Chamber and committees

I am delighted to open the stage 1 debate on the general principles of the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill. I thank the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for its scrutiny of the bill over the past few months.

I am also grateful to everyone who gave evidence. I know from recent experience that appearing before a committee can be daunting, so I appreciate everyone who did so, no matter their perspective. Given the significant issues that the bill raises, it is right that scrutiny should be robust and challenging, and the stage 1 report shows that it has been both those things. That makes me even more pleased that the committee has endorsed the bill’s general principles.

I also thank all the campaigners, including Back Off Scotland, Abortion Rights Scotland, individuals and clinicians for their work, support and campaigning. Undoubtedly, we would not be here without them all. Many of those who have campaigned for the bill are with us in the public gallery today.

First, I will provide some general comments on the bill. It is relatively small, but its size does not reflect the depth of feeling that it has provoked or the scale of change that it will bring.

There are three reasons for that. The first is simply that abortion can be deeply polarising. I do not expect or intend to change that. Even across the Parliament, we will hold different views.

However, the bill is not about the rights or wrongs of abortion; it is about the right and ability of patients to access care without running a gauntlet of disapproval and judgment. That relates directly to the second reason for opposition. Some do not think that there is a need for safe access zones. As I recently told the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, I whole-heartedly wish that was so, but too many have given testimony that indicates otherwise. I will share a couple of examples.

From a woman responding to my consultation, there was this harrowing account:

“When walking into the clinic, I had two large older men screaming at me, calling me names. I had no one with me and no one to defend me when I was in no fit mental state to defend myself.”

She went on to say:

“Because of their cruel words during such a horrific and vulnerable time in my life, I carried that guilt for years.”

Professor Sharon Cameron, who gave evidence to the committee, said that

“Women attending the clinics have clearly been distressed, while others have been phoning up in advance of a consultation, anxious about entering the building and worried about protesters and perhaps media”,

that

“Feedback that we got at the time was that they were feeling targeted, anxious and harassed”

and that staff

“are also anxious and concerned about patients being put off attending our services, and the situation has resulted in additional workload”.—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 5 March 2024; c 2, 3.]

I urge anyone who doubts the bill’s necessity to reflect on those testimonies.

Attending any unfamiliar medical procedure can be stressful. Most of us worry about whether it will hurt or whether something will go wrong. Does anyone here not think that it would be more stressful—more frightening, even—if they also had to worry that there might be people waiting outside to convince them not to go in, perhaps to call them names or to inaccurately suggest that there might be consequences of that procedure that they had not thought of, such as cancer or infertility? All that the bill does is try to prevent that for women who are seeking an abortion to ensure that they have the same dignity and privacy that they would have for every other medical procedure.

That does not mean that members should stop asking tough questions about the bill, but I ask that members take the opportunity to protect women at a time when many are already incredibly vulnerable and all are, at the very least, making an enormously personal decision that should not be subject to unwanted comment from strangers.

That leads me to the third reason for opposition. The bill raises issues about freedom of expression, religion and assembly. There are those who agree with the bill in principle but who are concerned on those grounds. I have never taken those concerns lightly, and I would never stand behind a bill that threatened those fundamental rights. However, I am confident that the bill is a proportionate means of protecting women and staff from activities that—as members have heard—can have profound consequences.

However, the chamber need not rely only on my judgment. The stage 1 report says:

“the Committee has concluded that the restrictions the Bill imposes on those human rights as set out in Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the ECHR are proportionate to its aims, namely strengthening the ability of women seeking an abortion to exercise their own rights under Article 8.”

I remain willing to discuss concerns at more length with any member, but I assure the chamber that the committee did not take those questions lightly either. That is evident, given the recommendations in the report, some of which I will now turn to.

I will come to some of the things that Mr Cole-Hamilton and I discussed shortly.

As, I hope, the chamber will understand, much of the report’s detail is still being worked through. However, I will provide what assurance I can today.

First, I note the repeated call for a post-legislative review. As a sitting member of the Parliament, I would always expect legislation to be reviewed, which is why I followed general precedent and did not explicitly provide for that. However, I recognise the particular concerns and the difficult balancing that is required in relation to the bill, and I am content to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to provide for a review.

