Government must consider expanding hospital buffer zone, MSP says
The Scottish Government must consider expanding the size of the buffer zone around a hospital where anti-abortion demonstrations are banned, the MSP behind the legislation has said.
Gillian Mackay said protesters have been gathering just outside the 200m exclusion zone around the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (QEUH) in Glasgow.
The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill came into effect in September and creates areas around medical facilities where terminations are performed, to stop anti-abortion protesters gathering.
The legislation was introduced by Ms Mackay, a Green MSP, and is designed to protect women from harassment.
It contains a provision to extend the size of the buffer zones if it is deemed proportionate.
Ms Mackay said: 'Safe access zones were introduced to protect patients and staff at our hospitals, and, for the most part, that is what they are doing.
'But at QEUH we have seen protests continuing on one of the main entry routes to the hospital.
'The QEUH in Glasgow has quite unique challenges due to its location compared to other hospitals.
'From the correspondence that I and others have received, there are concerns about the patients and staff having no choice but to pass the protests.'
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Act allows ministers to extend the size of a zone if it is considered necessary to protect those accessing or providing services from impacts prohibited under the Act.
'However, before taking such a step, it is essential that ministers are satisfied such an extension is appropriate.
'We take Ms Mackay's comments extremely seriously and will discuss the matter further with the relevant Health Board as an immediate next step.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wales Online
9 minutes ago
- Wales Online
GMB doctor Hilary Jones says he would help people to end their lives
GMB doctor Hilary Jones says he would help people to end their lives The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will return to the House of Commons for debate on Friday Dr Hilary Jones attend the Good Morning Britain Health Star Awards (Image: 2017 Mike Marsland ) TV doctor Hilary Jones has described assisted dying for the terminally ill as 'kind and compassionate', adding that he would help a patient to end their life if the law was changed. The GP, often seen on ITV's Good Morning Britain and the Lorraine show, said medicine will go 'back to the Dark Ages' if proposed legislation being considered at Westminster is voted down. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will return to the House of Commons for debate on Friday, with MPs expected to consider further amendments. In its current form the Bill, which applies only to England and Wales, would mean terminally ill adults with only six months left to live could apply for assistance to end their lives, with approval needed from two doctors and the expert panel. Last month, MPs approved a change in the Bill to ensure no medics would be obliged to take part in assisted dying. Doctors already had an opt-out but the new clause extends that to anyone, including pharmacists and social care workers. Dr Jones, in an interview with the PA news agency, said medics are 'looking over their shoulders because of the legal repercussions of the law' as it stands. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Asked about the significance if the law does change, Dr Jones told PA: 'It will relieve healthcare professionals who deal with terminal illness. There are wonderful people who are caring and compassionate, who just live in fear of their actions being misinterpreted, of being accused of wrongdoing, and because of that fear, people at the end of life are often undertreated. 'People are looking over their shoulder because of the medications they're using or the doses they're using, it means that patients aren't getting the best palliative care that they could have. And I think the Bill, if it passes, will alleviate a great deal of that, and put people's minds at rest that they're not going to suffer unnecessarily at the end of life.' Article continues below Ahead of last month's Commons debate on the Bill, two royal medical colleges raised concerns over the proposed legislation. The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) said it believes there are 'concerning deficiencies', while the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) said it has 'serious concerns' and cannot support the Bill. Dr Jones, who has been practising medicine for more than 45 years and spent time working on cancer wards during his career, said he has 'always supported it (assisted dying)'. He added: 'I've always felt it is the most humane, kind and compassionate thing that relatives and doctors can provide, knowing that that person's wishes are respected and known, that there is full mental capacity and that they're surrounded by love. 'And for me, it's always been very clear.' Asked if, were the law to change, he would be content to help someone who had chosen assisted dying at the end of their life, he said: 'Absolutely, if I know the patient, I know what their wishes are, I see them suffering, and there's nothing more I can do to help their suffering then, absolutely, I would hold their hand and help them achieve what they want to achieve.' Some of the Bill's opponents have urged MPs to focus on improving end-of-life care rather than legislating for assisted dying. But Dr Jones said his mother, who was a nurse and died 'suffering unnecessarily' despite the 'best possible palliative care' would be 'proud of me speaking on this subject now, in the way I am'. He told of his respect for people's 'religious beliefs, cultural beliefs and personal feelings' in being opposed to assisted dying but insisted it should be an area of choice. He said: 'The bottom line is that I think it's the patient's individual choice. I think we should respect the right of the individual to choose what they want. 'This is not a mandatory thing. This is not being imposed on anybody. And I think people should have the individual right to make a decision about how they end their life if they've got a terminal illness where there's no prospect of cure and they're suffering and they fear an undignified death.' Asked about the prospect of the Bill being voted down by MPs, Dr Jones said: 'We would be back to square one, back to the Dark Ages, in my opinion, medically, and that would be a shame. 'I don't think we would be advancing medicine if the Bill is not passed.' Our Duty Of Care, a group of healthcare professionals campaigning against a change in the law, said the question must be whether someone is making a 'true choice' if they apply for assisted dying. Article continues below Dr Gillian Wright, a spokesperson for the group, said: 'If someone has not had access to palliative care, psychological support or social care, then are they making a true choice?' 'At a time when the NHS is on its knees, when palliative are social care are struggling and our amazing hospices are having to close beds and cut services because of lack of money, as someone who has cared for people at the end of life, I would urge MPs to vote against this Bill but instead invest in excellent specialist palliative care, social care and psychological support.'
