Seòmar agus comataidhean

The number of female probationers in Police Scotland has nosedived by almost a third since 2021. A damning independent report into the force’s so-called equality, diversity and inclusion activities was quietly published by Police Scotland last month. It found

“pervasive attitudes of misogyny and sexism across all areas and divisions.”

It also describes

“a hostile environment for women who may choose to leave their careers early.”

The Scottish National Party Government cannot look the other way, and alarm bells are ringing. How will the Scottish Government hold Police Scotland to account, to ensure that it creates a safe space for female employees?

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of police service strength, in light of the decrease in Police Scotland’s officer numbers. (S6O-03725)

The north-east is experiencing a dramatic increase in new transmission infrastructure to serve offshore wind. The affected communities deserve proper consultation, but that has been far from what has happened. For residents who bear the brunt of the new infrastructure, it feels like an unfair and unjust transition. As the Scottish Government looks to improve the planning and consenting regime for renewables—which the First Minister described as “making consenting faster”—is the First Minister willing to meet community representatives and campaigners to listen to their concerns and ensure that they are not left behind?

The Royal College of General Practitioners is clear that the prescribing of gender-affirming hormones should generally be done only by specialists. However, it is often done by GPs, who have shared with me their concerns about safe prescribing to patients who have gender dysphoria. Can the Scottish Government confirm whether, under the new standards, GPs will be routinely expected to prescribe gender-affirming hormones, and whether shared-care protocols will be put in place?

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will review the process for admitting visitors to the public gallery in the chamber. (S6O-03585)

Members’ business debates are a brilliant opportunity for MSPs to raise issues that matter to their constituents. However, during my debate last month, constituents from Angus and Aberdeenshire were unable to hear my opening remarks because they were still filing in, which was disappointing for them because they had travelled so far.

I have attended other members’ business debates at which visitors were seated at the back of the gallery, as is the case today, with plenty of seats at the front remaining unused, which we can also see today. I welcome the points about experience and safety, but we can clearly see that the situation is not acceptable. Will the corporate body consider reviewing processes in the people’s Parliament to ensure that opening speeches do not begin until all visitors are seated, and that better use is made of the seating arrangements?

This is a complex topic with varied and sometimes polarising points of view. As we have heard today, however, the bill is not about abortion; it is about women being able to access the healthcare that they need at what can be a vulnerable, isolating and difficult time. Like other members of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, I thank the convener, clerks, witnesses and all those who submitted evidence during the passage of the bill. The Parliament has handled the issue with both sensitivity and security in mind, and I thank everyone who has been involved in this undertaking.

The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill has achieved cross-party consensus, and I am pleased to support it at stage 3 today. As the Law Society of Scotland emphasises, any restriction on articles 8, 9, 10 or 11 of the European convention on human rights is a “careful balancing exercise”. I am a staunch defender of free speech, but I recognise that that must not come at the expense of women’s health or our right to access medical services free of prejudice. Women have a right to access reproductive healthcare unimpeded by protests. They also have a right to privacy, especially when it comes to their own health.

I was struck by a story that was shared by Back Off Scotland at the start of the bill’s parliamentary passage, which was about a pregnant mum. She received the devastating diagnosis at her 20-week scan that her baby had something seriously wrong with her heart. She said:

“I had to make the decision whether to finish the pregnancy and allow her to die, or to terminate.”

She added that the protesters made her

“feel like a monster for making the decision”

to have an abortion, and that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder—PTSD. She continued:

“Terminations are a much-needed service for many reasons, and no-one should be made to feel like a monster for using the service.”

Her experience is a sobering reminder of why we are here today. We know that at least 12 hospitals and clinics have been targeted across Scotland since 2017, including Aberdeen maternity hospital in my region. It is clear that the existing legislative framework has not prevented such protests. Scotland is the only part of the UK not to have safe access zone legislation in place, with Westminster legislating last year and Stormont back in 2021.

Against that background, it is right that we legislate on the issue and it was right, too, that we strengthened the bill as much as possible so that it will protect women not just when it is enacted but in the years to come. That is why, with my amendments at stages 2 and 3, I focused on post-legislative scrutiny, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government was receptive to those changes. The test will now be in how the bill’s provisions are enforced and in the impact that they will have on women accessing abortion services and on the staff who support them. We will be watching.

Will the minister take an intervention?

At stage 2, I lodged an amendment on reporting on and reviewing the act in order to facilitate post-legislative scrutiny as a means of implementing the recommendations of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s stage 1 report. I agreed with the minister and Gillian Mackay that we would work collaboratively on the issue prior to stage 3, and I thank them for their shared working and engagement with me.

Amendment 9 revisits the issue of information on the use of the new offences that the act will create. I understand from the minister that the standard range of reporting measures for those offences will be available and that she anticipates that such details should be included in the post-legislative review report. However, “should” is not “must”, and my amendment introduces a requirement to include data on the number of arrests, criminal proceedings and convictions in such a report.

Given the balance of rights involved in the legislation, I discussed with the minister and Gillian Mackay the possibility of reducing the review period from five to three years. I am really pleased that my suggestion has been taken forward by the Scottish Government and by Rachael Hamilton in amendment 11.

Amendment 10, which I have worked on with the Scottish Government and Ms Mackay, would put beyond doubt that enforcement agencies must be consulted during the review process. The effect would be that Scottish ministers, when undertaking a review, must consult Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, operators of protected premises or their representatives and such other persons as are considered appropriate.

I move amendment 9.

I will be brief. I thank the minister for her remarks on the recording and reporting of offences, and I welcome the fact that they are on the official record. Nonetheless, I intend to press amendment 9.

I also welcome the cross-party working on amendment 10. Given the issues involved and the rights affected, it is important that any review of the act is robust. I therefore urge members to support that amendment.