Chamber and committees

So, passing the bill would provide assurance to people accessing healthcare services that they will not encounter protests influencing them in accessing the service.

Legislation elsewhere specifies 150m or 50m, but 200m is proposed in the bill. Professor Cameron, do you have any thoughts on that? You talked about how your facility is a very busy place with a high school next door, so we might have to consider such circumstances.

In the earlier evidence session, Professor Cameron talked about people having to come in through a back door and be escorted, which means that there is the issue of access and people needing ID to open doors and so on. Lesley Sharkey, what are your thoughts on the perimeter of safe access zones—so that people are not approached or harassed—where that requires access to alternative entrances to the front door?

I wish a good morning to you all, and thank you for being here.

I am interested in issues around protected premises and their definition. I know that healthcare provision varies across Scotland, so the 200m zone might need to be extended for certain parts.

Our briefing notes say that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

“expressed its support for the provision to extend safe access zones as necessary”.

However, they also mention that COSLA talked about

“further stakeholder engagement to explore how information about protected premises, and their surrounding safe access zones, could be effectively communicated to interested parties”.

I am interested in any thoughts about the definition of protected premises and whether 200m is, in your opinion, adequate.

I have a final question. Professor Cameron talked about women having to go in through the back door of premises. I suppose that a defined zone should include the detail that particular premises are required to allow people to access them safely through the front door without having to go through a safe-access process with identification badges, people being escorted and so on.

I will pick up on that point. Colin Poolman from the RCN was on the previous panel. Taking the scenario of a labour dispute, such as we have seen, with someone approaching a hospital to receive a service and seeing placards and folks standing in scrubs, we would need to ensure that some language in the bill allowed the unions to make a protest about wages or terms and conditions, or whatever. How would we ensure that, if I was approaching the hospital from a distance, I would not assume that what I could see was an anti-abortion protest?

You spoke about extension, but what about reduction of safe zones? I read in a briefing that we need to consider that. How would that work if future ministers were against abortion? How do we ensure that extension and reduction can be continued and that we can provide safe access zones?

Okay.

Good morning to you all, and thank you for being here today.

Dr Provan talked a little already about premises other than abortion providers—for example, general practices and perhaps even pharmacies. I would like to hear your thoughts on the definition of “protected premises”. Is there enough in the bill to enable it to be future proofed or applied to other premises?

Section 7 refers to

“Extension of safe access zones”

and says that

“Scottish Ministers may approve an application made under subsection (1)”.

Is there enough information there to allow more sites to have safe access zones?

The bill proposes a 200m radius, but there will be places that will require a wider, or perhaps a different, area. Do you have any thoughts about the 200m limit?