Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 12, 2024

Official Report 1061KB pdf

---

Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill

Before we move to the next item of business, as members will be aware, at this point in the proceedings I am required, under standing orders, to decide whether—[Interruption.].

Members, could I ask those who are leaving the chamber to do so without all this chatting? We are trying to move on to the next item of business.

To repeat, as members will be aware, at this point in the proceedings, I am required—[Interruption.]. I am trying to get on with business, Mr Dey.

I am required, under standing orders, to decide whether or not, in my view, any provisions of the bill relate to a protected subject matter—that is, whether they modify the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill, in my view, no provision relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-13571, in the name of Gillian Mackay, on the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.

I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Gillian Mackay to speak to and move the motion.

16:02  

There is only one place to start my remarks, and that is with a heartfelt thank you to every single member of this Parliament. When I took on this bill, I knew that it had the potential to be divisive—I have said that much in this chamber. I think that most of us have grown used to the idea that politics is combative and, at a time when it already seems as though all debate can easily descend into name-calling and accusation, I was fully prepared for, at best, a few rocky moments.

Some members have offered challenge, some have asked difficult questions, and a small number have told me that the bill is not necessary, but everyone has been respectful; everyone has acted in good faith; and everyone has recognised that the bill is about protecting women’s access to healthcare. Everyone has approached the debate in that spirit, even where we have disagreed.

Therefore, when I say that I am grateful to you all, that is not a platitude; it is genuine appreciation for allowing me to see, and be part of, this Parliament at its best. I offer specific thanks to Clare Haughey and the members of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. The stage 1 consideration was thoughtful, fair and always robust, and the questions and recommendations have resulted in a stronger bill, particularly around the requirements for consultation and post-legislative review.

I also thank everyone who took the time to meet me and the minister between stages or to propose amendments. As we have seen this afternoon, a number of those amendments have improved how safe access zones will be reviewed. Even where amendments were not accepted, they fostered debate and tested the rationales that underpinned the drafting of the bill. That is exactly what the parliamentary process is for, and I have valued every moment of it.

Of course, the bill did not begin in Parliament; it began with the strength of women and staff who had the courage to say that enough was enough and then to demand change. I know that that was not easy and I know that, sometimes, it must have sometimes felt as though they were fighting a losing battle. However, today, I hope that they will see those efforts pay off and know what a huge part they have played in achieving protection for women and staff for years to come.

That protection will have a seismic impact on women and staff, and we should never downplay the difference that it will make to individuals or the significance of telling women all across the country that their privacy and dignity are not open to public debate at the point at which they are receiving care.

However, once again, I want to provide reassurance to those who oppose the bill. If passed today, the bill will create zones of 200m around 30 sites in the whole of Scotland. Within those zones, it is true that those who oppose abortion will not be able to target women or staff as they access or provide services. They will not be able to behave in ways that try to influence decisions, impede access or cause alarm, harassment or distress. However, in every other part of the country, the right to demonstrate opposition to abortion will be unchanged.

No democracy can survive where opposing views are silenced or where people are denied the freedom to speak or express ideas. I know that there are those who sincerely believe that the bill threatens those rights. I can say only that I am confident that it does not, that the Scottish Human Rights Commission considers that it does not and that Parliaments across the UK and Ireland have reached the same conclusions in the process of passing their own safe access zone legislation. I do not expect to convince those who still have doubts this afternoon, but I am certain that time will do what I cannot.

At stage 1, I read out testimony from women and staff who had encountered the kinds of behaviour that the bill aims to prevent. Let me add to that Lily Roberts’s testimony to the committee:

“If buffer zones had been in place when I had my experience, they would have made me feel really safe. I do not think that it is too much to ask for safety when you are accessing healthcare.”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 27 February 2024; c17]

This afternoon, that is exactly what this chamber can deliver, so I urge everyone to listen to that testimony and join me in voting for the bill at stage 3.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Thank you, Ms Mackay. I call the minister, Jenni Minto. You have around five minutes.

16:07  

I, too, would like to reflect on what our Parliament has achieved here even before we take the final vote on the bill. We have shown beyond doubt that our Parliament can come together in service of what is right and that our differences, rather than being an obstacle to progress, can improve debate and legislation and bring light rather than heat. That is a profound achievement, given that it has happened over an issue that has the potential to drive us further into entrenched and divided camps, and I offer my sincerest thanks for the politeness, respect and sensitivity that have been shown as the bill has passed through our Parliament. It has been a privilege to participate in this process. If we vote in favour of the bill today, I believe that we should celebrate not only its passing but the manner in which we have reached this point.

