Official Report 332KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-01844, in the name of Helen McDade, on face coverings in public places. Members who wish to speak should press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call Helen McDade to speak to and move the motion.
16:31
Reform believes in free speech, which was denied in this Parliament on 8 October 2026, when Reform had a members’ business debate. Thomas Kerr introduced the motion on face coverings, and he was the only Reform member who got to speak. Five of our female MSPs requested to speak. The refusal to agree to a motion to extend the debate was a new low for the Parliament.
Ironically, the same day, the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution, by 381 votes to 167, which supported national measures to prohibit full face coverings in public spaces, citing public safety and law enforcement. Face coverings are banned in many European countries. There are nationwide bans in France, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Portugal and Austria. Many Muslim-majority countries have enacted bans or restrictions, including Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kurdistan and Uzbekistan. Chad enacted a complete ban on the burqa following suicide bombings in 2015. Of course, people can wear religious and cultural clothing. However, as human beings, we want to see other people's faces. We in Reform are proposing that no face coverings should be allowed in public places.
Consider these four different scenarios. We have seen videos of groups of young men in Glasgow wearing balaclavas and causing mayhem and fear. We all agree that that is unacceptable and that police must take action.
Will the member give way?
I will not be taking an intervention. I learnt that lesson when we did not get to speak last time.
Even in circumstances where there is no criminality, many of us may feel fearful when surrounded by people whose faces we cannot see. We, as humans, naturally observe facial expressions to gauge the emotions and intent of others.
There are examples of when face coverings protect the aggressor from justice. In Drumchapel, a 76-year-old man was injured in a hit-and-run by two youths wearing balaclavas on an electric motorbike. In Birkenhead, a woman in her 60s suffered fractured ribs and was unable to walk for weeks after being struck from behind by a masked e-bike rider. Masks are a great help to criminals.
Here is another aspect to consider: biological development. Research has shown that babies have an innate preference for looking at human faces, using them as vital ways to build language, emotional and social skills from birth. [Interruption]. That is not simply about interacting with their parents and carers; that is how children learn to engage with people all around them.
Will the member give way?
No. I explained that I will not take an intervention. [Interruption].
Everyone here has probably sat on a bus or a train behind a small child peeking over the seat. [Interruption].
Mr Kerr, the member has made it clear that they are not taking an intervention.
You smile at a baby when they look at you, and then they smile back. You give a big grin to them, and they give one back. That is how children become part of society. Even as adults, we continue to smile at strangers and expect, or hope for, a friendly smile back.
What about cultural dress? The shouting from other parts of the chamber on 8 October claimed that people should be entitled to wear what they like, yet no one is allowed to walk around the streets naked.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek clarity in the debate.
Will you please quote the standing order on which you are making your point of order?
I do not know the standing order number, but it is a valid point of order. The point of order is in relation to the ruling that you have made from the chair. Am I to understand that none of us will be allowed to take interventions without sacrificing our speaking time?
Mr Kerr, each item is considered as a whole in the Parliament. We have moved to a new debate. If we run out of time or exceed our allotted time for the debate, I will make a ruling.
So, Helen McDade will get time back?
Yes.
For clarity, I am not taking an intervention.
Even as adults, we seek to—[Interruption.] No wonder people look at politicians and think, “Oh, my God.” Even as adults, we continue to smile at strangers and expect or hope for a friendly smile back. I do not expect one here, but, in general, outside in the street, I do.
What about cultural dress? People do not get to wear what they like. You cannot walk around the street naked—a well-known naturist was jailed for doing just that—so we do make rules about what people wear.
I live in a rural Scottish village. I did not join Reform because of anything to do with the cultural changes that we are seeing, which did not affect me or my immediate area; I did not know anything about that. I joined because I was furious about the net zero brainwashing that we get from people.
So, why am I increasing my security risk now and putting up with this nonsense from the majority of MSPs? I went to the Gorton and Denton constituency to campaign in the election. The Scottish contingent was sent to Gorton. It was a quiet weekday afternoon, when it is usual not to see many people in the street or to have them come to the door when knocked. However, it is not usual to see no women at all in the streets for several hours or for the few doors that crack open to be opened by women who appeared scared and who quickly indicated that they did not speak English and shut the doors. The only women who we saw in the area that six of us canvassed were women in full burqas who picked up children from school and quickly disappeared off the streets. A man said to us, “How dare you come to this multicultural area?”, but there was nothing multicultural about it.
The member must come to a conclusion.
It was clear that outsiders were not supposed to be there. Did I feel nervous at that time of day? No. However, if I was a lesbian holding hands with my partner, I would not walk there at dusk. It was a ghetto—whether voluntarily or not. I came away and thought, “I must be braver; I must speak out for girls who want to mix with other people in our country.” The first step is to ban face coverings, whether on men or women. We are all members of society, and we want to say, “Hi,” and smile, which is how people become friends and not strangers.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the ongoing debate across Scotland regarding the wearing of full-face coverings, including the burqa and niqab, in public places; recognises that legislation in Scotland already provides police with powers to require the removal of face coverings in specified circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are being used to conceal identity in connection with criminality or disorder; notes the Scottish Government’s current position that existing police powers are sufficient; further notes that a number of European countries have introduced restrictions on face coverings in public places, and notes calls for the Scottish Government to set out its assessment of the potential benefits of introducing further restrictions on full-face coverings in public places, including consideration of public safety, individual liberty and community cohesion.
I call Kirsten Oswald to speak to and move amendment S7M-01844.2.
16:38
Here we are, yet again, with Reform UK members coming to the chamber and telling women what to wear. I will say this to them again: it is none of their business what women wear.
They have come here with the selfsame motion that they brought to the chamber for debate just a few weeks ago. Today’s Reform motion again references precisely two types of face covering: the burqa and the niqab. Again, the motion does not mention balaclavas—not a single reference to balaclavas is written in the motion—so there is absolutely no good in Reform members suggesting that they have brought this debate to the chamber because of concerns about the wearing of balaclavas for criminal or antisocial behaviour. If that was their concern, they would have written it down; they would have written something—anything—about balaclavas in the motion.
I will come on to say a bit about the wearing of balaclavas, which is a topic of broad interest and concern and one that is worth discussing. However, that is not what their motion says, and it is not what it seeks to do. The motion tells us exactly what they are interested in: telling women—specifically, Muslim women—what to wear.
