Safe Access Zones and Protected Public Spaces

Dr Michelle Haywood was granted Leave to Introduce her Private Members Bill on 13th June 2023 in the House of Keys. This is the speech that was given to the House...

Honourable members, I would like to request that leave be given to allow me to introduce a Private Member’s Bill to designate public protection zones within the vicinity of specified medical services, social care services or medical or scientific research facilities, and to further create the ability for Tynwald to approve Public Space Protection Orders.

This proposed legislation would establish access zones similar to those outlined in the Abortion Reform Act of 2019. To remind honourable members, that Act created the powers to designate zones around premises connected with abortion and abortion related services with Tynwald approval.  In such zones persons can be prevented from pavement interference, protesting with the intent to dissuade service users or service providers from accessing or providing services, and from harassing or intimidating anyone using or providing services.  After a warning from a constable, it is illegal to video or photograph anyone within the access zone, to approach or follow anyone using services, or to repeatedly contact by any specified means a person within an access zone.  It is also possible to take an injunction against anyone conspiring, inciting, procuring or aiding and abetting access zone infringements.  The Department of Health and Social Care has powers to amend and revoke access zones as required within the Abortion Act.

Honourable members of the previous administration should be congratulated for having brought forward such a sensible piece of legislation clearly designed to support the provision of, and access to, a legally provided service.  However, shockingly and sadly, it is not only the provision of legal abortion services that attracts unwanted attention.  I am sure that honourable members are aware of a number of health and social care services, which have attracted attention designed to deter service users from accessing lawful services, sometimes targeted at school children and sometimes targeted at staff providing those services.  The level of intimidation that occurs in these situations and is clearly attempting to deter people from lawful activity is just unacceptable.

Honourable members, my proposed bill is not intended to impact on the right to protest. I want to assure you that the right to protest on the Isle of Man would not be threatened in the same way as it has been the UK by the Public Order Bill of 2023.  

The Bill that I propose is about to right to access to health, social care and scientific services without intimidation, pavement interference or low level harassment.  This Bill allows for the protection of locations where such services are delivered, whether they are permanent or temporary, so that staff and service users are able to peacefully access legally provided services without fear of being approached in the carpark, on the bus or on the pavement. 

While the UK Public Order Bill has raised concerns about potential threats to the right to protest, it is crucial to understand that the legislation we are discussing today is different in nature and purpose. This new Bill would be centred on creating access zones to protect health and social care settings and scientific research facilities from disruption or interference. It is not aimed at curbing peaceful assembly or restricting freedom of expression.

Whilst considering this legislation I have spoken with officers from the Department of Health and Social Care, the Chief Constable, and some directors of scientific businesses based on the Island.  All those conversations and my informal consultation has reinforced my belief that this legislation is needed and has support from these key stakeholders.

The Department of Health and Social Care, acknowledges the importance of being enabled to request access zones around health and social care settings. They recognize the necessity of providing safe environments for patients, clients, healthcare providers, social workers and visitors, free from unnecessary interference. The support from the Department underscores the need to ensure the well-being and privacy of those accessing vital health and social care services. In fact, it was at their suggestion that social care facilities were included in this proposal.

The Chief Constable, who plays a pivotal role in maintaining public safety, has expressed his support for this legislation. The Chief Constable recognizes the challenges faced by law enforcement in managing protests near sensitive locations. By establishing access zones, we can help mitigate potential conflicts and ensure the safety of all individuals involved, including protesters, while still upholding the broader public interest.

Moreover, scientific businesses, at the forefront of innovation and progress, have also expressed their support for the proposed legislation. These companies understand the need for secure environments to carry out their important research, which often contributes to advancements benefiting society as a whole. By protecting their operations from disruption, we foster an atmosphere conducive to scientific progress and innovation.

After I had taken advice from the Attorney General’s Chambers, they indicated that the Access Zones part of the Abortion Act was closely allied to the Public Space Protection Orders legislation in the UK.  Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) have been provided for in UK legislation since 2014 in the Public Spaces Protection Orders Bill.  PSPOs are implemented by local councils and can be put in place as long as two conditions are met, firstly that there are activities in a public place that are likely to have a detrimental effect on the quality of life in the locality, and secondly that the activities are persistent, unreasonable and the restrictions are justified.

