 Felly mae'n gwybod amddangos yn y newid o d skalol mwyODC sydd gyda cliwyr yn ddau cyfnodol a ond i ddechrau ddaeth y Gwaith Gymru. Ym gwaes ym Llyfridd dros y byddai ar ddweud o Gwylag Llewysig yn elfen Yr Mwyllwy yn y ddweud o Josian MacKai i'r cyn蒙d iechyd yn fflusiol i'r honnol? Mae hyn yn gallu eu ddweud wedi gwneud hynny i gweithio'i ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud i'w bwysigdeut yn y dweud a wnaeth eich swyddfaeth i'w ddysgu'r edryd o gwinellustu a'i fwyaf hynny. I call ond i'n jillio mireiechau i tomatooeddiol a'i'n dwi'n dweud frysgafodd ydynnu ym mwyib. I'd like to open the debate by putting on record my sincere thanks to all those who have worked so hard on this issue, including the back-off Scotland campaign and the British pregnancy advisory service. I also want to thank the members who have signed my motion. I know that there I know there's support for buffer zones across the chamber and that I'm not the only MSP who's raised it in Parliament. I'd like to particularly thank my colleague Maggie Chapman who asked questions on this at the start of the session. I also want to state clearly that this is not a debate on the morality of abortion. I hope that members will put their views on abortion aside and focus on the fact that this is about access to healthcare, which according to the UN and the World Health Organization is a human right. I do not want to inhibit anyone's right to protest. The Greens would never be in favour of such a move. People who feel strongly about abortion have many opportunities and platforms to share their views, but I strongly feel that outside of a hospital or clinic is not an appropriate place to do this. I believe that everyone should be able to access healthcare unimpeded and that no one should face harassment or intimidation while doing so. This outside of hospitals and clinics is a widespread issue. BPAS is currently aware of seven hospitals and clinics that are experiencing protests, including Forth Valley Royal Hospital in my own region. 70 per cent of women of reproductive age live in a health board with hospitals or clinics targeted by anti-choice groups in the past five years. It is not just people who are accessing abortions that are impacted. I am accessing healthcare at premises that deliver abortions can be targeted. I would like to read out a few examples provided by BPAS of people who have been affected by demonstrators and protests. Here is a testimony from someone who visited the Chalmers Centre in 2021. I was a victim of sexual assault and had to book an appointment with Chalmers, already blaming myself and terrified to tell anyone that I was 17 and completely by myself. A small group of individuals, mostly male, were standing on the other side of the road. I was repeatedly called out to by one of the men and when I glared it to him and ignored him, he called me a teenage murderer. I have never been pregnant, I have never had an abortion and I have never even used a contraceptive medication, but they tried to publicly humiliate me for it. I felt threatened and terrified in a time when I needed protection and comfort. Another example from the Royal Infirmary in Edinburgh, I felt incredibly angry at the time that I was pregnant with my second child. On attempting to engage with them, one of the group marched over to me and was extremely aggressive. He screamed in my face several times. He told me that I was going to get cancer. I had disclosed that I had had an abortion between pregnancies. No one should have to face such appalling treatment while accessing healthcare. Implementing 150m buffer zones around abortion clinics would allow women and people who are pregnant to access the care that they need without the fear of harassment. It would allow them to enter and leave the abortion clinic without being seen or having to interact with protests, affording them their right to privacy. Not affording people this right can prevent them from seeking the help that they need. During lockdown, access to healthcare was reduced as resources were targeted to tackling Covid and fears about patient safety meant that people were discouraged from seeking treatment. It seems fair to assume that lockdown may have prevented some people from accessing abortions. As our health services recover, we should be encouraging those who need reproductive healthcare to access it. However, there is a risk that, faced with the distressing experience of encountering a protest when visiting a clinic or hospital, some will simply not go. Polls have shown that the public is in favour of buffer zones. A poll conducted this year by the Scottish humanists showed that 82 per cent of Scots want to end targeted harassment outside abortion clinics. Buffer zones have also been successfully implemented in other countries. They are already in place in the Isle of Man, Canada, Australia, some local authorities in England and the USA. My fellow Green politician Claire Bailey, MLA, is currently progressing her abortion services safe access zones bill through Stormont. Scotland is behind on this issue. In England, sister supporters successfully campaigned for a public space protection order around the local Maurice Stopes clinic in Eling, London. That was implemented in 2018, and now the space outside the clinic is a harassment-free safe zone. That decision was subject to legal appeal in 2019, but that was dismissed by three court of appeal judges. Therefore, there is a legal precedent in the UK. I am aware that there has been discussion of buffer zones being implemented by local authorities in Scotland. In February, Edinburgh City Council voted in favour of a motion to enact 150m buffer zones around abortion clinics citywide, following a 4,700 strong petition by Backoff Scotland. Glasgow City Council has also debated the issue of anti-choice harassment outside local hospitals. However, Scottish local authorities have stated that they do not have the ability to introduce buffer zones under the current law and progress appears to have been halted. I do believe that there is a risk that leaving it to local authorities to implement buffer zones could result in a postcode lottery whereby some women are able to access abortion services without fear of harassment but others are not. I believe that a national approach is required. I am therefore very pleased to announce my intention to lodge a member's bill on buffer zones around abortion clinics. I will be honoured to take forward such important legislation, and I intend to consult with a wide range of individuals and groups to hear their thoughts on the bill's proposal. I also want to make it clear that it is not my intention to target NHS workers who may want to pick it outside of healthcare premises, and I am keen to engage with trade unions on that to minimise any unintended consequences. I thank all those who have tirelessly campaigned for buffer zones. We would not have reached this point without them. I look forward to working with them and members across the chamber to ensure that women can access abortions while being afforded the safety and dignity that they are entitled to. Thank you very much indeed, Ms Mackay. I now call on Eleanor Whitham. We will be followed by Megan Gallagher. That is four minutes, Ms Whitham. