Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding any potential impact on devolved benefits in Scotland, what representation it plans to make to the United Kingdom Government regarding its proposed changes to welfare benefits for people with mental health issues. (S6O-03406)

I completely agree with that. The unintended consequences of the protests are off the scale.

The view reflected that of many individuals and organisations that were concerned for the welfare of vulnerable individuals who are accessing healthcare services. The Royal College of Midwives responded to the bill, saying:

“abortion services are an essential part of women’s healthcare. Healthcare professionals, including our members, deserve to undertake their work without being harassed and abused.”

One woman told Back Off Scotland, which has run an excellent campaign in support of buffer zones:

“I went into hospital first thing in the morning and was faced with a group of protestors holding up placards. They remained there seven hours later when I left the clinic. My privacy and safety were threatened, and it was a deeply intimidating experience.”

I ask whether any of those people have any understanding of how difficult the decision to terminate a pregnancy is or the circumstances that bring someone there in the first place. Of course they do not. If protesters are seeking to change the law, why not do it outside the Scottish Parliament, where laws are made? Why not pray outside the Scottish Parliament?

The bill does not limit the ability to oppose abortion in other places. In accordance with the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights, the provisions of the bill strike a balance between the right to respect for private and family life and the rights of assembly and association, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Seventy per cent of Scottish women of reproductive age live in a health board with hospitals or clinics that have been targeted by anti-choice groups in the past five years, and the figure is on the increase. That is completely shocking, and that is why buffer zones around the entrance to a clinic or hospital are so absolutely necessary. Buffer zones are already in place in Canada, Australia, parts of England and the USA, so they are not a new concept.

I know that some people, including members and committee members who will speak in today’s debate, have concerns about people being criminalised for praying if they are caught in a buffer zone. Personally, I am not religious, but friends who are tell me that praying is a private activity that is usually carried out at home or with fellow worshippers in a church. Ross Greer could explain that far better than I could. To deliberately choose a location to press views on women who are at their most vulnerable is surely a far from Christian act.

I am pleased that members will back the general principles of this crucial bill at decision time today. As always, concerns and details can be fixed at stages 2 and 3, and the member has shown great willingness to accommodate everyone’s concerns in that regard.

Access to healthcare is a human right, so let us protect those rights for women at a time in their lives when they need support more than anything else.

This is a very important debate, and I thank Gillian Mackay for all her work, as well as her office, her bill team and the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, for getting us to this crucial stage.

Peaceful protest is a key principle of our democracy, and I know that everyone across the chamber agrees with that. However, protests targeted at women trying to access healthcare when they are at their most vulnerable are simply unacceptable and downright sinister. Praying for the souls of unborn children is a human right, and no one is arguing against that, but if those protests or peaceful prayer are located outside the entrance to a hospital, that moves the dial massively. I believe that those so-called vigils amount to the targeted harassment and intimidation of women. I understand that the protesters do not see it as that, but that is most certainly the effect on women entering clinics.

Singing, chanting and praying outside hospitals and abortion clinics throughout Scotland, with people often carrying lurid pictures, is designed to create distress. That is not freedom of expression; it is passive aggression at its worst, designed to heap blame on women and to emotionally blackmail them into feeling guilty and ashamed. On some occasions, the protesters distribute false medical information to suit their argument, and some of them target passers-by and patients by shouting and accusing them of accessing abortion services. That is cruel, unkind and unnecessary, not only to the women who are accessing healthcare, but to the healthcare workers.

Rape Crisis Scotland has stated:

“Anti-abortion protests outside clinics have a clinical, emotional and psychological impact. The activities of anti-abortion protesters cause distress and have the potential to cause trauma to those accessing abortion services.”

The tactics that are deployed involve targeting people attending the clinics,

“passing out distressing information in leaflets and pictures and displaying such messages on banners.”

Those actions may cause them

“to defer their treatment or purchase illegal abortion pills online from unregulated providers.”

That impact will be particularly acute for survivors of rape.

That is interesting. Thank you.

Do you know whether they are widely used?

Thanks very much for your evidence, Mr Clarke—it is really helpful to the committee. I want to ask you about non-disclosure agreements in misconduct cases. Were you subjected to one of those at any point?

NDAs are not addressed in the bill. Maybe we should find out more about how widely used they are. I suspect that they should be addressed in the bill.

Good morning, Margaret. I want to ask you about the SPA and your interactions with it. What do you think its role should be, given your experience of dealing with the various authorities?

That is helpful. Would you say that ex-police officers and, perhaps, members of the judiciary should not be part of the independent body? Would you like to see representatives on it coming from other walks of life?

The 2021 act has been the subject of much misrepresentation and inaccurate commentary, some of which appears to have been deliberate, which has caused confusion about what the act actually does. Can the cabinet secretary say any more about the steps that are being taken to ensure that accurate information about the act is available to the public?