I will be crystal clear: the motion and the debate—which, after all, they already held just a couple of weeks ago—is deliberately divisive, racist, Islamophobic and designed to foster hostility. It is an attack on Muslim women. It is a disgraceful way for members of an alleged political party to conduct themselves, and they should be ashamed of themselves, but, of course, they are not. That is because they are, in their very essence, divisive. Today, they seek to stir up further division and fear.
Is Kirsten Oswald really suggesting that France, Belgium, Austria, Denmark and Switzerland are racist? They have restrictions on face coverings, including bans. Is she seriously suggesting that all those European countries—which she wants to join—are racist? I say, seriously, get a grip.
I am seriously suggesting that Reform UK and its motion are racist. We heard that in the contribution that Helen McDade has just made—we all listened—connecting burqas with suicide bombing and suggesting that all face coverings are the same thing. They are not.
Will the minister take an intervention on that point?
I do not have a great deal of time, so I will continue for now.
We all know that the debate is intended to foster division.
I will talk a bit about the amendment that we have lodged. That amendment has been backed by the Green Party and Labour, for which I am very grateful, because we need to speak with one voice on these issues. We need to be explicit that it is not for the Parliament to legislate on what women choose to wear, and that parliamentarians should lead by example in rejecting the language and actions of those who seek to divide our communities in person and online.
During the election campaign, this year, the First Minister made it clear that he would not co-operate with Reform members in the Parliament, due to their language, which seeks to incite racial hatred. On seeing the return of the motion, I say that it is very clear that he was right to take that stand.
All our communities deserve to live safely and to feel safe. They are entitled to expect that individuals who engage in violence, disorder and persistent antisocial behaviour will be dealt with. Those are legitimate concerns.
Will the minister give way?
Not just now, Mr Kerr.
However, we all know who is not responsible for those kinds of behaviour. It is not women in burqas and niqabs who are causing the disorder, so I ask again why Reform is singling them out by referencing in its motion only those two types of face covering.
Balaclavas, which are sometimes worn to mask the identities of those engaging in troubling behaviour, have certainly been a focus of my attention and discussions over recent weeks. As things stand, Scotland has a range of powers available to address circumstances in which face coverings are used in connection with criminality or disorder. Those include powers relating to public order, protest activity, stop and search—where the legal tests are met—and powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which permit officers, in specified circumstances, to require the removal of face coverings.
Will the minister give way on that point?
Not just now.
Police Scotland has stated publicly that the powers that are currently available to officers are sufficient. However, the service continues to monitor the operation of new powers that have been introduced elsewhere in the United Kingdom and is gathering evidence to understand their effectiveness in practice, and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has said that he will do the same and will consider whether further targeted measures may be helpful where there is clear evidence that they would improve public safety, support operational policing and remain consistent with our obligations on human rights.
Our focus should be on tackling criminality and antisocial behaviour, not on telling women what they should or should not wear. We should not question what a woman wears. What matters is whether she is safe, whether her rights are protected and whether perpetrators of violence are held accountable. That is what the Government is focused on.
The sheer hypocrisy of Reform members, who talk about the protection of women and girls then fan the flames of hatred—which, in itself, endangers some women and girls—is eye-watering. They need to stop using the protection of women and girls as a cover for racism. We see what they are doing—and, I assure them, so do women and girls. They will not succeed.
Will the minister give way?
I am not giving way.
Scotland is an inclusive, diverse and welcoming country. We have benefited enormously from our diversity, and we will continue to do so. Strong, cohesive communities, which work for all of us, are at the heart of our future. The Scottish Government will stand firm in rejecting efforts to sow division, suspicion and intolerance. We will remain focused on strengthening community cohesion, fostering mutual respect and understanding, and ensuring that everyone who calls Scotland home can live safely, freely and with dignity. I urge all members to reject Reform’s dangerous and divisive nonsense and to support the Government’s amendment.
I move amendment S7M-01844.2, to leave out from first “notes” to end, and insert:
“acknowledges that it is not for Parliament to legislate for what women choose to wear, and agrees that parliamentarians should lead by example in rejecting the language and actions of those who seek to divide Scotland’s communities in person and online.”
16:45
It is very frustrating, and I repeat what I said from a sedentary position: I do not know why we have debates in this place if members, especially those on the front bench, will not give way to other members.
In truth, if the minister had any guile, this debate would not be about telling people how to dress; it would be about the fact that there are people in our communities who feel afraid because other people deliberately cover their faces to conceal their identities while they intimidate people, commit crime or become involved in serious disorder. The question is straightforward: do our police officers have the powers that they need to deal with that? I am not convinced that they do.
Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 should be the focus of the debate, but let us be clear about what that power actually is. A section 60 authorisation has to be in place before officers have the power to intervene to ask people to remove face coverings. It applies to a defined area for a defined period, and the threshold is deliberately high. We are talking about anticipated “serious violence” or people
“carrying dangerous instruments or offensive weapons”.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will.
Can Stephen Kerr tell me how many people who wear niqabs or burqas are among those who have been caught carrying dangerous weapons in that context? The point that the minister was getting at, and the reason that she spoke about face coverings, is because those face coverings are named explicitly in the motion. That tells us what the motion is about, and what its intent is.
I am grateful to Maggie Chapman for her intervention, and I know what drives her to make it, but I am addressing my amendment, which is about criminal activity, or the threat of criminal activity, by those who use face coverings to conceal their identity.
We on the Criminal Justice Committee have received evidence from Police Scotland and from police officers that they do not have the powers that they need to be able to intervene and act. I am trying to explain what section 60 of the 1994 act does: it creates a deliberately high threshold. What is a police officer supposed to do when a group of people are standing there with their faces covered, deliberately concealing their identities, and the officer has good reason to believe that trouble is brewing? Do we really say to that officer, “You do not yet have the power to act because the situation has not become serious enough”? At the point that it becomes serious enough, it is too late.
I am grateful to the member for giving way, because I think that he is making an important contribution. These are important issues that need to be discussed, but they are not the ones that the Reform motion seeks to address. Most importantly, he makes an important distinction, in that not all face coverings are the same. There are instances where there is intent to commit crime or intimidate others, and that is the case when people are wearing balaclavas in those situations, but it is clearly not the case when women are wearing burqas or niqabs.
That point is being exhausted by repetition. I want to focus on my amendment.
I see that the Minister for Equalities and International Development is throwing her hands up in the air, but the reality is that there is a real issue with people wearing masks or balaclavas—call them what you like—while dressed in black and threatening other members of the public, and the police do not have the powers that they need to be able to provide guarantees of safety to the communities that they serve.