The bill is a vital step in ensuring the safety, dignity and privacy of individuals who are seeking abortion services and of the dedicated healthcare professionals who provide those services. The bill is incredibly significant. As Gillian Mackay has noted, the protections are narrowly and carefully drawn; they cover only those places where opposition to abortion focuses directly on women who are taking deeply personal and medical decisions—decisions that can be painful and unwelcome and that should not be subject to public debate, unjustified scrutiny or unsolicited judgment.

Even if the bill passes, the rest of Scotland will remain open for political debate or lobbying around abortion. Within the law, people will be free to protest anywhere else that they choose. Indeed, they will be able to express lawful opposition to abortion in any form that they see fit, and freedom of religion, expression and assembly will remain cornerstones of our democracy. However, in 30 specific zones, the bill will mean that those rights cannot come at the expense of a woman’s right to safety and privacy, which I think is a reasonable compromise.

However, the bill will not simply be passed and forgotten about. It is always an important ministerial duty to ensure that legislation remains fit for purpose, and, thanks to this Parliament’s intervention, the bill has clear review requirements. I give you my assurance that those reviews will be meaningful and I repeat my commitment that, if the bill is passed today, we will begin the work of setting out how that will be achieved without delay. I will go further by committing to the process being open, transparent and inclusive, which will be a reflection of the collaborative and respectful process that has brought the bill into being.

I thank the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for its diligent work, under the convenership of Clare Haughey, in considering the bill. I know that the complexity and strength of feeling meant that it was not always an easy task for those members, but they set the tone for what followed through their open and honest consideration. For that, along with the committee’s constructive recommendations and insights, I am enormously grateful.

I also thank members across the chamber who have engaged with Ms Mackay and me. Everyone approached the discussions with a clear wish to improve the bill.

Gillian Mackay has championed the issue with grace and compassion, never losing sight of the women and healthcare staff who need the bill’s protection while always respecting the concerns and viewpoints of those who oppose it.

My final thanks go to the women and staff who took a chance and shared their stories, even when doing so was difficult and the outcome was uncertain.

When I opened the stage 1 debate, I quoted Edwin Morgan’s poem “Open the Doors”. It therefore seems fitting that I do so again:

“don’t let your work and hope be
other than great”.

Those who told their stories certainly did not fail in that regard. Soon, we will have an opportunity to requite them. I am sure that we will take it and vote for the bill.

16:11  

I echo the comments made by Gillian Mackay and the minister about the tone of the debate, and I thank everyone who has been involved in the bill at all its stages.

As I have said in the chamber previously, this debate is not about abortion. Members will, rightly, have views on abortion, and all views are valid, but those views are not for today. Today’s debate is about women and their right to access healthcare safely, which is why the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at stage 3. Women should not feel threatened or intimidated, especially when they are going through one of the most difficult and traumatising times in their lives.

The bill that Gillian Mackay has brought to the chamber puts in place measures should groups congregate outside premises where abortions can take place. We have been in the unfortunate situation in which women have felt unsafe and have even missed healthcare appointments because graphic placards have been placed outside clinics by some groups. People have tried to directly influence women’s decision making, women have been harassed or have felt judged for making a decision that they felt was necessary, and some groups have tried to prevent patients and staff from gaining access to such premises.

It has long been my personal view that no one should deliberately influence a woman when it comes to their right to have an abortion; it is unacceptable for anyone to think that they know better than the person who has made a decision about their body.

However, as has been highlighted through the amendments that we have just debated, all options should be made available for women, and they should not be restricted by legislation should they wish to seek support from various different places. We need buffer zones so that there is a clear marker for women to know what measures are in place to support them.

I hope that the minister and Gillian Mackay recognise the intended sincerity with which I lodged my amendments on signage and recording. I want to ensure that the bill works and that women are protected when accessing clinics, and I know that they do, too.

That does not mean that the bill is perfect. Through discussions with the minister and Gillian Mackay, I know that we will need to review the bill in order to measure whether it has been successful and ensure that the right information is being collated. I was pleased that the Parliament accepted amendments that were lodged by my colleagues Rachael Hamilton and Tess White on that issue.

We also need to consider arguments relating to freedom of speech and expression. Although such arguments were well rehearsed at stage 2, some people argue that silent prayer does not come under intimidation or harassment, and the bill has not resolved that issue. However, I appreciate the approaches that were outlined by the minister and Gillian Mackay regarding police involvement and the engagement exercises that will be undertaken as a result of the bill’s passage today.

One of the amendments that I lodged at stage 2 related to potential legal challenges, and it is my understanding that the bill could be challenged as a result of today’s vote. I am sure that that is not unexpected, but it reaffirms the importance of scrutiny at all times to ensure that the legislation holds up. As a Parliament, we have a duty to create good law.