Similarly, I note the concerns about reduction and extension powers, and specifically the recommendation that consultation should be required in the bill. I judged that consultation would occur as standard practice and that it was unnecessary to specify it. However, again in recognition of the issues at play, I will lodge an amendment to put that matter beyond doubt.

There are other recommendations on extension and reduction, as well as on parliamentary scrutiny more generally. Those are complex and important issues, and I am keen to give them the due consideration that they deserve. I will not commit to concrete actions today while that consideration is under way, but I commit to continuing to listen to concerns from members around the chamber and to alleviating as many of them as I can. That is true for the whole report.

I am really pleased to close the debate. As I have noted before, there is still debate to be had on the bill. However, I was hoping for some common ground today, and I am pleased to say that that hope was not misplaced. I am grateful to all those who have offered their support today. It is debates such as this one that show the Parliament at its absolute best.

Members across the chamber have highlighted the wider impact of the activity that we are seeing outside healthcare settings. Rona Mackay reflected on the long-term impact on individuals, and Alex Cole-Hamilton, Annie Wells and Meghan Gallacher referenced the potential impact of protests on women’s decisions, which could include deterring them from seeking care. I thank Ross Greer for his theological lesson, and I fully agree with his points about false information that has been handed out. The committee highlighted that issue.

That said, I also expected to be met with robust challenge, and I mean it when I say that I am not disappointed to have been proved right. Challenge is a vital part of the legislative process. It is how we make sure that bills do what we want them to and avoid doing things that we never intended. I am grateful to everyone who has participated this afternoon. We have been able to discuss important and emotive issues with respect and civility, and I can promise that I will take forward work on the bill in that same spirit.

Given that I ran out of time in my opening, I hope that members will forgive me if I run out of time to address everything that has been raised. I am more than happy to meet before stage 2 to discuss matters in detail.

I have heard calls across the chamber to exempt silent prayer from the bill. I must support what the minister said in her opening statement, and her points are important for two reasons. First, prayer in itself is not an offence. That means that it is not possible to exempt it as one without potentially undermining how sections 4 and 5 are intended to operate. Secondly, explicitly exempting silent prayer could also have the unintended consequence of exempting other conduct that accompanied it, which could remove the operational discretion that is vital in protecting women and staff. Providing an exemption in order to allow the continuation of the presence and behaviours that we know are intimidating would undermine the bill entirely and betray the testimony that we have heard throughout the process.

I invite any member who would like to understand that in more depth to contact me. For now, I will simply note that an exemption for silent prayer was proposed as an amendment to the Westminster Public Order Bill in 2023, and it was rejected for very similar reasons. Likewise, there is no exemption in either the legislation that is now in force in Northern Ireland—the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act (Northern Ireland) 2023—or the legislation that is currently being dealt with in the Republic of Ireland. The legislation in Northern Ireland also passed the Supreme Court challenge, and proportionality had been looked at in that regard. Including an exemption would make Scotland an outlier among the UK nations and offer less protection to women and staff.

I appreciate that the issue of the reduction and extension of zones has raised concerns. There has been some suggestion that maximum and minimum zone distances should be set and that further parliamentary scrutiny should be provided. Beyond the consultation amendment that I have committed to today, I am also committed to exploring what can be done to strengthen that aspect further at stage 2. However, I must also set out that the zones have to be capable of providing needed protection for women and staff, and must remain proportionate and not criminalise conduct where that cannot be justified. That, in my view, makes setting maximum and minimum distances unwise.

None of us can know how services will be delivered in the future or how anti-abortion groups may change their behaviour. Any maximum or minimum could, at this point, therefore, be arbitrary. In that case, the zones will not provide the protection that is needed. We could, for example, set 200m as the minimum distance. In the future, 100m might be sufficient for some or all sites, or we might see behaviour that requires a larger distance. We therefore need the flexibility that the bill currently provides to ensure that we can respond to circumstances as they are in the future. That is one reason why I did not include a provision for additional oversight, even though I am, as members might imagine, an advocate for a strong and powerful Parliament. We heard in evidence that the ability to move swiftly either to extend or to reduce zones for a variety of reasons is necessary. I am, of course, happy to discuss that with members in more detail.