Let us take what the Scottish Police Federation has said, given that it represents the officers who actually deal with those situations on our streets. The SPF has been very clear. Its general secretary, David Kennedy, said that the circumstances in which officers can currently require the removal of a face covering are limited. His conclusion could hardly be clearer. He said,
“we need a law change,”
and
“we need to give police more powers.”
That is what I hope that we might agree on across the chamber, because that is the issue that my constituents care most about.
The Police Federation has made it clear that it wants practical legal powers that can be used in situations in which officers reasonably believe that a face covering is being deliberately used to conceal identity in connection with criminality, violence or serious disorder.
Mr Kerr, you must conclude.
That is almost precisely the issue that my amendment asks the Government to examine. I hope that the Government will support the amendment, because—despite her resistance to taking an intervention for clarity—the minister basically said in her speech that the Government understands that that is an issue that needs further exploration, which is what my amendment calls for. I therefore trust that members of this Parliament will support my amendment, so that we get the clarity and the powers that the police need to make our communities as safe as we all want them to be.
Mr Kerr, can you move your amendment?
I definitely will.
I move amendment S7M-01844.3, to leave out from the first “, including” to end and insert
“in public places; recognises that existing powers may be insufficient to prevent crime and serious public disorder where individuals deliberately conceal their identities, and calls on the Scottish Government to review these powers in consultation with Police Scotland and police representatives, and to consider proportionate additional powers to require the removal of face coverings where there are reasonable grounds.”
I call Pauline McNeill—sorry, we still have another amendment to move.
I call Yi-pei Chou Turvey to speak to and move amendment S7M-01844.1.
16:51
My amendment would replace the text of the motion with the words:
“recognises that legislation in Scotland provides police with powers to require the removal of face coverings in specified circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are being used to conceal identity in connection with criminality or disorder.”
Some of those words are not just mine, of course; they are also in the Reform motion, so, on that point, we can agree. When required for reasons of criminality or disorder, it is good that existing legislation allows police to require the removal of face coverings. However, to ignore the bigotry that is only lightly veiled behind the motion is dangerous. I might add that I thank God that that such bigotry has been getting a bit of a beating at the polls as of late, if the successful results of our Democrat friends in the United States in the past 24 hours are anything to go by.
I respect the speech that the member is giving. However, based on the evidence that has been placed before the Criminal Justice Committee of this Parliament, it is not true to say that the police have all the powers that they need to enable them to deal with people wearing masks, because the threshold in section 60 of the 1994 act that I quoted requires certain criteria to be satisfied. We in this party would like the police to have the power to intervene as early as possible to prevent threat and criminality. Does the member not agree with that?
The prevention part of the issue is important, but no—the fact is that a face covering can be put on in one second and taken off in the next. Policing that is very hard to manage.
I will address the motion, because I will not let this chance to speak up for those targeted by this motion pass me by. Reform’s motion asks us to note
“the ongoing debate across Scotland”
about face coverings, and it especially mentions religious face coverings. However, I have yet to see evidence of any substantial ongoing debate that does not start and end with Reform members themselves. Evidence that the subject has been debated is not evidence that the public independently demanded that it be debated. The First Minister himself reminded us that, in his long tenure in this Parliament, discussion of banning religious face coverings started and will end with Reform.
Let us not forget that this is Reform’s business day. Those outside the chamber will not necessarily understand the impact of that, but we do. We know that Reform has limited time to bring critical issues to the floor but, despite that, it has chosen to spend time today debating this non-issue.
As the self-styled champion of the working class, why does Reform not debate the lack of appropriate provision of further education and apprenticeships, which disproportionately affects young men? Why does it not advocate for an improved national health service? Why does it not fight for increased funding for the police and other public services? Why does it not debate any of its numerous other campaign promises? Reform has not chosen to discuss those issues, and we in the chamber know why.
I am aware that the member was not in the chamber for it, but I would like to make it clear that I secured a members’ business debate in the Parliament on a motion relating to white working-class boys and the disproportionate consideration that the Scottish Government is giving to their educational attainment. It is a shame that the member was not there for the debate, but I did secure it.
Will the member accept, though, that Reform has twice brought to the Parliament a debate on face coverings? That is a bit much.
The real work of governing will not grab headlines in the way that this kind of nonsense will, so Reform members have brought this inflammatory tripe to the chamber in an attempt to garner themselves more publicity instead of getting their heads down and doing real work for the benefit of their constituents. Is that fair to the people they represent? We need to keep in mind that we represent everyone in our constituencies and regions. That is what we do.
Reform asks us to consider the ban in relation to public safety, individual liberty and community cohesion, so let us look at those issues in turn. The biggest current threat to public safety is the underfunding of our police services. It has been shared with my office that Police Scotland requires at least an additional £80 million in next year’s budget just to maintain its current levels of provision. Any suggestion that we consider further legislation on such a non-issue is an affront to the real concerns that have been shared with us by organisations. Again, would that not be a better topic for debate today?
Next, Reform asks us to consider individual liberty, which Lib Dems are very comfortable with. I am left confused as to why there is a suggestion that we should interfere with an individual’s personal choice of clothing. We are here for those who choose to cover their faces as well as for those who might question whether they want to do so. Reform members pretend that they are champions of freedom for the masses—
Will the member conclude, please?
Yes. I took interventions, but I can conclude quickly.
You have had extra time for the interventions.
In fact, Reform wants an authoritarian state that tells people what to wear. Lib Dems proudly want the opposite.
Finally, Reform asks us to consider community cohesion. There is a hint of reasonableness in that, but enhanced community cohesion starts and ends with engagement, not with targeting, othering and isolating specific groups of people. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the motion does. I ask Reform to lodge a reasonable motion on an important issue next time. If it does, we will listen, but we will not listen to nonsense.
I move amendment S7M-01844.1, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert:
“recognises that legislation in Scotland provides police with powers to require the removal of face coverings in specified circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are being used to conceal identity in connection with criminality or disorder.”
We have reached the point in the debate when we have no more time in hand, so interventions must be absorbed within a member’s debate time.
I call Pauline McNeill, who has four minutes.
16:57
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am just going to keep talking until you tell me that my time is up, because, having listened to the debate, I have changed a lot of what I want to say.
Scottish Labour did not lodge an amendment to the motion, because we want to support the Government on what is yet another divisive debate. We want to be clear on where we stand. We are not for banning the burqa. This is a divisive debate that is about stirring up hostility.