I hope that the bill has plain sailing and that we are able to ensure that women can access healthcare safely. We owe it to the brave women and healthcare staff who have put themselves forward to give evidence and to share their experiences, as the bill would not have been possible without them and campaigns such as Back Off Scotland. I thank them for challenging MSPs right across the chamber to ensure that access to healthcare is safer for women.

16:15  

I thank everyone who has worked together to get the legislation to stage 3. As previous speakers have mentioned, the process has been respectful, for which I am really thankful. I thank the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and members right across the chamber who have worked so closely together. It is also really important that I also thank all the people who gave evidence to the committee at stage 2.

I thank Gillian Mackay for working so closely with campaigners in order to bring to our Parliament something that we could move forward as legislation. As we have all said, Gillian Mackay has worked closely across party lines, which I hope will allow us to achieve the passing of the bill.

I thank Clare Haughey, who is the convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, for the stage 2 debate, which I believe was one of the best that I have been involved in during my time on the committee, as members showed a real willingness to express views and to work together to achieve an outcome that would allow the legislation to work in the interests of women who are seeking healthcare. It was clear that everyone took the matter very seriously.

Personally, I have been supportive of the introduction of safe access zones to protect women who are accessing abortion services. It has long been the view of my party that Scotland should pass the bill to ensure safe access to healthcare for women. It is right that we take all necessary steps to protect women who are accessing abortion services. I believe that the introduction of safe access zones will achieve that.

The truth is that access to abortion clinics is access to healthcare. If the bill is passed today, it will allow us to talk about that openly and to ensure that women who are facing intimidation do not have to do so. We can all understand that visiting a healthcare setting can be worrying and stressful for a variety of reasons, but we heard evidence during the committee stages that women who are accessing sexual health services—specifically, abortion services—can go through an extremely challenging and emotionally traumatic time. Women need to have safe access to the services and the advice that they require: I believe that the legislation will work to achieve that.

It is fair to say that the evidence that was given to the committee was honest and of good quality. I found it to be extremely helpful to hear people’s views, whether they were for or against safe access zones. That is an important point in relation to the feeling that has been mentioned in the stage 3 debate that it could be difficult to discuss such things. Professional guidance and the lived experience of people who have accessed services and of people who have been outside clinics gave me much to think about and will add to our work on getting the balance of the legislation correct.

There is so much to cover around the legislation in the short time that I have, but I want to mention that Scottish Labour supports the views on proportionality and legitimate aims. It has long been Scottish Labour’s view that any restriction of human rights that a bill introduces must be kept to an absolute minimum, and we are content that the bill achieves that—I mentioned that point in the stage 1 debate, but it is worth noting again.

In the very short time that I have left, I want to say that the stage 3 debate was helpful and that we are particularly keen to pick up on post-legislative scrutiny of the bill. I agree that robust post-legislative scrutiny will be important to understand how the legislation is working for the women who require access.

16:19  

Presiding Officer, I quote:

“I was a victim of sexual assault and had to book an appointment with Chalmers. Already blaming myself, and terrified to tell anyone, I was 17, and completely by myself. A small group of individuals, mostly male, were standing on the other side of the road. I was repeatedly called out to by one of the men, and when I glared at him and ignored him, he called me a ‘teenage murderer’. I have never been pregnant, I have never had an abortion, and I’ve never even used a contraceptive medication—but they tried to publicly humiliate me for it. I felt threatened and terrified, in a time when I needed protection and comfort.”

“Protection and comfort”—they are precisely what the bill seeks to provide. As lawmakers, giving our citizens protection and comfort should be among our key priorities. I am therefore pleased, Presiding Officer, to open on behalf of the Scottish Greens this afternoon. I am delighted that we will pass the bill and give people such as the young woman whose words I have just quoted the protection and comfort that they need.

The legislation that we debate today is the culmination of years of campaigning by women, healthcare professionals and other activists. We owe them all a huge debt of gratitude.

The bill is about access to healthcare. At a time when, globally, we are seeing worrying regressions in women’s ability to access the care that they need, we should be firm in our resolution to progress the right of people to access healthcare. As the United Kingdom Supreme Court highlighted when assessing the balance of rights in the relevant Northern Ireland legislation, abortion is legal as a result of democratic decision making. Opponents to it must therefore not be given free and unfettered ability to harass individuals who go about accessing their legal rights, including those that are enshrined in article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Similarly, medical professionals carrying out legal duties should not be prevented from doing so.

Protest against legislation, including laws relating to abortion, is legitimate and must be protected. Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the ECHR make that clear. However, such protests need not—indeed, must not—take place outside healthcare settings. The bill is therefore proportionate and, according to the UK Supreme Court, it does not unfairly restrict rights to freedom of religion or belief, expression and assembly.

