Chamber and committees

Dr Provan, what is your response to the protesters’ claim that what they are doing is providing alternative support and information?

I will start with a question for Sarah Wallage and Lesley Sharkey, if that is okay. I will repeat a question that I put to the previous panel—I am not sure whether you caught that section of the discussion. I am interested in your views on the misinformation that protesters outside clinics share. The committee is aware of the most common leaflet, which includes misinformation about the risk of breast cancer, and the impact that that has not just on people who access services but on your staff. Do your staff need to have conversations to reassure patients about what they have seen in those leaflets? One of the protesters’ core arguments is that they offer information on alternative support that they do not believe is on offer inside your facilities.

It has been mentioned that the protests are largely, but not entirely, concentrated in Glasgow and Edinburgh but, because of social media as well as news coverage, people are aware of them throughout the country. Even at facilities where protests rarely or never take place, do you find that women who seek to access your services are aware of the protests? Do they perceive a risk? Is there worry and concern on their part that the day that they turn up to access your services might be the day that 40 Days for Life is there?

To clarify, what if people were doing that from a public highway rather than from a private property?

The next revision or update to the plan is due relatively soon. If you would share with the committee any submission or proposal that you make to the Government on that, we would find that valuable for the purposes of our inquiry.

Suzi, you said that you welcome the ASL action plan but that there is frustration about the lack of progress. I want to tease out that issue with you. If others on the panel have a perspective on it, it would be useful also to hear from them. Is the issue that the plan is good but it is not being implemented quickly enough or well enough, or is it that, even if we implement everything in the plan, we will not make the progress that is required? The solutions to those two things will be different. If the plan is the problem, we can revise it, but if the plan is good and the issue is its implementation, the committee will need to understand what the barriers to that are.

I will be brief. Dr Ottley, I am interested to know how, in any of the examples that you came across, the legislation, ordinance or whatever it was engaged with the right to private property. One of the hypotheticals that we are looking at concerns what would happen if private residences fell within a zone. Hypothetically, if somebody had a house with a garden and a flagpole in the zone, they could put up a flag. Under the legislation, there would be questions about intent, the messaging on the flag and so on. Are there any examples of legislation that has had a clear interaction with private property rights and of that issue being resolved?

I am talking about the impact on behaviour, such as in the example that you gave. A church can put a sign outside, just as somebody could put a sign in their window—at election time, it is not uncommon for people to put a sign in their window to say which party they are voting for. If someone’s house was in a safe access zone, there would be an interesting interaction between the intent of the legislation and rights under article 1 of protocol 1 to the European convention on human rights.

On that final point about how recently most of those measures have been implemented and the lack of evidence about impact, is there even any anecdotal indication of the reaction of those who were for or against the measures? There is a difference between actual impact and perceived impact. In your research, were you able to even just pick up the reaction of those on either side of the debate once the schemes had been implemented in their areas? Did they feel that there was an impact?

The opponents of the bill—those who engage in or support the protests—will come and give evidence to the Parliament using arguments that you will be familiar with. One such argument is that, in part, they do not see their action as protest, but as an opportunity to offer advice and an alternative perspective to those who are seeking abortion or reproductive healthcare. It is important that you have the opportunity to answer that claim, so I am interested in your thoughts on the claim that they are offering advice and options that would not otherwise be provided. Lily, you addressed that somewhat in your opening remarks, when you said that they provided misinformation—which is of no surprise whatsoever. I am interested in the panel’s thoughts on that, and in hearing your responses to that claim.