This debate is not helpful, but my constituents have raised with me concerns about an emerging issue—which Stephen Kerr talked about—with people wearing face coverings such as balaclavas and, sometimes, riding e-bikes when they are seeking to intimidate others and have a motive to commit crime. That is where the real debate lies. I thought that Reform would want to discuss that, because it is a live debate.
For the record, and as has been said, there is no evidence that women who wear the burqa or the niqab have criminal motives in any sense. In fact, I know many such women, and they tend to live quite quiet lives. They look after their families and make a huge contribution to family life. That has been my experience, and no one has ever told me otherwise.
Helen McDade said that people live in fear of Muslim women who wear face coverings, because they cannot see their faces. I do not know whether I believe that she really thinks that, but I tell her what—
I did not say that.
Well, she did. She justified the French position by saying that people want to see other people’s faces. That is fair enough, but I do not accept the idea that anyone would live in fear because they could not see someone’s face.
Many of the communities in Glasgow that I represent are fed up with people who wear face coverings while riding e-bikes. There is a serious debate to be had on that issue, and the minister touched on it briefly. I understand that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has said that he will look at the issue, and rightly so.
During Thomas Kerr’s recent members’ business debate, I mentioned that the authorities in Nottingham have considered this issue and have acted on it. It is worth having a look at what has been done there, but, before we jump to the conclusion that it is the right thing to do in Scotland, we need to see what fits with our current laws.
As for face coverings worn by people on e-bikes, the chair of the Scottish Police Federation said:
“The number of options the police have to deal with people who are riding these types of vehicles dangerously is extremely limited”.
He went on to say that the police need powers to
“stop people wearing face coverings and order them to be removed”.
By that, he meant in situations in which those individuals present a risk to the public and when police suspect them of committing a crime.
I recently attended a rally—Iris Duane also spoke at it—where some people wore the type of face coverings that some football fans use. That action was designed to intimidate people. I am not for that, but I am for the police having the relevant powers when that is appropriate.
Nottinghamshire Police now have the power to issue £70 on-the-spot fines, Police officers can also confiscate face coverings and refer individuals to the immediate justice programme, which instructs young people in carrying out community work such as litter picking or graffiti removal in the city centre. In Nottingham they are trying to do something positive rather than just criminalising young people.
Crucially, the initiative in Nottingham does not introduce a blanket ban on face coverings, and the restrictions do not apply where face coverings are worn for legitimate reasons, including for religious dress. That is an important safeguard. It is possible to legislate and also safeguard the interests of those who choose to wear face coverings for peaceful reasons. The face covering ban is part of Nottinghamshire’s operation reclaim, which is a partnership approach to tackling youth antisocial behaviour.
I hope that we can have a serious debate about whether the wearing of face coverings is a criminal matter, the topical subject of e-bikes, and what the Parliament needs to do to ensure that, as regards law and order, the police have the tools that they need.
I call Maggie Chapman to speak for four minutes.
17:02
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.
On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. Under rule 8.14.3 of the Scottish Parliament’s standing orders, I seek your guidance on whether I can move a motion without notice to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes, because of your ruling on further interventions being curtailed.
I am not minded to accept a motion without notice on this issue. The timings were agreed with business managers prior to both debates.
Take two.
Most MSPs come to the Parliament wanting to help people, to tackle the poverty and inequality that hold so many back from what they could achieve, to give a voice to those who are seldom heard or easy to ignore, to give people the means by which to access their human rights—including the right to freedom of expression, including freedom of religious expression, and the right to dress as they wish—and to build a country where everyone is welcomed and loved, no matter who they are or where they are from. However, it appears that some MSPs arrive here with entirely the opposite agenda—to punch down on the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society, to tell people that they do not belong and to say that the way someone lives, loves or dresses is not welcome here.
Unfortunately, the motion reflects exactly that nasty, narrow-minded and racist agenda. It is racist because it specifically targets people of colour—women with a specific cultural background or religious belief. The motion specifically mentions the burqa and niqab and not other items such as masks, balaclavas or motorbike helmets. The items of clothing that are mentioned in the motion are worn almost exclusively by women of colour, and certainly by women who practise their Islamic faith in a particular way. That tells us precisely what MSPs on the other side of the chamber are here to do.
The motion is not driven by genuine concern for public safety. We are not being inundated with requests for action on a burqa ban by our constituents in the same way as our constituents ask us and express their concerns about the national health service, the environment or schools. There would be genuine, widespread public campaigning for a ban if that were the case, but there is not. There would be substantial evidence to suggest that the wearing of face coverings for religious or cultural reasons facilitates crime, but there is not. This is not about public safety. The motion calls for an assessment of the benefits of further restrictions on public safety and community cohesion grounds, but it does not present any evidence that people who wear burqas or niqabs, which are the only two face coverings mentioned in the motion, are disproportionately involved in any criminal activity.
Other countries have done what Reform is asking, so we know what the consequences might be here. Far from producing community cohesion, such bans have marginalised people from their communities. Evidence from the 16-year ban in France shows that women who wear religiously significant clothing have experienced increases in verbal abuse, public harassment and physical assaults, including having their veils forcibly removed and being spat on. So, the ban has made those women less safe. That is what Reform is about. As a result, many women go out less frequently, socialise less and face heightened anxiety or depression due to fear of fines and public hostility.
This racist, hate-mongering motion does, however, leave us in no doubt about one thing. It demonstrates that far-right hatred and fascism are forces in our country—and not just in our country, but in this very Parliament. That is a challenge to all of us. It demonstrates that every member in this chamber who wants to see the better country that I spoke about, in which everyone is welcome and nobody is singled out for hate, needs to work harder to combat the sentiment that we have seen from Reform today. We need to do more to combat the social problems on which the far right feeds—the issues that it exploits and for which it blames the most marginalised: poverty, inequality and a lack of hope. That is scapegoating, and we will not have it.
There is a well-worn mantra that the enemies of working people in this country do not arrive in small boats—they fly in by private jet. I am reminded of that today. The enemies of ordinary people in this country do not wear niqabs or burqas—they wear smartly ironed, shiny new suits, and they are sitting right over there. I urge the chamber to reject them and everything that they stand for at decision time today.
We move to the open debate.