I will quote Dr Audrey Brown, who is the chair of the Scottish abortion care providers network, who said:

“the decision to have an abortion is a private one, between the pregnant person and the staff providing care”.

Dr Brown is clear that the presence of anti-choice activists at clinic and hospital entrances causes emotional harassment for those who are seeking abortion care and for the staff. Their offensive language and distressing images upset not only those who are accessing care but individuals who have experienced pregnancy loss. Such protests can further traumatise women who are making difficult decisions, often in traumatic circumstances such as rape or medical issues. Although abortion providers respect the right to protest, they, too, oppose harassment and intimidation at clinical sites.

In closing, I congratulate my colleague Gillian Mackay and thank her for her tireless work on the bill and for being such a powerful advocate for the right to access healthcare free from intimidation and harassment, and for the rights of workers to get to and from work without intimidation or harassment.

I also thank the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for its diligent work and, of course, I thank all the campaigners and activists who have been calling for these protections and have been supporting women and healthcare staff who have had to run a gauntlet of anti-choice protesters for too long.

I also pay special tribute to Clare Bailey, our former Northern Ireland Green colleague, who secured the UK’s first legislation on safe access zones. In true feminist style, we are all being lifted up in Scotland by the work of our sisters elsewhere.

16:24  

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats in today’s debate. My party will support the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill this afternoon and will be pleased to see it passed.

I voice my thanks to Gillian Mackay, Back Off Scotland and everyone who has worked so hard to get us here today.

There has been emotive and, at times, robust discussion during the bill’s progress through Parliament. The fact is that too many women who have sought to access abortion services in Scotland have been forced to cross a picket line to access medical treatment. Healthcare staff working in treatment centres are exposed to those protests every working day. Scottish Liberal Democrats are clear that no one should have to cross a picket line to access medical treatment and that no health staff should be targeted for doing their jobs. Liberal Democrats passionately believe in the importance of civil liberties. Freedom of speech, religious freedoms and the right to protest are paramount, but that has never meant that anything goes.

In passing the bill today, we are ensuring that anyone accessing medical care can do so without fear of harassment. We are safeguarding the right to medical privacy. People who oppose abortion and want to make their voices heard are free to do so anywhere that is not at the doors of a clinic. People who picket clinics are not protesting in the usual sense—they are not advocating for a change in the law. They are pressuring individuals and attempting to change their minds on the most intimate of matters at the time when they are most vulnerable.

The decision on whether to have an abortion should be conducted in a safe and confidential environment with the help of trained professionals who are qualified to offer the appropriate advice and support. Most Scots agree: a recent poll showed that 82 per cent of Scots think that protesters should be kept a minimum distance away from people who are attending healthcare facilities. I am pleased that there is broad consensus in support of that measure.

Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that introducing buffer zones around clinics is a reasonable and proportionate step to take to protect safe access to abortion services in Scotland, and we are pleased to support the bill at stage 3.

We move to the open debate.

16:26  

I, too, place on the record my deep appreciation for Gillian Mackay’s tireless work in getting her important bill to this stage. Its significance is monumental. I thank her team and the committee, and I thank Back Off Scotland for the pressure that was brought to bear by its resolute activities, the brave women and staff and the Humanist Society Scotland, which has ensured that women’s rights to access healthcare have been vocally championed. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a member of the Humanist Society.

Abortion care is healthcare, and women must have the right to access such care without fear of, and with freedom from, intimidation, harassment or public judgment. That core belief of mine was formed when, as a 15-year-old in Quebec, I watched as a fellow female citizen named Chantale Daigle was blocked from abortion care by her ex-partner when he sought and was granted an injunction. I protested in the streets of Montreal as she took her case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, ultimately winning and securing women’s rights across the country.

With the reversal of the landmark Roe v Wade judgment in the United States and with women’s rights increasingly being impacted globally, we must resist anything that interferes with us exercising our hard-fought-for rights. We must be able to exercise our bodily autonomy without anyone else seeking to persuade us or influence us as we approach a facility for care or, indeed, after we leave. No service user, nor the providers of such care, should have to run a gauntlet of protesters as they access an abortion care facility.

Everyone has the right to agree or disagree with abortion but, fundamentally, that is not the issue that we are dealing with here. The bill is about the right and ability of women to access that type of healthcare free from the fear of being publicly shamed or judged, as women have been for millennia.

I am fully aware that the bill also has at its heart the balancing of rights under the European convention on human rights, specifically the rights and freedoms of religion or belief, expression and assembly, and the right to respect for family and private life.