Scotsman
12 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Chancellor Rachel Reeves told to abandon 'austerity' welfare cuts in spending review by the SNP
The SNP says Labour must 'abandon plans to impose more austerity cuts' Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The chancellor is being told to 'scrap the Labour Party's devastating cuts to disabled people' in her spending review later this week. The SNP has written to Rachel Reeves ahead of her statement on Wednesday, urging her to 'abandon plans to impose more austerity cuts' and ensure there are no cuts to affordable housing, policing or the Scottish Government's budget. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves delivers a speech during a visit to Mellor Bus in Rochdale on June 4, 2025, to announce investments in regional transport (Photo: PETER BYRNE/POOL/AFP via Getty Images) |Scottish Finance Secretary Shona Robison also told the chancellor to 'change course' and abandon her self-imposed fiscal rules. Yesterday, UK Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Peter Kyle was asked if he could guarantee there would be no cuts to affordable housing and police officer numbers. In response, Mr Kyle said: 'The whole details of the spending review will come out on Wednesday.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Dave Doogan MP, the SNP's economy spokesman, has now written to the chancellor calling on her to 'immediately and fully reverse Labour's austerity cuts to disabled people, pensioners and families, and deliver the investment needed to end child poverty, boost public services and grow the economy - instead of swinging the Westminster austerity axe again'. In his letter he also said the chancellor must 'deliver long-overdue funding for Scottish energy projects - including fully and immediately funding the Acorn Scottish carbon capture project, which has faced years of Westminster delays'. Mr Doogan also said Ms Reeves should match the Scottish Government's plan to scrap the two-child benefit cap and the bedroom tax, and introduce a UK-wide version of the Scottish child payment. 'It's safe to say 2025 has got off to a frantic and varied start. "It is a welcome antidote to get back to the constituency to meet businesses and organisations achieving so much for local people and local economies, in stark contrast to the chaos at Westminster.' He added: 'Instead of choosing more austerity cuts, the Labour government should be choosing to boost economic growth and make fairer choices to help families and properly fund public services. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'At the UK spending review on Wednesday, I urge you to scrap the Labour Party's devastating cuts to disabled people and abandon plans to impose more austerity cuts to public services, including affordable housing and policing, which would hit the most vulnerable and squeeze Scotland's budget.' Over the weekend Mr Kyle said police must 'do their bit' to 'embrace change' as the Home Office and Treasury continue negotiations ahead of the spending review. It is understood Home Office ministers do not believe there is enough cash to recruit the additional police officers Labour promised in its manifesto. He said 'every part of society was struggling' and the chancellor is facing pressure from all sectors - last week Ms Reeves also warned that not every government department will 'get everything they want' and said there were 'good things I've had to say no to'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Peter Kyle | Jonathan Brady/Press Association However Mr Kyle did confirm there would be a boost to spending on schools and scientific research. Over the weekend Ms Robison said the UK and Scottish governments must work together to support shared economic growth and end spending that bypasses devolution. She has called on the chancellor to relax her fiscal rules to enable investment in public services, to fully fund employer National Insurance contribution increases in the Scottish public sector, abandon welfare cuts, and fund the Acorn carbon capture project. Ms Robison said: 'The UK spending review is an opportunity for the UK Government to abandon some of its damaging policies such as cuts to welfare support for disabled people, to scrap the two-child benefit cap and to reinstate a universal winter fuel payment.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad She also said she hopes the chancellor will use the spending review to fully fund the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions in the Scottish public sector. Ms Robison added: 'The UK Government should also use the spending review to empower the devolved administrations with more flexible fiscal rules that can enable investment in public services and we need an end to spending that bypasses devolution so we can direct funds to best meet local needs. Finance Secretary Shona Robison presents the Scottish Government's budget at Holyrood | Getty Images 'We called on UK ministers to involve us at an early stage of this process, but since they've refused to provide us with any clarity on their spending priorities it's clear that it's business as usual for Westminster. 'We continue to call on the Treasury to use the spending review to change course, providing the funding we need to deliver for the people of Scotland.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ms Reeves's spending review on Wednesday will confirm how much taxpayers' money will be spent on public services such as the NHS, and how much money the UK Government will be investing in new projects. The chancellor set out department budgets for 2025/26 back in her autumn statement - this week's spending review will see her confirm the departmental spending allocations for the next three to four years. Government borrowing grew to £20.2 billion in April, which is £1bn higher than the same month in 2024 and more than economists had been expecting. Tax revenues also increased due to increases to employer National Insurance contributions - spending also increased due to increases to pensions and other benefits. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The UK Government has already previewed some of its spending decisions, such as raising defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027 and cutting the overseas aid budget. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has also vowed to reverse the Labour Party's cuts to universal winter fuel payments, but has yet to set out the details on what this will look like.