17:07
People wear face coverings for all sorts of reasons, including health, safety at work, privacy and adherence to religious practice. I cannot fathom how much someone must hate a religion for banning the burqa to be more important to them than safety at work, safety within the national health service, making it socially acceptable to wear personal protective equipment and respirators, or simply having something that provides a bit of protection from a Highland winter. Maybe looking miserable and drenched in a dreich winter could be argued to uphold traditional British values, but I am not up for it, and I do not think that most of my constituents are either. Yes, there might be parents out there tonight who beg their adolescent children to put on a jacket, and maybe those children will be wrong to go out without one and will catch a cold, but it is not for us, in this place, to tell anybody what they should be wearing.
The motion that is before us today references European countries introducing restrictions. So, a party whose members have spent a decade warning us that Europe is an authoritarian superstate is now arguing that we should be nicking and—let us be honest—exaggerating the most restrictive policies that are being introduced elsewhere. Let us look at one of them for a moment. In Austria, a ban on veils that was aimed, like Reform’s motion, at Islamic dress resulted in the police having a showdown with a man dressed as a shark, who was advertising a local business, and that business was fined. Maybe I have misunderstood Reform’s point. Maybe its members want to come to Inverness with me this weekend and have a go at Nessa and Nessie. Maybe they have a personal grudge against Kingsley—I do not know.
The motion also suggests that the Government should publish an assessment of the benefits that restrictions on face coverings can bring for individual liberty. I do not think that it will take much work to determine whether curtailing rights and freedoms improves individual liberty. However, inspired by Reform, I wonder what else we could spend parliamentary time and money assessing. Perhaps we could assess the democratic benefits of replacing public elections with board meetings. Perhaps we could measure how much freer party members feel when they cannot vote on their own constitution. We could look at the cultural benefits of Santa Claus being unable to deliver presents to children in Canada because he is busy chatting to the police in the UK about how they cannot see past his beard.
The motion is absurd. The campaign is racist and I will not take it seriously.
I understand the point that Emma Roddick has made with humour, but, as I described in my speech, there is a serious issue in many of our communities in respect of face masks and coverings. Does she agree that it would be important for the police to have the necessary powers to act when individuals are using face coverings to conceal their identity in order to threaten or commit crimes? Does she agree that the police should have those powers? That is the serious point that lies behind this afternoon’s debate on face coverings.
I agree that the police should be able to identify people who they believe are about to commit crimes or who have just committed crimes, but I believe that they already have those powers. A ban that would see police time being taken up by them going up to children who are guising or people who are wearing personal protective equipment while working would not be in any way helpful or proportionate in tackling the issue that Stephen Kerr has raised.
Earlier, we heard that we should all be showing our faces for the sake of babies. I do not have children of my own, but I have looked after plenty of them. I point out that, if we are going to start making law on the basis of what confuses infants, we will probably end up in a pretty silly place.
If Reform members were concerned about child development, they could have talked about wraparound childcare and the need for more support for parents or about how climate change will impact today’s youth. If the motion were about reducing violence and criminal damage, it would have focused on the tools that people actually use to carry out such crimes, not what they are wearing while they do it. If Reform members were concerned about police on the ground, they would not be trying to implement a requirement for folk who are meant to be addressing actual crime to instead go around policing what folk are wearing.
I want to provide clarification, because there seems to be a bit of confusion among some members about what the motion actually states. The motion is about face coverings in public places—it says “including” in relation to what the member has mentioned. I think that she needs to re-read what is actually in front of her. The Scottish Police Federation would welcome an open debate on this subject, so I really do not understand what it is about the motion that has been lodged that is so difficult or divisive. It is very clear, in black and white, what the motion states. [Interruption.] Excuse me—I have not finished yet.
The member must make her point.
I say this to the people who are sitting over in the corner, calling us racist and fascist: they are the people who are creating division in our community. Shame on them.
I put it to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, that creating division is exactly what Reform was trying to do with this motion. I am not clear what is difficult to understand about anything that I have said. I appreciate that Reform members can use their time to debate whatever they like, just as the rest of us can choose to vote down the motion at decision time. However, I wish that Reform members would be honest instead of selling us this absolute nonsense that they are doing this for the sake of babies or the police or lesbians.
The motion is about targeting, stigmatising and whipping up hate against Muslim women. It is manufactured outrage and a culture war stunt, and I regret that it has taken up any parliamentary time, let alone two debates.
17:14
I suspect that it will come as no surprise to this chamber that I back the motion, in the name of my friend Helen McDade, to ban all face coverings in public places.
When I was elected alongside my Reform MSP colleagues in May, we promised that we would be the fox in the hen house. We are not here to play the game; we are here to fight for Scotland’s forgotten working class, unlike this lot of absolute chancers. Just a few weeks ago, these hens in the chamber attempted—
Sorry, Mr Kerr, but I must remind everyone to speak to one another and refer to one another with respect.
I think that calling somebody a chancer is very respectful compared to calling somebody a fascist, Deputy Presiding Officer.
Just a few weeks ago, these hens in the chamber attempted to silence me and my colleagues, because we dared to raise a debate that they did not like. The First Minister ranted at First Minister’s question time that he had never been asked about banning the burqa until Reform arrived in the chamber. Yes—that is kind of the point, and why we are here.
Let us make one thing abundantly clear. The Holyrood establishment might not like us, but we are here to stay and no one who sits on the benches over there will ever succeed in silencing us. This debate might make some members uncomfortable but, frankly, I do not care. Our presence is supposed to make them feel like that, and it is probably best that they get used to it. Reform UK Scotland is here to represent the almost 400,000 Scots who are scunnered with politics and angry about MSPs from all the other parties shafting them, their families and their communities time and time again. That is why this debate is so important.
As I said a few weeks ago, a modern democratic society depends on people participating in public life openly. In our schools, our universities, our courts, our public services and our workplaces, communication matters. I do not care whether it is a balaclava or a burqa, it should be banned. Indeed, on the night that I raised the issue in the chamber previously, the European Parliament voted to ban the burqa. Of course, this lot do not want to hear that, nor do they want to hear that the burqa has been banned in at least 24 other countries around the world, including European countries such as France, Belgium and Austria, to name but a few.
This is Scotland.
I am hearing, “This is Scotland”, but it does not matter. The SNP members are trying to have debates to talk about getting us back into the EU, and that is what the EU countries have done.
Members ask why this debate is here. It is here, because of the sheer brass neck of members in this so-called debating chamber who are petrified of dissenting voices having any say in modern Scotland. Just before recess, I sat here being lectured by sanctimonious MSPs from right across the chamber. They told me that I was silencing female voices and taking away their choices. They did that without a hint of irony, given that members then went on to silence not one, not two, not three, not four but five Reform MSPs. [Interruption.]
