Chamber and committees

Ms Bruce, on taking a maximalist approach and understanding the stakeholders, I assure you that I and my officials are engaging with many stakeholders to understand and consider their views. The cabinet secretary and I will be considering the development of the human rights bill over the next couple of months, and, as you will appreciate, we are mindful of the complexities of the interaction with other laws and of the need to act within our devolved competencies. Careful analysis is under way to ensure that any aspects of treaties that could be incorporated in the human rights bill will fall within our devolved competencies. The overarching principle will always be to strengthen our human rights protections. As I said, I accept the challenge, but we need an understanding that there is a challenging political and legal context, and we want to be able to introduce a bill that addresses some of those issues.

Ms Lindsay, at the risk of repeating my reply to Ms Gallacher, we accept the Supreme Court’s judgment on the definition of sex, and the Equality Act 2010 will take precedence. On the definitions that you have described in the human rights bill paper, I appreciate that other papers have been published in the past, but they are in the past. The proposed human rights bill is still being considered, so I do not see the same conflicts that you see.

I will repeat my earlier statements. We should not be in danger of promoting the rights of one group without understanding how they would interact with the rights of other groups. Intersectionality is built in across all the work that we do, especially around equalities. Some disabled people are also part of our LGBTQI+ community, for example. I assure people that we are considering all the effects in that space. The Scottish Government accepts the Supreme Court’s judgment on biological sex.

I will leave it there, convener, and if there are any further questions, I will come back to it.

10:15

Thank you very much, Ms Lindsay. Apologies, convener—I feel as though I am repeating myself. As I said, we are considering what will go in the bill, and that has not been decided yet. I do not want to give evidence to the committee on things that have not yet been decided. As soon as we are in that position, I will be happy to come back or to write to the committee.

As I said, we are considering a human rights bill to strengthen people’s rights, which will include a lot of the grounds, including colour, sex, sexual orientation, disability and age. However, it would be inappropriate for me to give any further examples, given that we are still in the consideration and development space. We are working within certain legal contexts and within devolved competence, but those things are being considered.

I will bring in Kavita, in case there is anything that I have missed.

On the right to a healthy environment, as I have said, the proposals for the bill are being considered and we have to work within our devolved competence. Ms Bruce and I share an ambition for Scotland to become an independent country so that we do not have to work within the narrative of the challenges that we face in working within devolved competence. However, in saying that, as I have said to other colleagues, we are absolutely conscious that we need to have a human rights lens at the heart of everything that we do and all decision making in Scotland. It is in that spirit that we will consider all legal contexts and all the treaties in that space. My answer is similar to the answers that I have offered to other colleagues: those issues are still under consideration and it is not appropriate for me to tell the committee something that has not been decided yet. However, as somebody who comes from a small south Pacific island, I am very conscious of climate change. I will leave that there.

I think that Ms Bruce and I are aligned on the issue of ending conversion practices, and I want to give her assurances about that. Since before the programme for government was announced, I have been engaging with LGBTQI+ stakeholders, and my officials do so regularly. I put it on the record that I recognise the strength of feeling that there is about not pursuing a Scottish bill on the issue at this stage—I stress that that is at this stage—and we are engaging with the UK Government in good faith. Members of the committee would also hold me to account if we were not doing that.

I wrote to the previous UK Government minister and I have written to the current one, and we have now had a positive response, with the offer of a meeting with my UK Government counterpart to discuss the issue and to carry out that scrutiny. I encourage all members around the table to speak to their counterparts at Westminster in order to help us to scrutinise the draft conversion practices bill. They will be meeting in a committee like this and will be able to scrutinise the bill.

You will have heard from the First Minister that we are looking for a comprehensive understanding of conversion practices. There is a shared understanding that they are cruel and inhumane and that they have no place in Scotland or in any part of our society, so we want to address them. There is that shared belief and understanding.

I will leave it there, as I am conscious of the convener’s ask. If there is anything that Ms Bruce and I can do outside this space, I would welcome that.

I will take in turn the three aspects to your question.

Community cohesion is something that I am deeply concerned about, as everyone around the table should be. Stakeholders to whom I have spoken are concerned about it. We are in a different political and societal landscape. Just yesterday, I was at a round table with an older people’s forum. Perhaps people will not typically think that community cohesion comes out of that space, but it did, reflecting on the real sense of fear that communities are experiencing.