As has been said, it is important that we look to the recent unanimous decision by the UK Supreme Court, which ruled that the safe access zone legislation that was passed in Northern Ireland is fully compatible with protesters’ convention rights. In a very detailed legal analysis, the judgment examined the well-versed argument that convention rights are sacrosanct and the much-touted unlimited free speech argument. Rights are often misrepresented in that way, but it has always been the case that convention rights can be legally restricted in a proportionate way in certain contexts to achieve a legitimate aim.

As was underlined by the Supreme Court, abortion is legal as a result of democratic decision making, and opponents of such legal healthcare cannot be given unfettered access or an ability to harass or intimidate individuals or healthcare providers who are going about their daily life or work. Indeed, there is no legitimate reason for protesters to take their protest to outside abortion clinics. To do so represents an attempt to undermine the rights of individuals to whom the Parliament has given legal rights to abortion care, and to create a climate of fear to dissuade them from accessing necessary healthcare.

Much was said at stage 2 about silent prayer and policing of thoughts. The bill in no way seeks to criminalise prayer or thoughts; it seeks to curtail activities that go beyond unobtrusive silent prayer or indeed legitimate chaplaincy services. For much of history, women have been subjected to having people standing in judgment of them, silently or otherwise. We cannot ignore the profound impact of walking past those who choose to stand in judgment. As the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee heard in evidence,

“One person’s idea of engaging in silent prayer can look very different to the person on the other side who is alone and accessing healthcare.”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 27 February 2024; c 18.]

We must bring it firmly back to intent: what are the intentions of those who are gathered?

It is my hope that today, across the chamber, we can all support Gillian Mackay’s Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill. I have been heartened by the collective working that has been demonstrated thus far, both at the committee stages and today. The bill is not an attempt to restrict freedom of expression or religion but aims to safeguard public health and to protect the right of women to access healthcare without obstruction. Women deserve no less.

16:31  

This is a complex topic with varied and sometimes polarising points of view. As we have heard today, however, the bill is not about abortion; it is about women being able to access the healthcare that they need at what can be a vulnerable, isolating and difficult time. Like other members of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, I thank the convener, clerks, witnesses and all those who submitted evidence during the passage of the bill. The Parliament has handled the issue with both sensitivity and security in mind, and I thank everyone who has been involved in this undertaking.

The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill has achieved cross-party consensus, and I am pleased to support it at stage 3 today. As the Law Society of Scotland emphasises, any restriction on articles 8, 9, 10 or 11 of the European convention on human rights is a “careful balancing exercise”. I am a staunch defender of free speech, but I recognise that that must not come at the expense of women’s health or our right to access medical services free of prejudice. Women have a right to access reproductive healthcare unimpeded by protests. They also have a right to privacy, especially when it comes to their own health.

I was struck by a story that was shared by Back Off Scotland at the start of the bill’s parliamentary passage, which was about a pregnant mum. She received the devastating diagnosis at her 20-week scan that her baby had something seriously wrong with her heart. She said:

“I had to make the decision whether to finish the pregnancy and allow her to die, or to terminate.”

She added that the protesters made her

“feel like a monster for making the decision”

to have an abortion, and that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder—PTSD. She continued:

“Terminations are a much-needed service for many reasons, and no-one should be made to feel like a monster for using the service.”

Her experience is a sobering reminder of why we are here today. We know that at least 12 hospitals and clinics have been targeted across Scotland since 2017, including Aberdeen maternity hospital in my region. It is clear that the existing legislative framework has not prevented such protests. Scotland is the only part of the UK not to have safe access zone legislation in place, with Westminster legislating last year and Stormont back in 2021.

Against that background, it is right that we legislate on the issue and it was right, too, that we strengthened the bill as much as possible so that it will protect women not just when it is enacted but in the years to come. That is why, with my amendments at stages 2 and 3, I focused on post-legislative scrutiny, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government was receptive to those changes. The test will now be in how the bill’s provisions are enforced and in the impact that they will have on women accessing abortion services and on the staff who support them. We will be watching.

We move to closing speeches.

16:35  

The Scottish Green Party is incredibly proud of our friend and colleague Gillian Mackay. Gillian said in her opening speech that the bill and the debate could have been divisive but they have not been. There has been disagreement both inside and outside Parliament, but that disagreement has been respectful. This has been an example of Parliament at its best—something that was not guaranteed, particularly given the overlap with an election campaign towards the end of the process.

We have been tackling a very real issue facing those whom we represent and we have been balancing competing rights, which is one of the hardest tasks that members of this Parliament have. I think that Parliament has managed to do that and has done it well. That is to the credit of the whole Parliament, but it is particularly to the credit of Gillian Mackay for setting the tone and reaching out to MSPs and those on both sides of the debate outside this place, across Scotland. As Gillian said, democracy does not survive when opposing voices are silenced. The debate made space for all perspectives, but it did not need to. Let us be honest—the numbers are so overwhelmingly on one side.