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you to Gillian Mackay for securing this debate. Abortion is a legal right in Scotland. It is essential healthcare for women, and access to abortion services absolutely must be unimpeded. Women and women's organisations across the world have fought for the right to access safe and legal abortion for decades, and increasingly international human rights law supports their quest, despite the current rolling back of rights that we are seeing in some places. Safe and legal access to abortion services is a basic healthcare need, and anyone who chooses to have an abortion or access sexual and reproductive health services should be able to do so without the fear of harassment, intimidation or abuse. As we know, abortion is legal here in Scotland, and women must be able to access abortion services freely and without harassment. The reports of patients across Scotland who have experienced intimidation and harassment from protesters outside abortion services, as clearly put out there by Gillian Mackay, are really concerning. No woman should be a harasser intimidated for accessing abortion services, and no woman should be feeling scared to access this vital human right because of protests or vigils taking place near abortion services. After all, according to Engender, one in three of us will use these services in our lifetimes. The SNP committed in our 2021 manifesto to support local authorities to use their powers to establish bylaws to create protest-free buffer zones outside clinics that provide abortion services, and the Scottish Government's Women's Health Plan, published in August this year, is the first stage of a long-term commitment to using health inequalities of women, and it pledged to improve access to abortion and contraceptive services. As a former women's aid worker, I have seen first-hand the emotional strength required of women when making the decision to have an abortion. I have supported women to access essential healthcare after they have had previous forced pregnancies as contraception was forbidden by their abuser. Collectively, let's imagine having every single aspect of our existence controlled by an abuser, finally managing to escape that hell, finding ourselves pregnant in a women's aid refuge, perhaps already with a few children in tow, making the decision to seek an abortion and having to run the gauntlet of a protest or a vigil just trying to access local healthcare. Women who are already under immense pressure and are about to go through an already traumatic process should not have to deal with anyone else's opinion when accessing this healthcare. Establishing by-laws at a local government level should be the simplest and quickest way to create protest-free zones around abortion services, and if local councils can act in those instances, they should. However, instances such as the recent examples of Edinburgh and Glasgow City Council's buffer zone by-law attempts highlight the need for clarity at a local level. That cannot be a postcode lottery. Right now, we must ensure that local government has absolute clarity and are empowered to take swift action to pass those by-laws and ensure that all women can access clinics free from harm. As abortion rights are under increasing threat across the world, I was heartened to hear the First Minister and her recent response to Monica Lennon in this chamber assure us that she is open to exploring all options to ensure that women are able to access abortion free. I look forward to supporting her in that endeavour. Members of the Parliament will have different views when discussing issues relating to abortion and abortion services. The comments that I make today are my own and I respect others' right to disagree and to debate the points raised. I believe in freedom of speech and expression. It is something that should be cherished and protected. However, I do not agree that an individual or group has the right to prevent someone from accessing a healthcare service. Regretfully, that has been the experience of too many women who have tried to access abortion services in Scotland. Today's debate is not on the issue of abortion or to argue whether it should be legal. It relates to the safety and wellbeing of women who need to access this service. Unfortunately for many women, they feel intimidated, harassed and unsafe when attending a clinic or hospital. Some groups hold vigils, put leaflets into the hands of women, hold placards of developing fetuses, prevent staff and people from attending their appointments and, more concerningly, film individuals as they enter and leave the premise. I recognise that not all groups are aggressive when holding a demonstration. However, the question is whether they need to be there in the first place. I think that we need to put ourselves into the shoes of young women accessing these services. How would we feel if we were greeted by this reception? BPAS has advised that, since the beginning of 2017, seven hospitals and clinics across Scotland have been targeted repeatedly, which has had an impact on people who have accessed these services. Not always abortion services might I add who have felt degraded and traumatised by the actions of those who create a picket line outside of those facilities. My body, my choice, is something that I have always agreed with, as I believe in freedom of choice. I also believe that private concerns such as abortion should not be a matter of debate for a woman who has already made an informed choice. After all, the woman having an abortion could be a victim of rape, domestic violence or have to attend a clinic on medical grounds. As Gillian Mackay has mentioned, back of Scotland is campaigning to introduce buffer zones outside of hospitals and clinics to allow women to access services without feeling pressured by having to justify their decision. That zoning would apply to both pro and anti-choice groups, which creates a fair balance on those on opposing sides of the debate. I sympathise with the campaign given some of the first-hand experiences that I have read while preparing