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Millions of pensions at risk from savings raid
The pensions of nine million savers are at risk from reforms allowing companies to raid their retirement schemes, the Government's impact assessment has admitted. Proposed changes to final salary pension schemes could mean that more of them run out of money, civil servants warned, leaving them unable to fulfil their financial obligations to members. The comments were seized on by critics of the proposed change, which would allow companies that manage these so-called defined benefit pension schemes to take out 'surplus' money as profit or for reinvestment. But supporters of the move downplayed the risks, saying that pension trustees would typically be given a say on any money handed back. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, and Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary, are championing the reforms, which are contained in the Pension Schemes Bill. Any money paid out as profit would be subject to tax for the Treasury as it struggles to balance the books. The impact assessment for the proposed changes, written by civil servants at Department for Work and Pensions, said: 'If schemes choose to modify their rules to enable surplus extraction, this adds an indirect cost to members in terms of the increased likelihood of members not receiving their pension benefits in full. 'A scheme surplus can act as a financial cushion for members, to absorb unexpected costs or investment losses for the scheme. Without this cushion, the scheme may be more likely to struggle to meet its obligations to members, especially in times of financial stress or economic shocks.' Defined benefit pension schemes guarantee members a set portion of their final or career average salary after retirement. They are funded by money paid in while members are working. Schemes are in surplus if they are judged to have more money than they need to meet all promised payments to members. Lower interest rates after the financial crisis plunged many schemes into deficit by wrecking their expected investment returns, forcing the companies that sponsor them to make up the gap by pumping in billions of pounds extra. Now interest rates have risen again, schemes have mostly returned to surplus – and companies are seeking to extract some money that they say funds no longer need. The Bill creates new rules allowing employers to remove this cash. But critics are concerned about the risks if another economic crisis sends rates plunging again. This possibility was acknowledged in the 400-page impact assessment, although it added: 'Overall, it is assumed this increased likelihood of members not receiving their benefits in full to be very low given the important role trustees will play in overseeing any decision. The Pension Security Alliance (PSA), which includes Silver Voices, the independent senior citizens group, and John Ralfe, a pensions consultant, raised concerns about the assessment. The PSA said: 'The Government's own analysis proves that the Government's plans pose a risk to the retirement incomes of millions of members of defined benefit pension schemes. It's shocking to learn that civil servants have told ministers that if these plans go ahead, some pension schemes could struggle to meet their obligations to pay pensions. 'Pension scheme members have worked to earn their pensions and the money in pension schemes is there to provide them with a secure income in retirement. This official assessment, prepared by independent civil servants, shows that the Government's plans put those retirement incomes at risk. 'Pension schemes are not a piggy-bank that politicians can dip into or a cash-cow for employers. Pension schemes exist to benefit members and this is official confirmation that the Government's plans could actually harm members. That can't be right.' Among critics of the change are figures in the pensions insurance industry, which buys defined benefit pension schemes. The proposals do have supporters, including Steve Webb, a partner at pension consultant LCP who was pensions minister in the coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories. Mr Webb said: 'The funding of company pension schemes has been transformed in recent years. The majority of schemes now have surplus funds which can be used in a responsible way to benefit scheme members, through improved benefits, as well as the companies who have paid so much in for so long. 'The plans have plenty of safeguards, including the judgment of trustees who will be seeking to ensure that using surplus funds does not undermine the security of member benefits. This is a positive initiative which should be supported.'