I just heard someone shouting, “Boo hoo.” Is that really how members try to have debates in the chamber? I just noticed who it was, and it really does say a lot, actually. With this lot, it is always, “Do as I say, not as I do.” That seems to be their motto.
The member must conclude.
We need to ban all face coverings in public places, including the burqa and the niqab, both of which have no place in modern Scotland. I hope that, at decision time, MSPs will see sense and back the motion in Helen McDade’s name.
17:17
I plan to speak for a short time to the motion that is before the Parliament and the issue of the niqab and burqa, which, frankly, I believe to be a smokescreen. I will set out why.
At the most recent census, there were 58,165 Muslim women in Scotland. In research from the British Future think tank, Sunder Katwala has said that the ballpark figure for the number of women in the Muslim faith who wear a niqab or a burqa is roughly 1 or 2 per cent. In reality, therefore, we are talking about probably 582 women in all of Scotland. It is important that we recognise that and understand that many of them choose to do that. That raises a much wider issue of freedom of religion and belief.
That is the only thing that I want to put on record about that, because I think that the issue that we are debating is not about the niqab or the burqa. I have quite a lot of sympathy for some of the points that have been made by fellow members of the Criminal Justice Committee, namely Pauline McNeill and Stephen Kerr, in relation to section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. My belief—I think that the evidence that we are starting to get confirms this—is that section 60 is now deficient, given the challenges that the police face in relation to public order protests.
I know that Reform no longer has a member of the Criminal Justice Committee, because the one that they had has since left the party but, at this morning’s meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee, I asked the Scottish Police Federation whether its members were having problems with women wearing the niqab or the burqa. It was very clear that they were not. That is what the evidence suggests is the case.
I want to touch on the deficiencies in section 60 of the 1994 act. Part of the problem is that its provisions can be put in place only for up to 24 hours, and the second issue is that it is done for a locality. In the criminal justice sphere, we are now experiencing last-minute protests that are being organised by the likes of the Scottish citizens army and all those other Temu Tommy Robinson groups. Section 60 of the 1994 act does not take cognisance of the fact that in these modern times, when protests can be organised at the last minute, those powers cannot be put in place. That is where the example of Nottingham comes into play. The issue that we are seeing on a regular basis—
[Made a request to intervene.]
I will give way to Mr Harvie, who I think is seeking to come in.
About 100 years ago, the UK Parliament recognised that, given the rise of fascism at the time, the use of political uniforms was a threat to society, and it passed legislation on such use. Would the use of the kind of dress that David Linden is referring to in far-right protests today not be better dealt with by an extension of that legislation, instead of having something that impinges on the human rights and freedoms of other people who have nothing to do with such far-right protests?
I find it difficult to disagree with Mr Harvie. Having dispatched the culture war nonsense about the niqab and the burqa, which is a smokescreen, I want to make my point, which is about people who are dressed in black with balaclavas and ski masks and the things that we are seeing in association with e-bikes and e-scooters. That is the issue that the Criminal Justice Committee has received evidence about. I am sorry that it is more preferable for some members of this Parliament to indulge in petty culture wars rather than follow evidence and scrutinise actual legislation.
Mr Harvie raises the right issue, because a uniform is now appearing at these protests—that is the issue that police officers are needing to deal with. I believe that Scotland was, frankly, far too late in getting body-worn cameras for police. However, that uniform now presents a particular challenge for police officers, because we now have people rocking up to such protests in balaclavas and ski masks.
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes. I am sure that it will be enlightening.
Mr Linden is making a serious point, which Stephen Kerr has also touched on, about generally young men who are going around wearing balaclavas and sometimes taking part in political protests and sometimes not. We have seen them on football pitches, too, and they are intimidating. Will the Criminal Justice Committee be looking into that point, and should the Scottish Government also look into it as well as the example of Nottingham?
The committee has taken evidence on, and asked questions about, this particular issue as part of the scene-setting process that we went through in September. From the mood music coming out of Police Scotland, and from the words that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has used, we can see that everybody is now interested in the change that has been introduced in Nottingham, which I think is inevitably the direction that we will head in.
Mr Simpson is probably one of the more thoughtful members of his party, and he hit the nail on the head: there are issues to address in relation to balaclavas and ski masks, and I regret that there is no reference to that in the motion that his party has brought to the Parliament today. Any serving police officer will say that the issues that they are facing just now do not relate to mad Muslim women running about and creating crime—the issue is with people in ski masks and balaclavas. I find it incredibly regrettable that that is not recognised in the Reform motion.
The member must conclude.
I will finish by saying that, in my constituency, I saw a masked gang parading through the streets of Shettleston, who were saying all sorts of anti-immigrant slurs and things like that, and who went on to assault a serving police officer. They were not Muslim women—they were white Scottish men. Let us never forget that.
17:24
1 August 1746. That was the day that the Dress Act 1746, which was part of the Act of Proscription 1746, came into force, banning men and boys from wearing the kilt, plaid and tartan. The act remained in force for some 36 years. It is now 2026 and we are here, quite shockingly and almost unbelievably, discussing mainly what women and girls should wear.
The timing of this afternoon’s debate on face coverings is quite ironic, with it being Halloween just last week, when hundreds of thousands of children and young people had face coverings on for the night.
Politicians using parliamentary chambers to attack people’s cultures and beliefs is nothing new, but I thought that we had moved on from that in Scotland. Indeed, we probably had, until the election, which brought us a Parliament with a new make-up.
As other members have said, we have already had this debate. Only a few weeks ago, there was a members’ business debate on face coverings in public places. That debate made clear the agenda behind the issue, which involves an attempt to turn legitimate concerns about criminality and public safety into an argument for restricting the religious freedoms of Muslim women. We should be clear about what is happening here. There is no masking it. Although, today, we have amendments such as Stephen Kerr’s, the motion represents a rehash of that debate—otherwise, there would be no need to give the examples that the motion gives. It risks reopening the same divisive arguments under the guise of public safety.
There is a fundamental difference between someone wearing a face covering for religious or cultural reasons and someone deliberately concealing their identity because they intend to commit violence, intimidation or a criminal act. Attempting to conflate those two groups is inexcusable. It is unfair, it is deeply damaging to community relations, and it places an unjust burden on people who have done no wrong. Nobody in this chamber should have any difficulty condemning violence or criminality. Equally, nobody should be comfortable using those issues to cast suspicion over an entire religious or cultural community.
