Hansard

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.