Chamber and committees

Good morning, panel. I have a couple of questions for James Mahon first, then probably one for the whole panel. What benchmarking was available to you, as researchers, at the start of your evaluation of implementation of SDS? Was the data sufficient and, if not, what else would you have liked or needed at that point?

No, we can hear you.

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 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; c 17.]

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.

No. I simply thank Mr Doris for his interest.

I echo the minister’s appreciation of Ms Hamilton’s willingness, ahead of stage 3, to explore how the bill can be strengthened. I am in complete agreement that the review of safe access zones must be meaningful. However, I must echo the minister when she says that the amendment is not the best way to achieve that, and I support the minister’s explanation. I welcome the minister’s offer to work with members over the summer to shape the scope of the post-legislative review, and I am more than willing to help to support that process if it is helpful.

I hope that that satisfies what Ms Hamilton is looking for from amendment 8. I hope that Ms Hamilton will not press her amendment. If she does, I urge members not to support it.

First, amendment 7, in my name, is a minor amendment to section 11A and would ensure that ministers can delegate the function to carry out the review of the legislation and prepare a report of the review’s findings.

I will touch briefly on amendments 10 and 11, which I am happy to support. As I noted during stage 2, it is important that we give the act time to bed in and that we do not unduly burden health workers and enforcement agencies. The change to the timings proposed under amendment 11 would achieve a reasonable balance. Additionally, although consultation with enforcement agencies and operators would have happened as a matter of course, given the need to ensure that the review is robust, I am content that amendment 10 would make the consultation explicit in the bill.

Finally, I must ask that Tess White not press amendment 9. I remain fully convinced that the information that she seeks will be taken into account during any review. I can also confirm that information relating to crimes committed under safe access zones legislation will be published annually, and that will include information on numbers of crimes recorded, criminal proceedings and convictions. Therefore, transparency will already be built in around how the offences operate in practice, and that will happen more regularly than the amendment would allow.

The annual data might also provide a fuller picture than provided for in the amendment, given that arrest data is neither readily available nor the most reliable metric, as it does not cover instances in which a crime is recorded but no arrest is made. In light of that on-going transparency, and the fact that the review in question will have a different purpose, I do not think that it is wise to prescribe those criteria, because the review must cover a range of factors, including staff and patient impacts. As Rachael Hamilton mentioned in our discussions, it must take a broad, holistic look at the legislation.

To be clear, amendment 9 does not prevent consideration of those wider factors, and I know that Tess White does not intend that it should. However, in setting out only those specific examples, there is a real risk that, particularly in the future, the amendment will bend the review in that direction. That presents a related risk. It is my hope that, in time, the bill, if passed today, will mean that women and staff do not encounter anti-abortion activity in zones because that activity will no longer be carried out, not because the police will be regularly intervening to prevent it. If that happens, though, absence of activity must not be seen as a definitive sign that the protection offered by the safe access zones is no longer necessary.

The amendment that I lodged at stage 2 to insert the review requirement did not prescribe such matters, specifically to avoid that kind of limited approach. As I have a real concern that amendment 9 would reintroduce that danger, I hope that Tess White will not press it. If she does, I ask the chamber to vote against it.

I support amendment 1 and I am grateful for the improvement that it makes. I am keen for legislation to be written in a way that is understood by all, especially legislation that is of so much importance because it offers protection to women and staff. I encourage members to vote for the amendment.

I have very little to add to what the minister has said. She has set out clearly the safeguards that the bill already provides and the negative consequences that amendment 6 could bring.

I will add only that, as a member of the Scottish Parliament, I believe that the scrutiny that we provide when affirmative regulations are laid results in strong and effective challenge, and we should not undermine that by suggesting otherwise. We certainly should not do that when the result would be that, for no or very little benefit in this case, it would certainly take longer to protect women and staff when we have evidence that they are at risk of harm. Therefore, I, too, urge that, if it is pressed, members should not vote for amendment 6.

The minister has spoken to the amendments comprehensively, so I will not add too much. I understand that Ms Gallacher’s intention is to further ensure that women can access healthcare free from unwanted influence and harassment, and I thank her for the constructive conversations that we have had, particularly between stages 2 and 3.

I share the minister’s position that the current offences are already capable of capturing someone who was filming or photographing a person accessing or providing services, either recklessly or with the intention of influencing decisions to access services, impeding or preventing access, or causing harassment, alarm or distress. I share the concerns that amendment 3 potentially broadens the scope of the offence and activity that happen outside the safe access zone.

Turning to Mr Balfour’s amendments 4 and 5, we had more than one discussion about the member’s concerns prior to stage 3, and I hope that he found those conversations as helpful as I did. My significant concern with Mr Balfour’s two amendments is that they could create potential loopholes to allow unwanted influence and could erode the protections offered by the bill. I have no doubt that that was not Mr Balfour’s intention, but that could nonetheless be the reality if his amendments 4 and 5 were agreed to. We must avoid creating loopholes, and we must ensure that the bill’s protections are as robust as possible. For that reason, I urge the member not to move his amendments. If he does, I ask the Parliament to vote against amendments 4 and 5.

I support everything that the minister has said, and I thank Meghan Gallacher for the collegiate way in which she has approached many of the issues. It is not necessary for me to repeat the particular concerns that the minister has raised about amendment 2, but I will set out my more general concerns about there being a specific requirement on signage.

As the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee heard during its evidence sessions, signage is not a straightforward matter. During the extensive engagement with service providers ahead of the bill’s introduction, there were consistent concerns that signs would draw attention to abortion services that might otherwise go unnoticed. As has been discussed a number of times since the bill’s introduction, that could present a particular challenge when women and staff are especially anxious about being identified—for example, in rural areas or in areas with small sites.

Of course, zones must be publicised, and the minister has spoken about the steps that will be taken to do that. However, as I set out at stage 2, signs would be an on-going physical demarcation and would be visible to every passer-by, not just those who might wish to organise or attend planned anti-abortion activity. Therefore, part of the concern is that signs could provoke more ad hoc and sporadic instances of targeting. In the light of some of the genuinely horrific stories from other countries, there is palpable anxiety among some staff about erecting such permanent advertisements, but I accept that those concerns must be weighed up against what is fair and necessary for those who might wish to express opposition to abortion services.

I thank Meghan Gallacher for noting that she will not press amendment 2 and for her engagement throughout the process.