Therefore, there is a second part to the Bill I wish to bring forward, which will provide legislation to enable PSPOs to be made in the Isle of Man.  Unlike the UK, where this power is given to local government, I propose that any such order would require Tynwald approval. 

Public Space Protection Orders are time, space and activity limited.  They are not an open season on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly or freedom to protest. They must be specific and proportionate.

There have been some problems with PSPOs in the UK. This included Salford Quays banning ‘foul and abusive language’ on the route to and from Old Trafford Stadium.  Now honourable members will know that boundaries for deciding what language is foul and abusive are context driven, and I continue to reflect on my choice of language in all settings.  However, Salford Quays justifiably came under fire for trying to legislate around something so trivial. I anticipate that this honourable House and Tynwald Court would never waste it’s time on such trivial reasons for issuing a PSPO. 

Some less than honourable authorities in the UK have used PSPOs to criminalise rough sleeping, rather than address their duties to deal with the reasons and issues for homelessness.  Again I put my faith in honourable members of this House and of Tynwald Court to never consent to such morally repugnant abuses of power.  And those are the reasons why I do not wish this power to be vested in any Government Department, but to be approved by Tynwald only, so that there are appropriate checks and balances in place.

Also included in the legislation will be a route for anyone who wishes to challenge the decision to impose a PSPO, notwithstanding that they could of course approach members of Tynwald to make their objection known before approval is given.  To date there have only been two challenges to PSPOs in the UK, in over 9 years of operation.  I anticipate that our smaller jurisdiction, with easy access to the Tynwald members who have to vote on any proposed PSPO will provide sufficient balance and protection.  In fact, although I am willing to bring forward this provision, I actually hope that there is never a need to use it.

If I am successful today in being given leave to take this forward, I would of course run a consultation (without using the Government Consultation Hub – however absurd that situation is).  I would seek to consult on the principles that service users have the right to access healthcare including vaccination, clinics, counselling and information without being accosted.  I would consult on whether those working in health, social care or scientific research have the right to go to work without being barracked and targeted. 

Members may be concerned about what effect this Bill could have on the right to protest. I must emphasize that the proposed legislation is designed to balance the rights of individuals seeking healthcare or conducting scientific research with the rights of those who wish to protest.

Access zones provide a designated space for essential medical and social case services and scientific advancements to occur without undue interference or disruption. This is particularly important in sensitive contexts where privacy, security, and safety are paramount.  Public Space Protection Orders would create similar powers in other public spaces.  If PSPOs had been in place at the time of the Abortion Bill debate, perhaps some of the distressing images displayed in public areas irrespective of the accuracy of the information or sensibilities of the public passing by could and would have been prevented.  While researching the background to my originally intended bill, I quickly began to appreciate how prudent and efficient it would be to bring legislation to support PSPOs forward at the same time.

In conclusion I wish to prioritise the well-being and privacy of individuals while striking a balance with the right to protest. I want to reassure you all that the right to protest on the Isle of Man is not threatened in the same way as it is in the UK Public Order Bill of 2023. My proposed legislation would not affect the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, but it would limit it in situations which threaten the health and well being of those using and working in health and social care services and scientific research.

I value a society where both important social causes and essential services can coexist and thrive.  There is a place to protest, and I welcome anyone who wants to stand outside of this House or Tynwald Chamber and advance their cause.  What I do not welcome is any approaches made to school children who are due to have the HPV vaccine, protests targeted at ‘at risk’ patients having Covid jabs or aimed scientists getting on with their research.  It is time to draw a line in the sand and put a stop to inappropriate harassment, and allow people to access essential services without hindrance.

Honourable members I beg to move the motion standing in my name.

Thank you.

Hon Dr Alex Allinson MHK seconded the motion. The House of Keys voted and Leave was unanimously granted.

Dr Michelle Haywood concluded Second Reading of the Bill on 17th December 2024. This is her speech that she gave to the House...