I will draw my remarks to a close by thanking all members again for their contributions not only today, but since I first proposed the bill. Their support and constructive criticism have been invaluable. Ross Greer thanked Clare Bailey. It would be remiss of me not to not thank her, too, for blazing a trail on the issue and bringing safe access zones first to Northern Ireland.

Again, I thank all the campaigners—Abortion Rights Scotland, Back Off Scotland, BPAS and many others—who have been integral to the progress of my bill, as well as the trade unions and representative organisations that have met me continuously throughout the process.

It is difficult to quantify what the support from officials and from the current and former public health ministers, Jenni Minto and Maree Todd, has meant. They have helped to guide me through the process, and officials have put their all into the bill and have dealt with all the changes that we have made with the utmost grace, no matter how short the timescale.

I also thank the current and former First Ministers. Nicola Sturgeon backed the bill and offered me the support of the Government. At that time, Humza Yousaf was the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, and he made support for the bill an integral part of his leadership campaign and has provided me with consistent support since then.

Finally, my team and my parliamentary colleagues deserve thanks for supporting me in the phenomenal way that they always do.

As I highlighted in my opening speech, there are women who, when seeking abortion care, have felt unable to defend themselves in the face of activity that was designed to shame and frighten them. Today, everybody in the chamber has a chance to show that they are willing to work on their behalf to provide them with a defence, and I urge everyone in the chamber to take that chance.

Many young people will be concerned about the effect of last week’s decision to pause the prescriptions of hormones on their healthcare journey. Our solidarity should be with them. We need to work as quickly as possible to ensure that the concerns of the clinicians are resolved so that they can provide care with confidence. Scottish Trans has suggested that we should consider setting up our own research study. Can the minister outline what steps the Government is taking to resolve the current situation and how we can ensure that lived experience is at the heart of any action going forward?

Many people will be watching the chamber this week as MSPs discuss their healthcare. I want to send solidarity and support to all the young people who are watching. Can the minister outline, for any young people who are distressed by the discourse that is currently happening around their healthcare, what services there are to support their on-going wellbeing?

Recently, inflation has been much higher than it has been at other times. The impact of the uprating of minimum unit pricing will depend on the economic outlook. I am also quite interested in how we put lived and living experience, which has been so important the whole way through, at the heart of any analysis of uprating. Obviously, we are speaking in hypotheticals, but, if there is ever a case for making that uprating higher, for good reason, that experience, which has been so integral and useful so far, must be put at the heart of what we do.

I appreciate that that work is at an early stage, but have the minister and the Government considered how that approach would work in practice? Would it be linked to an inflationary index or some other index? Would there be an implementation period, as there is this year, between the uprating being announced and the change on the shelves, to reflect the call from industry and businesses that they need that time in order to make the changes?

Good morning, minister. This is the first time that we have uprated MUP. Due to the length of time between its being introduced and now, some people feel that it is quite a jump. Has the Government considered whether we require legislation for the automatic uprating, or something similar, of minimum unit pricing?

The committee has recently heard about the impact of MUP from people with lived and living experience. For me, that has added, to the evaluation, a real-world context such as we have welcomed in many other areas of the committee’s work. Those voices need to be amplified and to continue to be involved. I am pleased that the minister has indicated her willingness to continue to put that at the heart of policy development, as we move forward.

We need to ensure that there is an appropriate mix of support and treatment for people who require them, and that we tackle barriers for groups who currently have difficulty in accessing treatment. I accept and trust the minister’s assertion that minimum unit pricing is not a silver bullet. One of the most important actions that we need to take is to tackle the alcohol environment that we have in Scotland. For me, that should include our examining how advertising affects children and young people and at-risk adult drinkers, as well as our implementing a public health levy. I am pleased that provision for such a levy was included in the budget as a result of discussions between the Government and my party. Tackling alcohol harm must take a multipronged approach and must address all the barriers to services that people face.

I will be pleased to support both instruments.

I have been campaigning on this issue alongside parents, young people, clinicians, health charities and the Daily Record. They are all really pleased with the announcement on banning single-use vapes, and I thank them for their support.

Before the ban comes into place, we need to reduce the potential harm to young people’s health, and I believe that some of that work can be done by retailers. Will the minister join me and campaigners in looking at how we can quickly get products behind cover by encouraging all retailers that consider themselves to be responsible retailers to put the products behind cover voluntarily?