City Council to investigate the options. That might allow for greater transparency, public awareness and scrutiny of what is going through this Parliament. If committee members were minded to consider those proposed actions, that would be a positive development for this petition and would anchor the Parliament’s role in the matter much more securely.

Thank you, convener. It is a pleasure to address the members of the committee on this petition. I have been in correspondence with the petitioner over the past few months about issues around enhancement to the Park conservation area in the west end of Glasgow, which speaks to a broader issue around improving the guidance and regulations on conservation areas and the obligations on local authorities.

The petitioner’s particular idea was to reinstate heritage-style lampposts and make various other improvements to the area but there was not, in their view, sufficient support or capacity to help them to achieve their objectives. Similarly, there are concerns that roads authorities and other utilities can scar historic streetscapes, remove street furniture that is of a historic nature and undertake similar interventions without any statutory enforcement or oversight.

In light of some of the flaws in the current legislation as set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 and some of its adjacent legislation, such as the Building (Scotland) Act 2003, there is an opportunity for the committee to consider inviting stakeholders to feed in on the issue, and to establish whether there are reasonable grounds for improvements to the current legislation or indeed supplementary guidance. Certainly, in my interactions with stakeholders, there have been concerns that the regulations on conservation areas are not sufficiently robust and that there is significant opportunity to establish best practice, or at least to communicate where best practice is being achieved to other parts of the country.

To that end, I suggest that perhaps Historic Environment Scotland, the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, Save Britain’s Heritage, the Glasgow Building Preservation Trust and the Glasgow City Heritage Trust might be reasonable stakeholders to approach in the first instance to invite to feed in to the exercise and perhaps allow us to establish whether there are opportunities for further improvements to the current legislation. I should declare an interest, as a trustee of Glasgow City Heritage Trust.

That would be a worthwhile way for the committee to move the petition forward.

I want to bring up an issue that was raised when we questioned the witnesses last week. A member of the Free Church of Scotland raised some concerns about the impact of the offences in the bill on the work of hospital chaplains and chaplaincy services. There might well be some scenarios in which they are within the 200m zone; in that respect, I am thinking of the Royal hospital for children and the Queen Elizabeth university hospital in Glasgow. They have sanctuaries that are non-religious spaces but which are places where people might want to speak to a spiritual leader or a chaplain. Similarly, there is a chaplaincy chapel on the fourth floor of the Princess Royal maternity building in Glasgow royal infirmary. Would it be prudent to consider an amendment that would provide comfort to or an exemption for people seeking chaplaincy services or chaplains who are registered with a health board?

You do not think that there might be a scenario in which a clergyman or someone else dressed in the garb might inadvertently cause undue fear and alarm to someone accessing services, which could then create an unfortunate situation, or would that sort of enforcement of the bill just be unreasonable? I am trying to work through scenarios in which the bill might be unfortunate.

That was helpful—thank you.

Good morning, and welcome to the eighth meeting in 2024 of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. I have received no apologies. The convener is unable to attend today’s meeting physically and will therefore join us remotely, so I will convene the meeting as deputy convener.

Today, the committee will take evidence from two panels on the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill. As she is the member in charge of the bill, Gillian Mackay MSP will not participate in the committee’s scrutiny of the bill by virtue of rule 9.13A.2(b) of standing orders. Ross Greer will attend in her place as a committee substitute by virtue of rule 12.2A.2 of standing orders.

In our first evidence session, we will explore the impact of the bill for those who are against the introduction of safe access zones. Before we begin, I will provide a brief introduction to the session. The evidence that we will hear today will be in relation to the proposed establishment of safe access zones, and we will hear from individuals with lived experience as a consequence. As such, some of the content of this meeting might be sensitive or potentially distressing, and the committee encourages anyone who is affected by any of the issues discussed today to seek support. If anyone needs to take a break during the session, they should indicate that to me.

I welcome to the meeting Margaret Akers, who is the services co-ordinator of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in Scotland, and Bishop John Keenan, who is vice-president of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland and the Bishop of Paisley—they are both attending in person. I also welcome Alina Dulgheriu, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce and Dr Mark Pickering, who is chief executive of the Christian Medical Fellowship, who are attending virtually.

Thank you all for giving evidence to the committee this morning. I know that some of you are sharing personal experiences. We appreciate your joining us to help to inform the committee’s scrutiny of the bill. Please note that there is no pressure or expectation to share anything that you are not comfortable with. Again, please let us know if you would like to take a break at any point.

I understand that Alina and Isabel will begin by setting out their experiences and views on the proposed establishment of safe access zones. I invite Alina to address us first.

We now move to questions from members, and I invite Ivan McKee to start.

I will quickly bring in Alina Dulgheriu and then come to Bishop Keenan.

We are reaching the halfway point of proceedings, and there are three witnesses who wish to comment on that issue. I invite Dr Pickering and the two witnesses who are in the room to comment. We can then move on.