I rise today to introduce the Safe Access Zones and Protected Public Spaces Bill 2024 for its Second Reading.  The Bill before us today is the result of careful consideration of the issues raised during the debate when I was granted Leave to Introduce in 2023.  I am thankful to members for the feedback I received following consultation with them earlier this year which allowed me to make some changes to the Bill in response to their comments.  I am also grateful to yourself and Mr Hooper for you detailed consideration of the Bill and your comments and challenges have been gratefully received.

 The Safe Access Zones and Protected Public Spaces Bill is designed in two parts, both of which aim to create safe spaces but for different purposes. 

The first part of the Bill will create the powers for the Department of Health and Social Care to create safe access zones around health facilities of any description, including but not limited to clinics, research facilities and social care settings.  This part aims to, in effect, extend the access protection that was put in place as part of the Abortion Bill to apply to other health and social care settings.  This part allows for a responsive definition of the zone to be protected so that it can be tailored to the particular site and specific to the threat to the users or staff of that service.  

Mr Speaker, this part of the Bill is designed to protect patients and service users who are accessing medical, health or social care services from interference, intimidation or harassment.  When we are in need of these services, it can be quite stressful for the individual, and service users can therefore be quite vulnerable.  This part of the Bill is designed so that should anyone attempt to cause distress, seek to dissuade or to record the person trying to use the services, or the staff providing such services, it would be considered an offence. 

Safe access zones can be rapidly deployed by the Department of Health and Social Care in response to behaviours that may cause distress or interfere with service users.  However, they will be subject to Negative resolution by Tynwald, so that members can be assured they have some visibility over these orders and can ensure that the Department of Health and Social Care is using them in a responsible and measured way.

Mr Speaker, the second part of the Bill mirrors UK legislation around Public Space Protection Orders.  In the UK these can be designated by Local Authorities, but in the Isle of Man, this Bill proposes to give that power to the Department of Home Affairs. 

A protected public space can only be created for a specified purpose, to prevent activities which are detrimental to the quality of life of residents in a specified location.  Therefore, such orders must meet 2 conditions; the first being that the activity (or proposed activity) must have (or be expect to have) a detrimental effect on the quality of life in the location covered by the Order.  Secondly, the activity must be of a persistent or continuing nature (or be expected to be so) such that it justifies an Order being made. 

Mr Speaker, these Orders are not intended to curb protests, parties or target any particular group of society.  Protected Public Spaces orders would create a power to limit detriment to residents in a location caused by a specific, persistent activity.  Once again, these Orders would be subject to oversight in Tynwald.

Mr Speaker, it was clear in the earlier debate that there is some understandable nervousness about the creation of Orders that place a limit on personal freedoms.  Throughout the Bill, I have endeavoured to include a number of safeguards to ensure that should any such Orders be made that they are proportionate to the possible harms being caused and applied with due process, and importantly that Tynwald has oversight on any Orders.  The Bill includes details on how the zones or spaces will be applied, how boundaries will be set and how they will be reviewed.

Mr Speaker, since the Bill was laid for First Reading, I have been in discussion with some of my honourable colleagues.  We have identified some typographical errors that will need amendment, but there have also been some very helpful suggestions to improve the Bill, many of which I intend to support.  For this reason, I do not intend to move to Clauses straight away, but will allow time for members to get their amendments drafted.  I am grateful to Mr Hooper who will be bringing amendments to this Bill for his collaborative approach to working with me and supporting me to get this Bill right.

Mr Speaker, now that the Bill has been presented to this House, I am also launching a call for evidence which will allow for public comment.  This call for evidence is available via the link on the Tynwald website and I am grateful to the Clerk’s Office for their assistance.  The call for evidence will be open until the end of January 2024, after which the responses will be analysed and consideration will be given to any sensible amendments.  This is the second reason for delaying bringing the clauses stage straight away.

 Mr Speaker, the Safe Access Zones and Public Spaces Protection Bill 2024 represents a balanced and thoughtful approach to ensuring that our community can access vital services unhindered and to preserve our quality of life. I have listened to the concerns raised during the Leave to Introduce debate and have made revisions to ensure that the Bill is clearer, fairer, and more proportionate in its impact. I am confident that, with these revisions and with the amendments I expect to come forward, the Bill will serve to support our community.

Hon Dr Alex Allinson MHK seconded the motion. The House of Keys voted 19 for and 4 against and Second Reading was carried.