for the debate today and the experiences that Gillian Mackay pointed out within her contribution. As I said at the start, I support freedom of speech and expression in groups that could gather in other places away from the hospitals or clinics. The introduction of 150-metre buffer zones is supported by a wide range of groups, and I hope that it is something that the Scottish Government considers to make sure that access to legal, safe healthcare rights for women is always protected. To conclude, I understand that that is a delicate subject, and that one of the MSPs should treat each other with respect. I welcome the campaign to introduce buffer zones, and I hope that it is something that the Scottish Government will take recognition of. Before I begin, I thank Gillian Mackay and all the campaigners at Back Off Scotland for bringing this absolutely vital issue to the Parliament chamber. I would also like to state that my colleague Monica Lennon has unfortunately had to withdraw from the debate today. She sends her full support for the spirit of this motion and the work that has gone into highlighting this issue. People will know that Monica has showed a firm commitment to the needs and rights of women, and I am pleased to bring the message from her. I know for some that abortion is a very difficult political issue, and many people make that case respectfully and constructively, but the reality is that a very vocal and influential minority do not. Standing outside a clinic that is committed to helping people in dire need and shaming them for seeking help is bullying, no matter how well-meaning you think you might be. Those who seek to oppose a woman's right to make her own choice are not a new quantity by any means. For decades and centuries, a never-decreasing section of society has felt it incumbent on them to police women's decisions and indeed their bodies. Fortunately, due to the efforts of so many brave individuals in her own country at least, that grip has loosened to the point of being almost non-existent. I only say almost because it is still there, and this is one very current and pernicious example. In Dany Garvalie's fantastic piece in the Scotsman, she spoke to those who have experienced this intimidation as they reflect on how uncomfortable it made them feel during an already difficult time in their life. That is a discomfort, not solely reserved for them but also for those who work in the clinics who are left feeling vilified and forgotten by authorities despite simply wanting to do their job. Those vigils, as the organisers call them, are regularly taking place in health boards where, as we have heard, 70 per cent of women in Scotland live. It is difficult to quantify just how many peat women will have encountered them as many will prefer to keep quiet. The groups behind them are often funded by highly questionable US-based pressure groups with a history of homophobia, sexism and indeed racism. Why are they being allowed to intimidate women at a point in their life that is always difficult? For many, it is absolutely necessary. I can only imagine that if the same sort of intimidation was happening to men, we would not be needing to have this discussion and it would have been dealt with long ago. Well, enough is enough. We all understand that currently the law is not in place to prevent these instances of intimidation, but that does need to change. I fully support back of Scotland's call to enforce 150m buffer zone around the clinics. I understand that other organisations will be fearful. That could tear the right to protest in other instances, but there is no reason that legislation cannot be introduced that reflects those nuances and does right by those seeking vital healthcare. The women behind back of Scotland have first-hand experience of the issue, and I am glad to hear that they have met with Mary Todd to discuss it, but I am equally not surprised to hear that they came away with little more than reasons and excuses about why that cannot be done or why it will be difficult to do at this time. That is not how government should work. We cannot pass the buck in this and hope that it will go away. Equally, we cannot simply fob that problem off on to already overburnt local authorities. More and more people are becoming increasingly aware of this practice, and we will soon get to a point through the commitment of campaigners such as back of Scotland and others, where the Government has no choice but to carry through. So, why wait until then? Introducing the legislation as soon as possible will alleviate the distress of so many women and especially those in already vulnerable circumstances with little in the way of a support network. Let us push forward and move beyond this very necessary business debate. Members' bills can take years to go through and are often unsuccessful. Let us make this a priority for the Parliament. It certainly would be a legacy that we can all be proud of and one that future generations will thank us for. Let us be brave. I am asking the minister to do the right thing and do it now. Thank you, Ms Mocken. I now call on Stephanie Callaghan, who will be followed by Alex Cole-Hamilton. Ms Callaghan, four minutes please. Women in Scotland have a fundamental right to access pregnancy healthcare services. It should have the right to access it without harassment and intimidation. The targeting and harassment of women accessing abortion services, as well as providing those services, is unacceptable and I condemn it completely. Opt and tender pregnancy is seldom a straightforward decision for any woman, nor is it one that is taken lightly. Many women attend their abortion appointment alone too. It is almost unbearable to imagine how women feel when approached, harassed or intimidated by anti-choice protesters in those circumstances. However, that is exactly what I would ask all members to do right now, to pause and just imagine exactly how this feels for women. I hope that when they do, they agree with me that all women must be predicted from having their privacy invaded at such an emotionally sensitive time. In 2019, more than 100,000 women were targeted outside clinics across the UK. 70 per cent of women in Scotland who live in a health board area for protest have taken place. Women have reported been followed, photographed, prayed at, jeered at, lied to and generally degraded. There have been instances where women have been prevented from entering clinics too. It is distressing for anyone to be hounded by strangers in the street, but such a personal, private moment that impacting the protesters' actions has left already vulnerable women traumatised. Yes, we have the right to protest. Yes, we have the right to free speech. However, what we do not have is the right to harass, intimidate and bully other people. Those are not reasonable expressions of free speech, and there is a difference between protest and harassment, just as there is a difference between free speech and misinformation. Although stand-to-choice protesters may not intend to intimidate, there is no doubt that that is how most women attending an abortion feel, when so-called vigils are taking place. That is why I support buffer zones, and that is why I support the Scottish Government's commitment to work with the NHS and local authorities to find ways of preventing women from feeling harassed and intimidated when they are accessing abortion services. After a buffer zone was secured around a clinic in Eilin in April 2018, in a public spaces protection order, the situation has improved dramatically and the clinic reports that instances of harassment have virtually disappeared since the order came into force. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with abortion, that is about women being able to access their fundamental right to healthcare. Introducing buffer zones does not impede unrights to free speech. Protest can still be held, just not directly outside clinics. People can still contact their MSPs and share their beliefs. They have every right to do so. Ultimately, what women really need is to feel empowered to continue with a pregnancy, not pressured by strangers in the street who know nothing about their personal circumstances. Women need to know that they will be supported in the choices they make and also that their life opportunities won't be impeded by making the choice to continue with a pregnancy. As Ingender Scotland has said, access to safe abortion healthcare is essential for the realisation of women's economic and social human rights. I believe therefore that the establishment of buffer zones is essential, creating a safe place for women attending clinics aligned with the Scottish Government's women's health plan. I disagree with those who say that creating buffer zones should not proceed due to the threat of legal action. Doing nothing is not an option and women deserve better. I am conscious of the number of speakers that still want to contribute to the debate, and therefore I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3. To extend the debate by 30 minutes, I would invite Gillian Mackay to move such a motion. Move, Deputy Presiding Officer. The question is, the debate is extended by 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much indeed, and I now call on Alex Cole-Hamilton, who will be followed by John Mason. Before I start, I commend the exceptional quality of all the speeches that have been made in this debate. I thank Gillian Mackay fulsomly for bringing this debate to the chamber, along with the work of organisations such as Back Off Scotland, and just to say to Ms Mackay that I will be supporting her member's bill, and I congratulate her for launching that today. I have supported the introduction of buffer zones around any healthcare facilities that offer termination of pregnancy, since I first entered this place five years ago. I have actively sought out meetings with pro-abortion campaigners to discuss this issue with them. They maintain that there is somehow a clash of rights at the heart of this debate. I reject that entirely. I do not believe that your right to freedom of speech should come at the expense of a woman's right to medical privacy. They have said time and time again that those facilities are not used solely for abortions or for terminations. To them, in which case, you are making things worse. You are creating a picket line for people to cross who are trying to access the most intimate forms of medical care. They say that they are not trying to be intimidating. They are not intimidating, they will even say. I am sorry, but that is not for them to judge. If you are in possibly some of the most vulnerable situations of your life, then the last thing that you want to do is to cross a picket line where you are being hectic and intimidated by people of a different view to you. That is not a debate about free speech. Protesters are entitled to their freedom of speech. Of course they are. Gillian Mackay has rightly indicated to the chamber that there are many platforms that are available for people who believe that abortion is wrong. Nothing about buffer zones impedes that right. The right of freedom of speech does not mean that you have a right to intimidate people. It just does not go there. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is very seldom one that is taken lightly. We know that there are of course situations where those who are pregnant do change their mind about the procedure, but they deserve to be supported in that change of mind, in that reversal of decision, by staff who are trained to navigate the complexities surrounding pregnancy, not by those who want to impose their own personal opinion or judgment, often through a form of intimidation that, as I say, asks people to cross a picket line. As a society, it is our duty to protect the mental and physical wellbeing of our fellow citizens. There are no caveats to that very human obligation. I am proud to say that my party has long supported this issue and campaigned on it. There is no incongruity here as a liberal about creating buffer zones and protecting freedom of speech, as I have already covered. We need to protect some spaces in our society that are free from any kind of judgment or intimidation. Those medical facilities offer, as I have said, the most intimate forms of medical care. We have been campaigning on those rights for years. Three years ago, I wrote to the then Minister for Public Health following the picketing outside of the charmers clinic. I would like to give particular credit to my colleague in London, Sarah Olney, who, in March last year, tabled legislation in the UK Parliament that seeks to prohibit anti-abortion protests within 150 metres as Backoff Scotland has asked of abortion clinics. I have met those campaigners and I will continue to engage with them, but my party will fight for the existence of buffer zones because what is happening today is simply not good enough. As we have said, 70 per cent of people live in Scotland where anti-abortion protests take place. 