The right to practise one’s religion and express one’s identity is a fundamental freedom. For some Muslim women, wearing the niqab or burqa is a personal expression of faith. That choice deserves respect. If there are concerns about coercion, those concerns should be addressed through support for women, education and the enforcement of existing protections. A blanket restriction on clothing is a wholly different matter.
As has been discussed, if members believe that the police’s current powers are not sufficient—David Linden and Stephen Kerr both made a good case in that regard—let us have a serious discussion about that. It sounds as though the Criminal Justice Committee, of which I am no longer a member, is beginning to have that debate. However, we should not begin with a predetermined conclusion and then attempt to find a community to blame.
If we want to talk about the genuine problems associated with face coverings, I suggest that we look at where the evidence points. One of the most serious issues is the use of balaclavas and face coverings by individuals who are involved in violence and disorder, for example at football matches. There is a lot to tackle there, but there is a world of difference between tackling a masked individual who gets involved in violence at a football match or on our streets and placing restrictions on a woman who is walking through Glasgow wearing a niqab. The latter has no automatic connection to criminality. Her clothing is not evidence of wrongdoing and her religion is not a public safety threat.
We must be careful about the language that we use. When we repeatedly associate particular religious clothing with security concerns, we risk creating an atmosphere in which Muslim women become targets of suspicion and hostility. That has consequences for their ability to participate fully in public life. We in the Parliament should be leaders, and we must understand the consequences of our actions and our words.
Our diversity is part of our national story. People from different backgrounds, cultures and faiths have helped to shape our communities, our public services, our businesses and our national identity. We should all recognise and be proud of that fact. We are all Jock Tamson’s bairns.
A particularly good example of that was provided by the recent “Traces of Empire” exhibition at Summerlee museum in Coatbridge, which was organised by the North Lanarkshire Muslim Women and Family Alliance, with help from Historic Environment Scotland. The exhibition brought together 34 co-curators to explore the continuing legacies of empire through art, poetry and storytelling. It gave people whose family histories are connected to colonialism an opportunity to share their experiences and their perspectives.
What I took away from that exhibition was that Scotland’s history is complex and our present-day communities reflect connections across the world. Listening to people and understanding their experiences makes our country what it is. That is the sort of Scotland that I want us to build: a Scotland that is confident in its identity and comfortable with its diversity, and a Scotland where people can practise their faith, contribute to communities and feel that they belong.
We should be addressing violence through effective policing and proper enforcement of the law, and we should be protecting individual freedoms and treating people fairly. Let us focus on the problems that actually threaten public safety, and let us stand up for the inclusive, diverse and welcoming Scotland that we should all be proud to represent.
We move to closing speeches. I remind members that we have no time in hand. I call Stephen Kerr for two minutes.
17:29
The convener of the Criminal Justice Committee helpfully clarified the real issue with which we should be concerning ourselves in the debate, which is the use of face coverings to mask criminal intent and criminality. That is exactly what my amendment is all about—[Interruption.]
I am sorry, members, but too many conversations are happening while the member is speaking.
Uniquely, policing in this country is done by the consent of the population. The success of our criminal justice system is the absence of victims and crime. Policing is not only about turning up after a crime—it is about preventing a crime from happening in the first place. When officers see a threat or criminality or serious disorder developing, we should want them to have the powers that they need to make a sensible and proportionate intervention. That is all that my amendment asks Parliament to consider.
The amendment does not propose a blanket ban or prejudge the outcome of the discussion that I would like us to have in the Parliament; instead, it simply says that existing powers might be insufficient. We know that they are insufficient because of the evidence to which the convener of the Criminal Justice Committee and others referred; all my amendment does is ask the Government to sit down with Police Scotland and the police representative bodies and establish whether that is the case. If there is a gap in those powers, we should be resolved enough as a Parliament to strengthen the powers that the police have in order to close it. That is what my amendment is about.
I really think that there is consensus on the issue across the chamber regardless of where we are coming from, which direction we are facing and where we think we are travelling to. In the previous debate about the matter, Ben Macpherson, whom I cannot see in the chamber, spoke—typically rather well and sensibly—about the issues with the threshold for section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which I described in my speech and David Linden in his, and which Graham Simpson captured in his intervention. We raised those issues with Assistant Chief Constable Catriona Paton before the Criminal Justice Committee and specifically mentioned the limitations of section 60—
Can you conclude, please? You are well over time.
When I raised the same issues with the minister, Kirsten Oswald, she replied that I was
“not a million miles away from what she just said”
and confirmed that the Government remained
“open to considering further proposals based on evidence.” —[Official Report, 8 October 2026; c 119.]
In the limited time that I have, I will say that I am grateful to have been able to raise that issue, which is serious and should commend the attention of all of us as parliamentarians. Again, I hope that we will be sensible enough to support my amendment.
17:33
What a monumental waste of time this afternoon has been. Before I get into the meat and potatoes of the debate, I fully associate myself with Pauline McNeill and David Linden’s remarks; something that you will perhaps not hear as often is that I think that Stephen Kerr’s contribution has been quite astute.
I would not forgive myself if I did not say this to Helen McDade: although your opening speech focused mainly on the burqa, you made allusions to protecting lesbian women from Muslims. How dare you sit on the benches of a party that does not believe in gay marriage, is against gay adoption and the conversion therapy bill and has a leader who stands with people who call homosexuality an abomination, and tell us that you are protecting LGBT rights against Muslims? How dare you?
I considered many ways to approach the debate and looked at what I would focus on. I think that David Linden and I did the same quick maths—I, too, looked up the statistics, which show that 2.2 per cent of Scotland currently identifies as Muslim. An equal split between men and women would mean that there are 1.1 per cent or 55,000 Muslim women in the country; let us say, generously, that 1 per cent of them wear a niqab or a burqa—which let us be honest, is what the debate was about, although I agree that we need a further debate about face coverings and the powers that the police have. We get 550 women out of 5.5 million—a slightly different number from David Linden’s. The Parliament has wasted more than an hour of its time today talking about what 550 women wear. Can you imagine? We are being asked to legislate about what 550 women wear. Earlier, there was an allusion to legislating on what babies should smile at on the bus—another strange allusion.
I say to the members on the benches opposite that, if they are so concerned about what women are wearing, they should retrain as stylists. They should go to our fantastic colleges and take up one of the many fantastic opportunities in our further education sector, which could use the money from their crypto billionaire friends.
Will the member take an intervention?
The motion says that there is an “ongoing debate” all around the country. [Interruption.]
