Chamber and committees

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.

To ask the Scottish Government how its recently published public sector pay policy will support public sector workers to cope with the cost of living. (S6O-03559)

The results from the equality impact assessment of last year’s public sector pay policy are clear. The assessment states that

“pay proposals”

should

“be progressive and protect lower paid staff.”

There is higher representation of women, disabled people, those from a minority ethnic group and those from the younger age group among lower earners. Will the cabinet secretary consider recommending in future pay policies specific measures such as set pay ratios and targeted benefits to support on-going work to reduce the gender pay gap and overall income inequality and therefore better support people to cope with current and future economic crises?

That is really helpful. You mentioned that a disabled person might also be a young person or an older person. That is what I interpret as intersectionality and an understanding of the multiple identities that any one person can hold. Is the way to deal with those intersectional issues and have internal referral processes—if I can use “internal” in that way—by having a very clear framework or structure, however it is designed, of collaboration and communication? Would taking that intersectional approach deal with some questions or potential problems, but would we then miss a vital need elsewhere, because we are looking at a different picture?

Good morning and thank you for joining us this morning and for what you have said so far.

You have all talked about the cluttered landscape and the difficulties that disabled people might have in finding a route to the person who can help them. There is the potential for duplication of the powers and mandate of a disability commissioner and those of other commissioners or organisations. As we try to work through that, how do you see the proposal dealing not only with the cluttered landscape but with potential duplication and overlap of mandate and action, from the point of view of disabled people?

Thanks—that is helpful. Suzi, you were nodding as Eddie was talking. What are your thoughts on this?

Thank you—that was really helpful. I will leave it there, convener.

You mentioned people working together across commissions and sharing information. Do you see any potential issue with different commissioners having different levels of authority or different levels of power? For instance, under its current mandate, the SHRC cannot take enforcement action.

As you have said, there are proposals for different commissioners. We could argue that that means that the powers that the existing commissioners have are not sufficient or that all the powers that they have are not being used effectively. What are your thoughts on potential differences of authority or mandate across different commissioners?

I would like to explore that point a bit further. You have all said that we are in the situation that we are in because disabled people have been failed by existing bodies and, probably, by every structure not delivering and not supporting them appropriately.

We have also heard your point about the need for the commissioner to have clout and teeth. If we get a disability commissioner with the clout, the teeth and the resources, how do you see that commissioner working with some of the other commissioners? You have mentioned memorandums of understanding, but given that the mandates of the SHRC and the EHRC are different, do you see there being any problem with the disability commissioner potentially having more powers than a national human rights institution, whether that is the SHRC or the EHRC? Tressa, do you have a view on that?

Thanks, Suzi. Jamie, perhaps I can ask you the same question. How do you view the potential for dealing with overlap and duplication, notwithstanding what Suzi Martin has said about the gaping holes in provision?