Chamber and committees

Good morning. I am interested in the decision to set the safe access zone at 200m, as is proposed in the bill. How did you come to make that choice, given that legislation elsewhere sets out other sizes—for example, 50m or 150m? What evidence led to the proposal to establish 200m zones in Scotland?

What about signage for the zones? When I spoke to NHS Dumfries and Galloway, I was told that signage would shine a beacon of light on the services that are being provided, which would draw attention to them and make the healthcare that is being provided more “in your face”. What are your thoughts on signage around zones?

So, the proposal would be to have a map, or the creation of an area, attached to an NHS facility’s website, without necessarily putting up signage at 200m—or an extra distance—around a facility?

It is a wee quick question on the back of Ruth Maguire’s questions about the west of Scotland and other existing laws, such as the Public Order Act 2023. You said earlier that the bill is about preventing any act of intimidation, harassment or influence from happening in the first place, instead of having to go after a person after an act has taken place.

I know that other countries have created similar legislation. For 30 years, I would go into the operating theatre in the morning; I would sometimes see protests next to my place of work, and I was a young woman when I worked in California. This is about intimidating people who are accessing their workplace as well as those accessing health services, and I am interested to know how we learn from other countries and the legislation that they have implemented. How can we do that, and how can we then use post-legislative scrutiny to see whether further information needs to be added or things need to be revised?

On extending or reducing zones—when we build new hospitals or stop current hospitals from providing the care that they deliver—the provisions in the bill on ministers’ ability to extend or reduce zones rather than that decision going through further parliamentary scrutiny or statutory instruments raised concerns. Should there be further oversight, not just of ministers extending and reducing zones, but in terms of going through a further parliamentary process?

Thank you. I am not sure whether others want to come in.

How would we communicate to the public that a safe zone exists?

My next question is on allowing flexibility for the 200m zone to be reduced or extended, depending on where healthcare is provided. Last week, we heard that the Chalmers sexual health centre is next to a high school. The situation in an urban area might be different from that at Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary, which I know well and which is pretty rural. It is more than 200m from the perimeter of the campus there to the front doors. There are two front doors—one for midwifery and maternity and one for general visits.

What are your thoughts on the proposal to have a 200m zone, and the ability to extend or otherwise alter it, depending on where the healthcare facility is located?

Good morning, everybody. We have heard a lot about abortion clinics from various witnesses. My understanding is that we do not have stand-alone abortion clinics in Scotland; we have premises that provide healthcare for women. I am interested in hearing about purposeful influencing outside premises that provide a range of healthcare, which could include counselling. Would vigils be needed outside premises, if you could be guaranteed that women were being provided with the range of counselling, other services and knowledge to allow them to make the best and most informed healthcare decisions?

Good morning. I am interested in pursuing questions on the definition of “protected premises” in the bill. There is a future-proofing aspect that might, down the line, include general practices and pharmacies. What do you think about the definition of “protected premises”?