Chamber and committees

I, too, thank Gillian Mackay for bringing her motion to the chamber for debate. Women in Scotland have a fundamental right to access pregnancy healthcare services and they should have the right to access them without harassment and intimidation. The targeting and harassment of women who access abortion services, as well as of those who provide them, is unacceptable and I condemn it completely.

Opting to end a pregnancy is seldom a straightforward decision for any woman, nor is it one that is taken lightly. Many women attend their abortion appointment alone, too. It is almost unbearable to imagine how women feel when approached, harassed or intimidated by anti-choice protesters in those circumstances, but that is exactly what I ask all members to do right now—to pause and imagine exactly how that feels for women. I hope that, when members do that, they will agree that all women must be protected from having their privacy invaded at such an emotionally sensitive time.

In 2019, more than 100,000 women were targeted outside clinics across the UK, and 70 per cent of women in Scotland live in a health board area where protests have taken place. Women have reported being followed, photographed, prayed at, jeered at, lied to and generally degraded. There have been instances where women have been prevented from entering clinics, too.

It is distressing for anyone to be hounded by strangers in the street but, at such a personal and private moment, the impact of those protestors’ actions has left already vulnerable women traumatised. Yes, we have the right to protest and the right to free speech, but we do not have the right to harass, intimidate and bully other people. Those are not reasonable expressions of free speech, and there is a difference between protest and harassment, just as there is a difference between free speech and misinformation.

Although anti-choice protestors may not intend to intimidate, there is no doubt that most women attending an abortion feel intimidated when so-called vigils are taking place. That is why I support buffer zones and why I support the Scottish Government’s commitment to work with the national health service and local authorities to find ways of preventing women from feeling harassed and intimidated when they are accessing abortion services.

Since a buffer zone was declared around a clinic in Ealing in 2018 through a public spaces protection order, the situation has improved dramatically. The clinic reports that instances of harassment have virtually disappeared since the order came into force.

Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with abortion, the issue is about women being able to access their fundamental right to healthcare. Introducing buffer zones does not impede the right to free speech. Protests can still be held, just not directly outside clinics. People can still contact their MSP and share their beliefs—they have every right to do so.

Ultimately, what women really need is to feel empowered to continue their pregnancy, not pressured by strangers in the street who know nothing about their personal circumstances. Women need to know that they will be supported in the changes that they make and that their life opportunities will not be impeded by choosing to continue with their pregnancy.

As Engender Scotland said,

“Access to safe abortion healthcare is essential for the realisation of women’s economic and social human rights.”

I believe, therefore, that the establishment of buffer zones is essential. Aligned with the Scottish Government’s women’s health plan, they will create a safe place for women attending clinics. I disagree with those who say that creating buffer zones should not proceed due to the threat of legal action. Doing nothing is not an option and women deserve better.

That is great. I am a councillor on South Lanarkshire Council, so I was delighted to hear the positive comments about the collaborative work on education that the council has been doing.

What Tricia Meldrum said is interesting. There was comment about the pandemic leading to the delivery of the Christie recommendations “at scale”. What lessons can be learned from that in terms of policy approaches?

I am sure that we all agree that we want our children to have the best start in life and that the provision of 1,140 hours of free early learning and childcare has been a bit of a revolution in Scottish childcare. Previously, only 412 hours of such childcare was available, and I know as a parent of school-age kids that it would have made a huge difference to me to have had those nursery hours available.

Although the pandemic delayed things by a year, it was an incredible achievement to get that rolled out. Around 97 per cent of children get 600-plus hours and 87 per cent get the whole 1,140 hours. The Scottish Government has committed to providing wraparound childcare for before and after school and to expanding early years education for all two-year-olds. How should the evaluation of the expansion to 1,140 hours inform future policy making in the area?

Thank you very much for all the answers that we have had so far. It has been really interesting to hear the comments about data, the sharing of good practice and local issues and challenges, but I think that, quite often, all of this comes back to the ability to properly reflect all our children’s strengths and skills, not just the academic achievements, and to deliver the policy ambition on the ground. How does all of this knit together and join up with the move to put vulnerable citizens at the centre of decision making and involve them in that process?

Just to be clear, are women given options to consider when they go away? Does that play a big part in the decision in the second consultation? Do they have real input in that?

It is good to see you, cabinet secretary. It was reassuring to hear many of your answers to the questions from Sandesh Gulhane, Gillian Mackay and David Torrance, and it was good to get reassurance on David Torrance’s question about additional funding being available if required. I would like to confirm the position and to be clear. Some of the on-going treatment costs for women are for multiple corrective procedures that are required. I take it that they would also be covered and that it would be ensured that those costs were reimbursed.

That is great. Gillian Mackay mentioned trust, which is a huge thing for the women. It is important for their views and their expertise in their condition to be taken seriously. I know that you have engaged with the women, but are engagement and discussions with them continuing as we go through the process?

This is not directly related to the bill, but it is important for the women concerned that we learn from what has happened. This is not the first time that women have felt like they have not been listened to, believed or respected. Looking at the situation from that point of view, and thinking about the impact on the mental health of professionals and their families, which can be devastating, will there be an opportunity later to take a holistic view of all the learning points and possibly to embed them into learning, including for health professionals during their initial training and for their development?

What further detail is required on eligibility for the scheme? Is there anything more that we should look at?