Chamber and committees

The first conversation would have to be with the health boards that provide the services in order to understand any changes that they might be proposing or what new buildings they might be intending to build; the initial consultation would be of the boards. We would then consult bodies similar to those that we have spoken to with regard to the bill, to ensure that everything is captured as we intend.

That is a fair comment. In the work, we looked at whether the limit should be bespoke for each hospital or should be consistent. It was felt, on balance, that consistency is the best way forward, because that will mean that there is clarity for women who are accessing services, for Police Scotland and for people who want to protest or demonstrate. That is another reason for going with a consistent 200m zone.

Changing the size of zones and creating new zones would require consultation to ensure that it is right to do so. That would also be done in discussion with the health boards because they make the decisions on where to locate their services. Earlier, I said that I would be interested to hear the committee’s views on maximums and minimums, recognising that provisions on those have been brought in in other jurisdictions.

The work that we have done has looked at evidence from all sides. We have taken strong cognisance of the evidence that has been given by women who have been impacted by walking past such demonstrations or vigils. I go back to the point that I made at the start, which is that the aim of the bill is to protect women who are accessing healthcare that women have been legally able to receive since 1967. The indications that we have heard and the evidence that you have received underline how distressing it can be for women.

In my opening statement, I highlighted that the first time that I came across that was in the early 2000s in Oregon and I saw how it impacted friends of mine, so I come at it from that perspective.

Thank you, convener, and thanks, too, to Gillian Mackay for introducing the bill.

I appreciate the committee’s scrutiny. I know that members will have detailed questions, so I will offer only general comments on why the bill matters. In so doing, I hope to address some of the concerns that people have about it, even those who support its intent.

The fundamental—and, I hope, inarguable—starting point is that no one should experience harassment, intimidation or unwanted influence as they access essential healthcare. However, as committee members have heard over the past few weeks, that is exactly what is happening to some women when they seek an abortion—which is, first and foremost, healthcare.

For some of those women, such interference happens at a time when they are already particularly vulnerable or distressed, and for all of them it is happening at a time when privacy and respect should be assured. Instead, they can be met with vigils, graphic images, and sometimes shouting and name calling. I cannot articulate the impact of that experience more powerfully than the women who have appeared before you already have, and I will not try. I just ask you to remember it as you consider the bill, and to give it the enormous weight that it deserves. After all, the bill aims to prevent what happened to them and, in so doing, to ensure that access to healthcare can be provided without obstruction, as is protected under article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

It is, of course, still appropriate that the bill’s potential impacts on the rights to freedom of expression, religion and assembly be considered. In that respect, there are broadly two concerns: that the bill itself weakens those rights and that it might erode those rights by setting a precedent for restrictions elsewhere.

Freedom of expression and assembly and freedom of thought, conscience and religion are, of course, fundamental rights. However, under the ECHR, they are not absolute; they may be interfered with, provided that any such interference goes no further than is necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. As I have established, protecting women’s access to essential healthcare services is a legitimate aim, but I can assure members that significant work has been done to ensure that the restrictions are no more than is necessary.

Contrary to the charge that the bill limits all protest in safe access zones, I point out that it targets only activity that intentionally or recklessly has specified effects, such as influencing a decision to access or to provide abortion services, and that those restrictions attach to only 30 premises in Scotland and will extend for only 200m beyond their grounds.

Everywhere else in Scotland, anyone can express opposition to abortion however they please, provided that what they do is lawful. They can protest outside court buildings and on street corners. They may erect billboards and lobby any member of the Parliament. If the bill passes, all that it will prevent is the direct targeting of individuals as they take what might be the most deeply personal decision of their lives.

That also explains why the bill does not set a precedent. No other medical procedure attracts the kind of activity that abortion services attract, and no other form of protest targets such a personal choice. That is all that the bill recognises. It safeguards access to healthcare and, in doing so, protects the article 8 rights and the privacy and dignity of women when they most need it.

I will conclude by saying that I was shocked when I first encountered anti-abortion activity outside clinics in Oregon in the United States years ago. It is disheartening to see that such activity has spread. I hope that the bill, and other legislation like it, reassures women that their rights and their health matter, and that we will defend both as vigorously as we can.

There is not a specific exemption for the chaplaincy or spiritual support provided within hospitals. It would be the choice of the person accessing the services whether to speak to those staff, so that is not an exemption.

The 200m abortion safe zone was constructed after a lot of evidence was gathered around each of the facilities. The zones protect all access into the facilities, including bus stops that the women might use.

If there are other demonstrations within that area, which is what we have been talking about, it could be deemed to be clear that they are not about women who are accessing abortion services, because the legislation has designated that safe zone.

Are you asking about the individual seeking abortion?

No, because that is something that they are doing themselves. They are not trying to impede, alarm or distress anyone else, which is what the bill captures.

I recognise that that point was raised in the course of the evidence sessions. The bill is very narrow, however, and deals specifically with abortion services and the safe access zone for abortion. From my perspective, and in all the work that we have done, we have been clear that there is no mission creep in the bill: it is specifically for those who protest about abortion services.

During one evidence session, a question was raised about whether there could be picketing or leafleting of staff members. We highlighted the picketing provisions in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and we have said that they are not overridden by the bill. The work around picketing, such as allowing it to take place and informing people that there could be a picket, would all be okay.

The Eljamel demonstration outside Parliament was indeed shocking. I was not at it myself, but I heard about it. I cannot talk for the women who are accessing abortion services, but it has been clear from the evidence that women have given that the protests or vigils that they find most upsetting are those that specifically relate to abortion.