100,000 people in 2019 attended abortion clinics were targeted by demonstrations. People who are targeted by those protests do not report feeling supported or helped. Instead, they report feeling embarrassed and shunned. I am sure that none of us here in this chamber are comfortable with the knowledge that thousands of people in Scotland are faced by that kind of intimidation. I support Gillian Motion and I will certainly support her private member's bill. I thank Gillian Mackay for bringing this debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss what is clearly a sensitive subject. I realise that some would argue that men should not have an opinion on abortion and should not be speaking on anything related to abortion. I might accept that if I was convinced that life begins at birth, but that is the key point, is not it? When does life begin? Is it at birth? In which case we are talking solely about a woman's body and her right to choose whatever healthcare is necessary and suitable for her? Or does life begin at conception? In which case there are two lives from that point on—the mother's life and the baby's life? If that is the case, as I believe it is, then someone has a duty to speak up for the baby who has no voice. I accept that this is a highly contentious and emotive area, and it can be difficult to discuss it in a calm way. However, at least I hope that we can all accept that these two positions can each be validly held and we can respect those who take a different view on when life begins. Moving on more specifically to gatherings or vigils or protests outside clinics or hospitals and whether we need buffer zones, I do realise that there have been aggressive protests and even violence, especially in the United States and elsewhere. Having been invited to visit such a gathering back in 2018, I attended one almost exactly three years ago outside the Queen Elizabeth University hospital in Glasgow. It was held across a fairly wide road from the hospital, and as folk may know, the hospital occupies a huge site, so the gathering was not close to any actual medical facility. From memory, there were perhaps a dozen people there at the most, and much of the time was spent in quietly saying prayers. There was nothing that could really be called a protest, in my opinion, and certainly nothing louder, aggressive or even close to harassment, intimidation or abuse, as the motion suggests. I think that it is probably better that I do not take an intervention. The tone of this debate has been good so far, so I think that I will just carry on if the member does not mind. I suppose that my starting point would be if there is not any real problem in Scotland, why would we need legislation? As I understand it, Police Scotland has been asked under freedom of information about whether there have been any incidents in Edinburgh or Glasgow. Apart from two incidents that were reported in September 2020 at the Chambers Sexual Health Centre when no action was taken, there appear to have been no serious problems in either city since the FOI request began in January 2018. The existing law seems to be effective, and local authorities can use bylaws if that is required. Another angle on that is whether all women who are going for abortions are able to make a choice or realise that they have a choice. Evidence would suggest that, at least in some cases, partners or family members are coercing pregnant women to have an abortion when they do not really want to. After coverage of the subject in the media a few weeks ago, one woman contacted me and I quote from her for the rest of my speech. We are here for the women who are in their heart of heart, not at peace, about going ahead with an abortion. They need a last minute lifeline. Many women literally pray for a sign that they should keep their baby. She continues, There are many women in this position, and I was one of them at the age of 20. These women often live with torment and regret for the rest of their lives. I have met one woman during the vigil in her 60s who said unequivocally that abortion had ruined her life. She has had four decades of trauma. Again, she says, I myself had three decades of various problems. My experience of the NHS was that, as soon as I expressed doubt about going ahead with the pregnancy, I was put on a conveyor belt all the way to the termination. We would really need to hear the other side of the debate in Parliament. Thank you, Mr Mason. I now call on Pam Duncan-Glancy to be followed by Maggie Chapman. I thank my colleague Dylan Mackay for bringing this motion to the Parliament today and back off Scotland for the work that they are doing to protect women from harassment. I would also like to put on record my solidarity with and support to all women who have experienced targeted harassment outside of abortion clinics. Accessing an abortion is a vital and necessary form of healthcare. They are not only a fundamental human right, but, in many cases, abortions are also life-saving. That is why I was horrified to see anti-abortion protesters outside hospitals in Scotland and, in particular, in the city of Glasgow, which I represent. Harassment, intimidation and abuse is always unacceptable, but it is particularly vile at a time when it is often deeply distressing for the person attending the clinic. That is why the introduction of buffer zones around abortion clinics is so desperately and urgently needed. Unlike typical protests, as the engender says, against states or organisational action, the presence of anti-abortion campaigners at services directs disruption to individual women and the predetermined course of action. Women who experience multiple forms of discrimination may encounter harassment underpin not only by sexism but by racism, ageism and ableism too. Campaigners frequently carry materials directed at individual women, urging them to avoid abortion or, often with extremely distressing images and messages, and, worryingly, some of the material is also inaccurate. The presence of protesters or vigils outside clinics that provide abortion services affects not just the women, as we have heard, who are accessing abortion, but harms staff and other patients seeking sexual and reproductive health services from contraception to STI checks. That can dissuade people from accessing vital and urgent treatment. There are countless and varied and personal reasons why people access abortions, but one thing is certain. Those women should not be ashamed outside hospitals for having done so. I wonder whether protesters outside hospitals have stopped to think about the women who they are harassing at that moment in time. Have they considered the impact that forcing a woman to complete a pregnancy against her will could have on her physical and mental health? As a disabled woman, I know only too well what it is like to be denied access to healthcare, including to have people tell you what you should and shouldn't do with your body. I cannot begin to describe how dehumanising it is having