Beatrice Wishart pointed out that those who oppose abortion will still have the right to protest. Like so many other rights when they come into conflict with others, that right will now be appropriately caveated by the simple requirement to protest a reasonable distance away from abortion service providers, so that those who are seeking to access those providers, exercising their right to healthcare and their right to do so in privacy, are able to do that.

The bill is not about abortion itself, as Meghan Gallacher said, but the debate has made clear the overwhelming strength of feeling behind the right to abortion and the right to women’s bodily autonomy. There is no going back. Elena Whitham’s comments on her experience of protesting in Montreal made clear that this struggle has been—as it continues to be—a global one. Almost six decades on from the Abortion Act 1967 in Great Britain, abortion is still politicised like almost no other area of healthcare. Access to healthcare is a fundamental right. However, we know—and it has been made very clear by the evidence gathered in this process—that the right of women to access reproductive healthcare is being compromised in Scotland right now by anti-abortion protests.

Anyone is free to hold to an anti-abortion or pro-life point of view, but their right to do so does not trump a woman’s right to access healthcare. As I said, this is a question of balancing rights. We are ultimately placing a small restriction on the right to protest and religious expression to allow others to fully exercise their right to healthcare—and I sincerely believe that it is a small restriction. This is not a ban on protest; it is simply about proximity.

I feel privileged to have taken part in the stage 1 and stage 2 proceedings. Members will be glad to know that I am not about to repeat my theology lesson from stage 1, but I was glad to speak then and I am glad to speak today and to vote for the bill because of my faith, not in spite of it. I very much agree with Carol Mochan’s comments about the stage 2 proceedings. They were a first-class example of effective committee scrutiny and consideration, and they resulted in a strengthened bill.

There is no doubt about the result of today’s vote. The Scottish Greens are, as I said, so proud of what Gillian Mackay has achieved today for women in Scotland. This is a good day for our Parliament, it is a good day for Scotland and it is a good day for the women who will now have the protection that they deserve when they are accessing their right to healthcare. The Scottish Greens will, of course, vote for the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill.

16:39  

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour, following on from my colleague Carol Mochan’s contribution to the opening speeches. Members across the chamber have made some really important and thoughtful contributions this afternoon. I am pleased that we have been able to debate the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill with respect for different views and different perspectives. I am glad that that approach has characterised the entire scrutiny of the bill as it has made its journey through Parliament. I hope that even those who do not support the bill feel that their views have been heard and respected.

I join others in thanking Gillian Mackay and her team for their hard work in progressing the bill to stage 3 and I pay tribute to the courageous and tenacious young women behind Back Off Scotland, whom others have recognised today. We know that grass-roots campaigning makes the difference and has helped to bring this important issue all the way to the Scottish Parliament. There are so many people to thank that I will not name names, because time is short, but people know who they are.

Like other colleagues, I am grateful to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for all its hard work throughout stages 1 and 2, and to all those who gave evidence. Carole Mochan paid tribute to the quality of that evidence. As Tess White said, complex issues had to be examined, but that happened in the calm and collaborative fashion that we have heard in the way in which amendments have been disposed of today. That is an example that the Parliament should look to in the future, as we continue to deal with challenging and complex issues.

I have always believed, and Scottish Labour has always recognised, that the bill is necessary because, in recent years, we have seen an escalation in the number of protests and activities that have taken place at clinics where healthcare is provided, including abortion healthcare. In my stage 1 speech, I mentioned the fact that we have seen such protests happening for the first time at university hospital Wishaw, and Tess White mentioned Aberdeen maternity hospital. Colleagues will know about situations in their own regions or where constituents have had to travel and what that experience has been. As we have heard, that can cause trauma on the day, but trauma that can last well into the future. There is the impact on healthcare workers, too, and I am glad that colleagues have recognised that.

As colleagues have said, we all respect the right to religious freedom and the right for people to express their views in different ways, but those are qualified rights and they should never be a mask for harassment or intimidation. As Beatrice Wishart said a few moments ago, the bill is about safeguarding the right to medical privacy. It is evident that we have to do something, and that is why the bill has got to this stage.

When the bill—I hope—passes tonight, my hope is that people will feel reassured that scrutiny of the legislation will not end today and that there are opportunities for on-going scrutiny. I hope that the legislation will be implemented in a proportionate way, and that common sense will be used when decisions have to be made. As we have heard from colleagues, including Elena Whitham, we know that there are forces at work that want to push back on women’s hard-fought-for rights, including our rights to bodily autonomy, and we have to take care on that.