Excuse me, the member is speaking, Ms McDade. Please sit down.
The motion says that there is an “ongoing debate” all around the country. Perhaps none of us has been included in that debate. There is a debate to be had on whether the police should have more powers, which is one that I would welcome, and I am keen to pick that up with Stephen Kerr outside of this place. However, that is not the debate that we have had today. What we have had is an attempt to stir up division and to put lines between people. At no point have we said that women themselves should have a voice in what they should wear.
I will close very quickly, Presiding Officer, because I am aware that I have very little time. Tonight, I will return to my region, where one in three children live in poverty, one in three people live in fuel poverty and one in 10 people live in extreme fuel poverty, my constituents sit on endless NHS waiting lists, social housing is unobtainable and councils are still struggling to get funding. Instead of having time this afternoon to hold the Government to account on some of those issues after 20 years—
Please conclude.
—we have sat here and debated what 550 women wear. Is that the best use of our time? I will be supporting the Government’s amendment.
17:36
In the previous debate this afternoon, Mr Hoy alluded to the contents of the Reform offices, noting that what is in there includes cardboard cutouts. I cannot help but notice also the various Union flags and pictures of the late Queen and the King. Reform is a party that appears to like to wrap itself up in the flag and in Britishness, but let me say this: it is not British for the state to tell people what to wear, it is not British to single out people on the basis of their faith, belief or conscience, and it is not British to direct the police to curtail the freedom of people who are simply minding their own business and going about their day-to-day lives, which is what Muslim women are doing. They are going about their lives, wearing the niqab or hijab in public.
I believe in the British values of tolerance, respect and liberty and, most important within the principle of liberty, I believe in the freedom of faith and to practise that faith as you choose. I would argue that those are Scottish contributions to British values, because it is due to the enlightenment that we have those principles of liberty, and it is because of struggles here in Scotland that we have the freedom to practise faith as we choose. That is why covenanters were incarcerated in Greyfriars kirkyard. Reform members would do well to remind themselves of that.
There is a serious debate to be had here today. Reform wants us to believe that it is about all face coverings, but if that is the case, why note only the burqa and niqab in its motion? In Reform’s opening speech, why talk about only those examples? I say to Reform, we are not naive and we are not stupid—we know what you are up to, we see what you are doing and we will not accept it.
It is a true shame, because Stephen Kerr, Pauline McNeill and David Linden all made valiant efforts to talk about what is a very serious and delicate issue—one that is about the balance of liberties. Let us be clear that it would be a serious step to go further to ban the wearing of balaclavas; it would be a deprivation of liberty.
It also a principle of the law in Britain that intent matters—intent to commit criminality by intimidating others. We need to talk about that issue, yet we have this nonsense of a debate on the back of the previous debate, which was a waste of time and in which Reform had nothing substantive to say.
There is a deep irony to the fact that we are having this debate on this day. Perhaps Reform members did not look at their calendars and consider what election results we would be getting through today—but the results are clear. The politics of the right are coming to an end. There is a rejection of the politics of Trump, a rejection of the politics of division, a rejection of the politics of fear and a rejection of the politics of blaming others, because there are real problems out there.
Americans all over their country recognise that Trump has nothing to say to the problems around rising costs and the genuine issues that they face. They recognise that the attempt to blame others for those problems is shallow and empty and provides no answers.
That is the politics of Reform. Their decline in the polls is evidence that that same phenomenon is happening here. I urge members on the Reform benches to look long and hard at their politics. They are empty, they have nothing to offer anyone, and they certainly have nothing to offer in the chamber this afternoon.
17:40
I sincerely thank members for their contributions to today’s debate. I have only five minutes, but I want to acknowledge that the collective solidarity and leadership that you have shown against Reform is truly appreciated.
This discussion has highlighted a number of important issues, not least the genuine public concern about the use of balaclavas to conceal identity in the context of criminality, disorder and antisocial behaviour. The Government recognises those concerns. Everyone should be able to live free from intimidation and feel safe in their communities.
My colleague Kirsten Oswald noted earlier the range of powers relating to public order, protest activity, stop and search and the removal of face coverings in specified circumstances. Police Scotland’s position remains that those powers are currently sufficient. However, the Scottish Government is aware of developments elsewhere, including in Nottingham, which was mentioned, and Police Scotland continues to monitor implementation.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I do not have time, so I will press on.
Let me address what this motion is really about, and what it is attempting to hide. This motion is Reform’s continued attempt to sow fear, division and intimidation in our communities. If it was truly concerned about the safety of our communities, it would have, at the very least, mentioned balaclavas in the wording of its motion. It did not do that. However, it deliberately mentioned burqas and niqabs.
Can we stop pretending, and call this motion out for exactly what it is? It is racist, misogynistic and Islamophobic, and it is designed to divide our communities. We need this Parliament to be united and to reject narratives that seek to conflate issues of community safety with rights to personal belief and expression. We need to be united against racism and dog-whistle politics in society, online and in this chamber.
While Reform seek to divide communities, it is clear from today’s contributions that we will not let them, and that we will stand against their rhetoric and language. [Interruption.] We already live in a patriarchal society, and now Reform will tackle violence against women and girls by telling women how to dress instead of educating boys and men. What is next? Will it be telling us whether we can cover our hair or not? Maybe it will police the shade of our lipstick, or tell us whether we can attend any religious place of worship. [Interruption.]
Excuse me, but we do not need a running commentary throughout the entire speech, Thomas Kerr.
The real question is not just what is next, but where does it stop? If Reform has its way, I fear that perhaps there will come a day when all forms of religious and cultural garments could become criminal. This motion is a thinly veiled attempt to sow racist and divisive values in our society, hiding behind community safety. Guess what? We see you, and we see you clearly.
The Scottish Government is committed to community cohesion. That is rooted in our values and in our belief that everyone who lives in Scotland should feel safe, connected, respected and able to fully participate in society. We will be guided by the principles of community safety, equality and human rights, and not by whatever Reform UK wants the public to believe through its scaremongering tactics.
I ask that our Parliament accepts the Government amendment, because it makes clear that the Government agrees that it is “not for Parliament” and definitely not for Reform
“to legislate for what women choose to wear”.
In a free and democratic society, women should be able to make lawful choices about their clothing, including choices informed by their faith, culture and personal beliefs. Collectively, let us all reject the divisive language of the Reform motion and support the Government amendment.
The rest of this Official Report will be published progressively as soon as the text is available.
Previous
Economic Growth and Prosperity