people subjugate your bodily autonomy. We need to guarantee that people are free to make decisions at that time without harassment, coercion or intimidation. Those who argue against abortion rights have claimed in some cases that people who have abortions would later regret the decision. Yet studies show that almost all women who have an abortion later say that it was the right choice. Importantly, reducing access to abortion or making it more difficult or intimidating to do it does not decrease the demand for it. Evidence shows that, where access is restricted, it leads to a higher rate of unsafe abortions, and that has devastating consequences. Across the globe each year, there are around 47,000 deaths due to unsafe abortions. That is why the protests outside our hospitals are so abhorrent, and that is why it is crucial that women can access free, safe and legal abortions without harassment. As a nation, Scotland prides itself on values such as liberty, equality and respect for human rights. As a Parliament, it is our responsibility to uphold and protect those values in law. That means that it is our job to ensure that people have access to abortions freely and safely without fear of harassment. It is their human rights and it is integral to achieving gender equality. Introducing 150m buffer zones around abortion clinics is one way in which we can do that and make sure that people across Scotland can access abortion care without needless extra pain and distress that is currently being inflicted on them. I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care almost a month ago to ask if and when the Government will implement buffer zones. I hope that they will get an answer back to me soon and that they will treat this issue with the urgency that it deserves. We have the power to act now in Scotland to protect women's human rights and I urge the Government to do so. I thank my colleague Gillian Mackay for bringing this important motion for debate today and I would like to echo hers and other people's remarks about the work that Back Off Scotland and others have done to raise awareness of the issue. Of course, I am delighted that you have secured a member's bill or that you will be lodging a member's bill on the issue and taking it through Parliament. Well done, you. Earlier this session, I asked the Minister what the Scottish Government could do other than support local authority bylaws to create protest-free buffer zones outside clinics that provide abortion services. The answer that I got was a little bit disappointing because it really just reiterated the local authority bylaw mechanism. I am pleased that the programme for government outlines a clear commitment for government to support any local authority who wishes to use the bylaws in this way, but we have to do more. As a Green, I believe passionately in the principle of subsidiarity, which holds that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most local level that is consistent with a resolution. Local decision making and local empowerment are central to my politics, so, on the face of it, it may seem appropriate for local authorities to have the powers over this issue that we are discussing today. However, the key part of that definition of subsidiarity that is relevant today is the bit about the appropriateness of the level of decision making. As Gillian Mackay and others have outlined, this is about access to healthcare. It is about a fundamental right. I do not want that right to be contingent on geography. If we believe—and it seems that most of us do—that all people in Scotland should have the legal right to make choices about their reproductive health and must be able to access this healthcare without intimidation, coercion, harassment or stigmatisation, then we have the obligation to act, regardless of the views of any local authority. We would not find it acceptable if people of colour in one part of Scotland were protected by anti-racist legislation while people of colour in another part of Scotland were not. To pick up on comments made in a previous contribution, just because Police Scotland does not have a long list of examples of harassment and intimidation does not mean that it does not happen. We know it does. We know only too well, especially for issues such as this and issues that affect women, that they do not go to the police, that they do not report things, so that is not an excuse not to do this. We need a national approach on this. We need buffer zones outside all hospitals and clinics and we need them urgently. It should never be acceptable for people to be harassed, bullied or stigmatised as they access healthcare. Such buffer zones will also allow healthcare professionals who work in these facilities whether or not they have anything to do with abortion services to go to and from their work without harassment, bullying or stigmatisation. That is a right that all workers should be able to rely on. I look forward to supporting Jillian Mackay as she works with those across this chamber and across Scotland on her member's bill. We must legislate to protect the rights of people who have their safety, wellbeing, privacy and dignity protected. May I begin by thanking Jillian Mackay for bringing this important debate to the chamber? I also like to commend Jillian Mackay for the tone that she is taking in approaching this debate because it really is important to say that it does not really matter what your view on abortion is. It is women making difficult decisions should not be intimidated or prevented from healthcare. I also like to put on record that I respect the tone and the contribution of John Mason who holds a different view. I would ask John to consider, and I hope that we would agree on that point, that if women are looking for a sign when making a difficult decision, I hope we agree that that sign can never be someone screaming in a woman's face. The sign can never be a woman feeling intimidated in any way. I hope that we can agree on that point because the decision to have an abortion is not one that any woman would take slightly. There are many reasons my women want to choose this route but that is not what the debate is really about. Women do not need at this difficult time the judgment of others who do not know or understand their own personal circumstances. The campaign back of Scotland says that they accept that the campaign is right to speak out against abortion and I do too, but if they want to, they believe that they should not be allowed to target women and force their views on them as they attend their appointments. The co-founder and director of the campaign Lucy Greaves said, We support freedom of speech and the