I hope that people recognise that the evidence has been looked at in a very careful manner and that even those who do not support the bill recognise that all views have been respected and heard. All points of view are valid, but the legislation really is necessary.

16:43  

I refer members to my declaration in the register of members’ interests that I am a practising national health service general practitioner.

This afternoon, we are focused on a fundamental right. It is imperative that we create a respectful and secure environment for any woman seeking any medical care. By supporting safe access zones, we uphold the fundamental rights and dignity of all women in our community, but we must also be cautious of unintended consequences, such as limiting free speech. There is no place in Scotland for the thought police. By supporting safe access zones, we seek to balance safety with the preservation of fundamental rights and dignity for all. The Scottish Conservatives will be supporting the bill.

I have been happy to see true cross-party working on the bill, and I thank Gillian Mackay for bringing it to Parliament.

I would have liked Jeremy Balfour’s reasonable amendment to allow NHS workers in the chaplaincy service to go about their work without falling foul of the bill to have been agreed to. Having worked in hospitals, I know at first hand of the vital work that the chaplaincy service provides for people of all faiths. I do not want to create any potential no-go areas on the NHS estate for our chaplaincy services, but I understand the exception in the bill, and the reassurance that the minister has given that recklessness is a very high bar.

Meghan Gallacher was right when she said that the bill would not have been possible without the brave women who came forward to speak about their experiences. Like Carol Mochan, I agree that the quality of evidence that was provided by our witnesses at the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee was very high, which allowed for effective scrutiny of the bill.

Reproductive health sectors provide essential legal medical services, and it is imperative that no woman feels stigmatised or discouraged from accessing the services. Making the decision to have an abortion is often one of the most challenging choices that a woman faces, and it is crucial that we support her right to make that decision without added stress or intimidation. We in the Scottish Conservatives uphold the rights to protest and free speech, yet we firmly believe that—as Tess White said—those rights must not come at the expense of women’s health. Women must be able to exercise their right to access medical services free of prejudice.

Balancing those competing rights is no small task, and it is one that we must undertake with care and dedication. The Law Society of Scotland has highlighted key considerations that should guide the implementation of safe access zones, which include ensuring that any new legislation aligns with established human rights principles. As MSPs, one of our key functions is to make laws. We must ensure that we make laws that are not only just and equitable, but forward thinking and adaptable to meet the changes and challenges of our time.

16:46  

As I set out in my opening remarks, it has been a privilege to support the bill. It is unacceptable that anyone who is using or providing abortion services should do so with the fear of intimidation, judgment or unwanted influence. In a few moments, I hope that we will be enshrining that principle in law, providing the protection and comfort that Maggie Chapman spoke about.

I have worked with a dedicated team of officials who have supported me throughout the process. When I was appointed as Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, the Government’s groundwork for Gillian Mackay’s bill had previously been led by Nicola Sturgeon, Humza Yousaf and Maree Todd, to all of whom I give my heartfelt thanks.

I had much to learn, but thanks to my officials’ calm and considered approach, I was able to ask questions and get into the fine detail of the legislation, so I thank them. I again thank Gillian Mackay, who has been resolute in her efforts to ensure that the bill is the best that it can be. Her connections across the chamber and outwith it have ensured that everyone’s voice has been heard in a respectful manner. I hope that every single one of us will take a leaf out of Ms Mackay’s book as to how to listen, collaborate and legislate.

Will the minister take an intervention?

Sorry, Ms White—I will not.

I will start that bit again, because it is incredibly important.

I again thank Gillian Mackay, who has been resolute in her efforts to ensure that the bill is the best that it can be. Her connections across the chamber and outwith it have ensured that everyone’s voice has been heard in a respectful manner. I hope that every single one of us will take a leaf out of Ms Mackay’s book as to how to listen, collaborate and legislate. Her manner is exemplary.

I thank colleagues, too, for the tone of the debate and—as I noted in my opening remarks—the thoughtful way in which members have discussed their concerns regarding the bill with me and Ms Mackay. I will single out a few of the points that have been made, although by no means all of them, given the brief time that I have.

Meghan Gallacher was correct to say that we need legislation that works, and I absolutely agree with Carol Mochan on the stage 2 debate, which was open, honest and very helpful. I hope that the post-legislative scrutiny is treated in the same manner.

I agree with a lot of what Beatrice Wishart said with regard to 82 per cent of Scots agreeing that women should be able to access healthcare safely.

I thank Elena Whitham for her historical and international perspectives and for always bringing it back to intent.

Tess White talked about sensitivity and security for women, and that is at the heart of the bill. She is right to ensure that we strengthen and scrutinise the legislation and I thank her for the amendments that she lodged.

