Hansard

I congratulate Ms Mackay on her leadership on the subject—as I did in my intervention. I also thank action groups such as Back Off Scotland and other stakeholders, and I thank the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for its scrutiny.

When I was first elected to this place, in 2016, within 18 months I had asked the first questions about safe access zones and had raised a number of questions and written several articles on the issue. However, it took the election of Ms Mackay to this chamber in 2021 for us to move the matter on to a statutory footing, which is where we are today. I am so glad that we are here today, and Ms Mackay should be profoundly proud of herself.

The issue is an emotive one that is often divisive, but it demands of us that we not shy away from the reality that is faced by those seeking access to safe and legal abortion services in this country. It boils down to this: nobody should be forced to cross a picket line to access intimate medical care. Scottish Liberal Democrats, among others, have been guardians of freedom of expression within the bounds of the law, but we are entirely clear that the bill is compatible with that tradition, so we are pleased to support it today.

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service has said that 70 per cent of women in Scotland live in a health board area where protests have taken place and that, in 2019, more than 100,000 women were targeted outside clinics across the UK. I am not suggesting that all those protests outside clinics were harassment or that the protesters are guilty of harassment—I have no doubt that many people protest peacefully. However, women who are attempting to discreetly access this health service have reported being bombarded by questions and subjected to placards that show graphic and disturbing images and lists of misleading information about the impact on their health, much of which we have just heard about. Some protesters have even used tripod-mounted cameras to threaten and intimidate. One woman told Back Off Scotland that, when she spoke to protesters outside a clinic, she was accused of murdering her baby.

One of the defining features of Liberal Democrats is our passionate defence of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and the right to protest must always be protected, but that does not mean that anything goes—it never has. Where people express themselves has always mattered, and we have always restricted that expression where it might breach the peace in some way. All that the bill seeks to do is to ensure that anyone who is accessing medical care can do so without harassment, fear or judgment. It seeks to safeguard their basic right to medical privacy.

I know that there are those who oppose the bill for fear that it will trample over the rights of religious assembly and those who say that silent prayer should be permitted or exempted from the provisions. However, I have some faith myself, and I have spoken to several religious figures, and they have no such fears—they are okay with buffer zones. One chaplain told me last week, “God doesn’t care where you pray. He will hear you wherever you are.” So, why must that prayer occur on site, with all the attendant judgment inferred by the subject of that prayer? I think that Ross Greer answered that well in the scripture that he just quoted.

Some may argue that introducing buffer zones threatens that right to protest, but I reject that on several counts. They are not protests in the usual sense. Those picketing outside clinics are not seeking to change policy or the law or to influence decision makers; they are pressurising individual women and they are attempting to change their minds on the most personal matters of individual choice.

Choice is at the very heart of this issue. The right to choose is the fundamental precept of our attitude to reproductive rights and our policy around reproductive rights in this country. In the vast majority of cases, someone who has made their choice has not done so lightly, and they certainly do not need a nudge in the opposite direction at the very final step.

Anti-abortion protesters have the right to voice their opinion—of course they do—but that does not trump another’s right to medical privacy, and it does not include the right to harass or intimidate. It goes without saying that any discussion of a woman’s decision whether to have an abortion should be conducted in a safe and confidential environment, with the help of trained professionals who are qualified to offer the appropriate advice and support.

I note that a recent Survation poll showed that 82 per cent of Scots agree that protesters should be kept a minimum distance away from people attending healthcare facilities. I am very pleased to see that there is a broad consensus across all parties in support of that measure.

I still have concerns, as I have expressed in both my interventions, about the powers of the bill as drafted to offer ministers the ability to reduce the size of buffer zones if they so choose. I welcome the committee’s observation on that in its report. England, Wales and Northern Ireland did not hand such powers to ministers in the legislative instruments that they introduced to bring about buffer zones, so why should we? It is not necessary, and it risks undermining the bill. I am grateful to have met Gillian Mackay as well as Jenny Minto in recent months to discuss that issue. I look forward to working with them to find a way through and to ensure that the relevant section of the bill is proportionate and appropriate. We have to pass legislation for Governments years ahead of us as they may become, not as we would wish them to be. We must ensure that any amendment to the rights that we protect in the bill is subject to the will of the Parliament by affirmative procedure, if legislation is required.

Introducing buffer zones around clinics is a reasonable and proportionate step to protect safe and discreet access to abortion services in this country. I am very proud to offer the Liberal Democrats’ support to Gillian Mackay’s bill.