freedom to protest, whilst we are all pro-choice in the campaign. We understand that people have different views, but go to Parliament, do not stand outside clinics. She thinks that it is inappropriate. She says that she cannot politicise somebody's body when they are going for a legal medical procedure. Research conducted by the British pregnancy advisory service found in the last five years that there have been anti-abortion presence in 42 clinics in England and Wales, and it notes that 100,000 pregnant women were subjected to anti-choice harassment in 2019 alone. Since the beginning of 2017, as we have heard with other members, seven hospitals in clinics in Scotland have been targeted repeatedly, repeatedly, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Edinburgh Chammer Centre, Dundee's Nine-Mail Hospital, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Larbott's Fourth Valley, while the hospital Queen Elizabeth University hospital and the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, and anti-choice groups stand outside the clinic, hospital entities and display signs with graphic images. I have seen many of those graphic images and, whilst I have never been in that situation, I myself was subjected to what I think was totally inappropriate treatment of an anti-abortion group who leafleted my entire street with those images of my neighbours. In fact, I was never even asked to explain what my position was, but I actually think that this may be the first time I have spoken on the issue. I have always been concerned about the tactics that I want to emphasise of some groups that go too far, and we can disagree, but we have to draw some lines. Many women talk about feeling targeted and feeling alone and being a deeply intimidating experience. If Gillian Mackay is going to bring a member who is going forward in buffer zones, I think that that is the right thing to do, and I am likely to support that because I do think that it is time that we recognise that it is acceptable to harass women into making a different decision. You have the right to protest, and like everyone else here, I will stand up and I will defend enthusiastically your right to protest. It is a very sensitive issue, but you do not have the right to bully, you do not have the right to harass, you do not have the right to scream in women's faces. For that reason, I think that we may need to take some action here to prevent and protect those women from making those very difficult choices. Thank you very much indeed, Ms McNeill. I now call on Emma Roddick, again four minutes, Ms Roddick. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I just want to point out first of all that we are not here today to debate whether abortion should be available to people who want or need it. We are here to debate whether people who are exercising their right to choose and exercising their bodily autonomy should be able to do so without threat of harassment or abuse, that anyone would argue against that is abhorrent to me and frankly unforgivable, but has not stopped the usual suspects using this incredibly important, worthy and apparently necessary motion brought forward by Gillian Mackay to remind us that they are still waiting in the wings to try and remove our rights. I am very grateful to Gillian Mackay for bringing this debate forward and clear that I have nothing but contempt for those who are loudly and unashamedly seeking to hijack it in order to pursue their agenda of placing my body and the bodies of others. I want to remind my SNP colleagues that we are a progressive social democratic party. I do not understand what social democracy means if it does not include defending reproductive rights. Our policy on this is clear that abortion is a legal right in Scotland and we will protect it. Abortion is deeply personal and often a traumatising decision and experience. To read one of Back Off Scotland's activists say that she, in that moment of trauma, found herself focusing more on the looming need to walk past a group of hostile protesters after going through that rather than the process that she has been through is disturbing and it is a situation faced by countless women across the country that needs our urgent attention. Freedom of speech has been mentioned a lot in this debate and it is an important concept but dangerous if you do not understand what it means. You are a free to think what you like and speak up on your views on policy and protest government decisions absolutely, but there is a difference between deciding abortion isn't for you and rocking up to a clinic to harass and judge those who chose differently. There is a difference between having personal views and showing up to Parliament as a legislator seeking to restrict the freedom of others and prevent them from exercising freedom of choice. There is a difference between exercising your own personal freedom and restricting the ability of others to do the same. I would never advocate for abortion to be forced upon someone and equally I will always fight against pregnancy and childbirth being forced upon someone. We have to be clear that those people are not protesting policy, they are standing outside hospitals, not parliaments, they are not harmlessly and peacefully making their views heard, they are violently preventing people from accessing healthcare and harassing vulnerable patients while they walk towards what should be a place of care and safety. However quietly they claim to pray, the act of praying at someone while they access health services, trying to persuade a stranger whose individual situation you know nothing about to carry a child because that's their purpose is disgusting however you spin it. Whether it's someone seeking an abortion, staff caring for patients or people accessing a clinic that offers abortion services to seek help with sexual assault or another medical issue, we know that protecting them is the right thing to do. Let's not leave it up to local authorities to decide whether they fancy protecting human rights. Acting is within our power in this place, it's within the commitments of the governing party's manifesto and it is within our duty to our constituents. So I plead with the women's health minister to act. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer and I'd like to thank Gillian Mackay for bringing forward this motion and also to thank members for their contribution to this debate. As many have said, abortion is an issue on which there can be quite polarized views, but I believe that we can all agree that we do not want to see people feeling harassed or intimidated when accessing healthcare services. Women in Scotland should have access to abortion services as part of routine care and available free from stigma. Abortion is a very personal decision and so to face scrutiny in this way when accessing the service after the woman has made her decision is incredibly difficult. Both our programme for government and the women's health plan included undertakings on this and I hope that this indicates the importance that we place on this issue. I appreciate that many of those attending protests or vigils say that they are not aiming to intimidate or harass women who are seeking abortion, but the fact remains that some women are reporting feeling harassed or intimidated when accessing these services and we have heard many accounts of this today. When I met with Back Off Scotland in September to hear about their campaign, I also heard about their personal experiences of accessing abortion. They were powerful testimonies and I admired their tenacity in pursuing this campaign. So I am very aware of the frustration in this chamber and on the part of the campaigners that more progress has not been made on this issue. But I am afraid that there are no easy solutions on this issue. I know that Back Off Scotland and many MSPs here would like to see legislation to create buffer zones to ban gatherings, vigils or protests around all abortion services in Scotland. I totally understand the motivation behind such calls and I sympathise with the concerns raised. However, it is important that any action taken is proportionate and that it balances the ECHR rights of people accessing healthcare and of those people attending the vigils or protests. Patients should be able to access healthcare without feeling intimidated or harassed, but at the same time we need to recognise the rights of people to protest peacefully and to express their views. I appreciate the point that has been made that where those protests or vigils take place is important and it can be distressing for patients, but we also have to take into account that they are focused on a limited number of locations currently in Edinburgh and Glasgow, rather than affecting all abortion clinics in Scotland. While we believe that buffer zones can be justified in certain circumstances, the Scottish Government does not consider that imposing blanket buffer zones around all abortion clinics would be appropriate. Emma Rottick Does the minister recognise that, as per the back-off briefing that we received the other day, that 70 per cent of Scottish women live in a health board with a hospital or clinic that has been targeted by anti-choice groups in the past five years? I recognise that, but the member will be aware and that all members will be aware that our view is that bylaws are the most appropriate way to tackle the issue. We are making a bylaw that can be justified in the specific circumstances of a particular case and that is because they are tailored to local circumstances. I also think that it is the fastest way of pursuing primary legislation that takes time, certainly. Emma Rottick It is just on the point in terms of targeted bylaws. Does the minister agree that groups could move to other areas if bylaws are introduced in certain areas? Therefore, instead of tackling the issue across Scotland, we are just moving the situation to another area? Emma Rottick I am aware of that concern and that was raised with me in my meeting in September. The former public health minister, Jo Fitzpatrick, wrote to all local authority chief executives in May 2019 to make them aware of the option of using bylaw powers where it is appropriate. I am aware that local authorities are taking a different view, some of them. I will seek to discuss the issue further with them with COSLA and other stakeholders, because I am determined to find a way forward so that we can limit the impacts of process or vigils in women accessing services. I can assure you that officials have been in discussion with COSLA and local authorities for some time on the issue. I hope to continue that dialogue. It is worth noting that the restrictions in place in England that the motion refers to are also on a local basis rather than a national basis. In England, a small number of abortion clinics for buffer zones have been put in place by local authorities. That has happened using public spaces protection orders. They are similar to our bylaws and they can be made where local circumstances justify that. The UK Government carried out a review of the issue in 2017 for England and Wales and concluded that a local approach remained appropriate. Yes, I will give way. I am struggling to understand the circumstances in which it would be appropriate not to legislate to have a buffer zone. Could you maybe explain a bit more about that? All I can say is that the precedent in the UK is that this is taken forward on a local basis. We have looked at other countries' legislation as well. We have mentioned that there are buffer zones on a broad scale in countries such as Australia and Canada. Interestingly, in Australia and Canada, the legislation is at a state level rather than a federal level. We must also note that these countries are subject to their own legal systems and we need to consider the position in Scotland based on the circumstances and facts presented in each case and within the context of our own law. It is useful to look around the world and indeed the UK and I continue to do that as I seek to find a way forward. As I have said, though, while we are keen to make progress on this issue, the Scottish Government does not feel that a national ban is an option. Similarly, we do know that local authorities are unlikely to take forward by-law proposals at the current time. We will consider what other avenues may be available to us to ensure that women can access abortion services without feeling harassed or intimidated. As part of that work, we will also consider protests that are taking place outside healthcare facilities and other types of protests, such as those outside vaccination clinics. In summary, I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue. We do want to find a way forward to ensure that women are not feeling harassed or intimidated when accessing these services. I look forward to seeing the member's bill being lodged by Gillian Mackay. I am happy to discuss it with her. Clearly, I need to see the legislation before I can form an opinion, but today I can be clear that the principle of protected spaces is one that this Government supports. That is why we support the use of by-laws. To finish, I do not pretend that this will be easy, but I want to relay the message to the chamber and all those who are listening that we will continue to seek to find a way forward.