Chamber and committees

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.

I believe so. We have heard evidence from Alina—I think that that was her name—about the impact that silent prayer had. There is a possibility that it can influence people, but I am also looking at this from the perspective of how it can intimidate people.

This is something that I have been talking about with my officials a lot. We have to remember that, with any activity that is captured by offences, it will all be dependent on the facts and the circumstances happening around that activity.

We have spoken to Police Scotland and the Crown Office about this, and we will continue to do so as the bill is developed, but I think that what we are looking at is the context and impact of an activity. Indeed, the key element of the bill is women’s ability to access abortion services safely.

My predecessor, Maree Todd, hosted a short-life working group that brought together the different groups to see how the situation could be approached. Could we use byelaws or would we have to go through legislation? Could we use mediation services?

The former First Minister also hosted three round-table meetings that brought stakeholders in to give their views. Gillian Mackay’s consultation had almost 12,000 responses from both sides of the argument. We have also taken legal advice specifically about the balance between the different rights that we have.

The Scottish Government absolutely recognises that people have the right to religion and to protest. That is why we believe that the proposals are proportionate in ensuring that we balance those rights with the rights of women to access healthcare safely and in privacy.

We are working on that and having discussions with the health boards. I also met representatives from local authorities a couple of months ago to discuss the issue.

We have not scoped out the guidance yet, but we are working on it and that work will continue in parallel with the bill as it progresses.

When we were constructing the bill, we needed to look at future proofing it, and the way that women access abortions and the locations where abortions may be provided may change in the future. We currently have no plans to extend to other places. Just now, it is specifically about safe access zones, to the extent of 200m, around 30 locations that currently provide abortions.

We need to be able to modify the bill as required, to respond to changes in healthcare. That is important. I would be interested in seeing in your committee report the evidence that you have acquired on whether there should be a minimum and maximum area for safe zones. We are currently looking at 30 premises, but we must be able to future proof as healthcare abilities change.

I go back to the intention. If it were the intention to impede, alarm or distress women attending abortion services, silent prayer would be included. We have not specifically laid out what the actual acts are. However, we have laid out what the intention of the acts is.