Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any reduction in the number of taxis in Glasgow as a result of the introduction of the low-emission zone in June 2023. (S6O-03414)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My device would not connect. I would have voted no.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My device would not connect—I would have voted yes.

Of course. I have just a couple. Good morning, minister and officials.

I will follow on from Bob Doris’s line of questioning, on electoral pilots and democratic engagement. Minister, do you believe that the provisions in the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2002 on electoral pilots are sufficient to allow for pilots on electoral registration? Bob spoke about randomised ballot papers. Do you support automatic voter registration?

I have a final question. The Scottish Government’s consultation on electoral reform included a proposal to amend the rule that requires a specific form of tactile voting device to be provided at polling stations. Such an amendment could allow for flexibility in the future, but no proposal is included in the bill. Is work continuing on that?

Thank you for that. We have heard about 20 per cent of people not being registered to vote. That is, indeed, something that we can look into. We have also heard that people’s Young Scot card or national insurance number, for instance, could be used for registration. Are any electoral pilots actively under consideration by the Scottish Government at the moment?

I will be as quick as I can be with my next question.

The bill gives ministers the power to spend on democratic engagement, but no funding has been identified for that. Can you explain that approach and give any further information on when, and at what level, funding is likely to be available?

I would like to go back to Professor O’Connor. You spoke about the distress brief intervention programme, and I have just been reading up on it. Can we do more to let people know that it is there? I have lost someone to suicide—not a personal friend but a friend of the family—and it is their funeral today. I do not think that enough was done in their case, and I do not think that the person or their family knew where to go for help and support. Can we do more with that?

Thank you.

I, too, thank Gillian Mackay and her team for all the work that has been done on the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill. It is extremely difficult to get a bill to stage 1, so I say well done on that. There has been productive cross-party dialogue through the contributions that have been made on the bill.

The core intent of the legislation is to create safe access zones that would act as a buffer between women who are accessing safe and legal services at abortion clinics and anti-abortion demonstrators. The zones would exist to help to ensure that women can access the vital services that are provided at the abortion clinics without the fear or harassment that is often experienced through their interactions with anti-abortion protesters.

For context, the UK Parliament has already adopted similar legislation to create buffer zones around abortion clinics in England and Wales, through the Public Order Act 2023. I understand that, as is often the case with any issues regarding aspects of abortion, that legislation has created division and competing claims of the infringement of human rights.

Women must have the right to access healthcare uninhibited by the fear or feelings of judgment or harassment that they often experience. In many cases, such feelings that are caused by protests outside abortion clinics prevent women from accessing those crucial services altogether at a time when they are making what is often already a very difficult decision.

I have also heard the concerns of the bill’s critics, who claim that anti-abortion protesters would have their rights to freedom of religion and speech restricted if they were deemed to be acting in a certain manner within the proposed zones and would be penalised for expressing their views. However, such arguments have often been based on articles 9, 10 and 11 of the ECHR, for example, and, notably, that argument was rejected by the UK Supreme Court, which, in its unanimous ruling, stated that similar legislation in Northern Ireland was compatible with the convention rights of protesters.

That is in addition to questions about the specific size of the zones which, as we have heard, falls between 150m and 200m, depending on individual circumstances. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee has urged that Scottish Government ministers undertake a “human rights proportionality assessment” when making a decision to increase or decrease the radius of the safe zones. Consequently, the committee further recommended that the bill be amended to outline the process that would result in any such zone being extended or reduced, and to provide that any such decisions should be made in consultation with service providers and relevant stakeholders.

Along with my Scottish Conservative colleagues, I believe that women who access abortion services should never feel that they are subject to the harassment or intimidation that anti-abortion protesters outside abortion clinics often pose. The feelings that are caused by such anti-abortion protesters can have, and often do have, the effect of discouraging women from exercising their right to access healthcare. Abortion services are no exception.

Moreover, I believe in the right to protest, and people will still be free to protest outside the zones. That is because the bill does not set out to prevent anti-abortion demonstrators from exercising their rights under articles 9, 10 or 11 outwith these specifically designated safe access zones. However, their right to protest cannot come at the expense of a woman’s right to access healthcare services as she sees fit.

I will support the general principles of the bill this evening, along with my fellow Scottish Conservatives, and will work constructively on amendments to the bill. Ultimately, the bill is proportionate and strikes the right balance between guaranteeing women’s access to the legal and vital healthcare services that are provided by abortion clinics and the rights of anti-abortion protesters to express their views. I welcome further dialogue with Gillian Mackay and others from across the chamber on how we can make the bill better.