Ross Greer is correct that Parliament has been at its best, and I wish that he had made his point—about the bill creating a ban not on protest but on proximity—earlier in the process, because he is absolutely right about that.

I agree with Monica Lennon’s comments about the courageous and tenacious campaigning of grass-roots organisations and healthcare staff that got us to where we are today.

Sandesh Gulhane talked about balance, and I believe that the legislation has achieved that.

I am pleased that it has been recognised during the debate that the bill is an attempt not to restrict freedom of expression but to safeguard public health and protect the right of women to access healthcare without obstruction. Although it is a small bill, its reach cannot be overestimated, and that is best summed up by Lucy Grieve, who gave evidence on the bill. Lucy was clear that

“the legislation will not only protect abortion patients, but those who have been harassed and intimidated when accessing miscarriage management or for sexual assault support, as well as partners of those accessing care.”

I urge every member to join me in bringing that reality a step closer.

I call Gillian Mackay to wind up the debate.

16:51  

I am conscious that I have spoken many times today, and members will be relieved that this will be the final time. By this point, there is little to be said that has not already been said, but I make no apologies for repeating myself.

I am grateful that we finished stage 3 today as we started stage 1—with respect, candour and the best interests of those using services front and centre.

It cannot be said too often that women’s access to healthcare is not up for debate. Women who seek to access a very personal form of healthcare should not be judged or condemned by strangers. The people—most of whom are female—who provide those services to women should not go to work expecting or fearing that they will be confronted or called names.

I introduced the bill because women and staff deserve abortion services that are provided with the same privacy and respect as any other piece of medical care.

I note that the bill has been explicitly drafted so that activities that support abortion could amount to an offence in exactly the same way as activities that oppose abortion. That underlines the central point that medical services should not be a battleground. Away from the places that provide abortion services, people can continue to debate the topic of abortion. Within 200m of premises that provide abortion services, women and staff will be protected. As I said at the beginning of the debate, the protections are limited, but the benefits are huge.

I hope that, while abortion rights in some parts of the world are going backwards, Scotland can be seen as cause for hope.

I want to use most of my time to thank those who made the bill a reality. As Maggie Chapman did, I thank Clare Bailey for blazing a trail for us all to follow.

I also thank all the organisations that have been involved in and championed the bill from the start.

It cannot be overstated how instrumental Back Off Scotland and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service have been in getting the bill to where it is.

Other supporters include the Royal College of Nursing, the Scottish Trades Union Congress women’s committee, the Humanist Society Scotland, the royal colleges, the British Medical Association, Abortion Rights Scotland, Engender and the University and College Union.

Clinical staff and their unions not only spoke up about the impact of activity outside their services but took time to answer questions about clinical care, access routes and service locations to inform our understanding. Their time, effort and obvious passion for helping women, whatever their circumstances, has been hugely appreciated.

To colleagues from all parties across the chamber who provided encouragement and support from the outset, I have been more grateful than they know.

I thank my wonderful Green colleagues for their support, for substituting for me at committee and the Parliamentary Bureau when I needed to do other things and, in general, for being the cheerleaders that they are.

I give a huge thank you to the current and former ministers for women’s health. Not only have they been an incredible support to the bill, they have been wonderful friends and have encouraged me and shared their experience. I absolutely have a new-found respect for ministers as a result of this process.

To all the First Ministers in this parliamentary session who have given their support and the support of the Government to the bill, I give a huge thank you. Their support and expertise have been invaluable to the progress of the bill.

That leads me nicely to one of the biggest thank yous. Bills are never by any means a solo effort. MSPs are just the ones who are privileged enough to be allowed to guide them through. The real heroes are the officials and the staff teams who help to make them a reality. The abortion policy team has been incredible. Team members have taken me under their wing and delivered above and beyond on everything that we have asked for. The team answered all the daft questions that I had and poured its all into the bill.

My office team and the wider Green group staff, both past and present, have been second to none. They are our squad of cheerleaders, my fairest critics and the ones who make sure that everything else gets done. I thank them for all their work. For their efforts, too, I thank all the staff teams of parties across the chamber who have moved meetings and supported their MSPs.

My second-to-last thank you has to go to my family, who have put up with listening to me talk about the bill endlessly for the past two and a half years and who have always had my back.

The biggest thank you has to go to those who came forward to share their experiences outside abortion clinics, even when it meant reliving incredibly difficult and painful experiences. I hope that they all know that the bill exists because of them. Maya Angelou said:

“Each time a woman stands up for herself ... she stands up for all women.”

That is exactly what each one of them did by speaking out.

I urge members to honour that and to stand up for women by voting yes to the bill at stage 3. [Applause.]

That concludes the debate on the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.