I am a person of colour; I am also proudly an immigrant; and, as minister for equalities, I am not immune to some of the things that people out in the public are experiencing. That is a sad reality of where we are in society. Convener, bad actors are filling some of the vacuum that people are experiencing when it comes to the root causes of poverty and the cost of living crisis. They are filling that space and, almost, putting blame on to some people in our society; a lot of that is focused on immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees. That should be called out by each and every one of us around the table and beyond. We need that shared leadership to be able to absolutely challenge some of those notions. As I said, I encourage all of us to do that, because we will not otherwise be able to create a safe and inclusive environment for any of us.

In my opening statement, I remarked that, unless and until all of us feel free and safe, none of us is free and safe. It is about having that human rights and equality lens over everything that we do. For me, that is essential.

I also have a plea. We had a debate in the Parliament about community cohesion. I am looking at Carol Mochan and Holly Bruce. That conversation and shared leadership is what we need in our society. Addressing community cohesion is not for me or the Government but for all of us.

Your other point, convener, was about the fund. As I have said to the committee and it will know, we have increased the funding from £300,000 to £500,000. However, just for clarity, that is separate from our other ambitions. For example, it is very separate from our funding for violence against women and girls and our anti-racism education.

I do not want those things to be conflated. Our community cohesion funding is very much focused on grass-roots initiatives. My officials and I are still working out some of the detail of how we distribute those funds. However, there is a shared ambition to challenge some of the behaviours that we have seen but also, as I said, to think about the root causes, including child poverty.

You mentioned the spread of funding and understanding the differences between rural and urban communities. It is well documented that we have seen a lot of speech—I was going to say hate speech there—and demonstrations up and down the country. No city or rural community is immune from that. As part of the funding, I want to truly look at the spread and make sure that we are meeting our responsibility across the different communities. I give the committee reassurance that, when I go away and speak to officials, that issue will be at the forefront of my mind.

You also talked about stakeholders. I am meeting stakeholders, and the First Minister has also met stakeholders, from faith and belief backgrounds, from different ethnic minority backgrounds, from Gypsy Traveller backgrounds and from wider society. I do not want to come back to the committee in a number of years and say, “Oh, my goodness, how things have regressed.” The word “regression” has come out quite a bit in my conversations. How can we, in 2026, still be dealing with issues that are so profound? There is a shared understanding of the challenge that is in front of us but, as I said, there is an opportunity and shared ambition to address that.

Your second question was about public sector reform.

I thank you, Mr MacGregor—again, with my public health hat on—for not passing anything on to me or the committee. I wish you a full recovery.

Mr MacGregor is right when it comes to concerns around the community cohesion space and understanding that there has been an increase in racism and the tensions that exist in the community. I will not go into some of the things that I have already touched on, but we are working collaboratively across all sectors of the community. For example, we have a faith and belief group, and, along with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and Housing and the First Minister, I met a range of stakeholders on the Thursday before the attacks in Edinburgh, which happened on the Friday. The ambition was to bring together members of the community from different backgrounds, including ethnic minority communities, Gypsy Traveller communities and faith and belief stakeholders, to give strength of feeling and leadership on that important issue. In our capacity as MSPs, Ben Macpherson and I also visited some of the mosques that were impacted by the attacks in Edinburgh. That leadership is there, we are continuing it and I encourage all members to show that shared leadership, as I said previously.

Mr MacGregor, there is a lot of misinformation and disinformation online. We are incredibly mindful of that and equally mindful of the need to tackle it. Of course, we have the community cohesion fund. I will not go into the increase in that, as I have previously discussed it. However, I want to highlight the interaction between that community cohesion space and what is happening in the violence against women and girls space. We cannot treat any of those issues in isolation. We need an understanding across all areas, including online harms and education. It is about understanding what our young pupils—boys and girls, children and young people—are unfortunately being exposed to online.

The sharing of misinformation and disinformation is giving rise to division in our society. Again, I will not go into some of the language that has been used in the Parliament; however, the Government sees it as a clear priority. To reflect again on the programme for government, the First Minister highlighted three things that we know involve some of the root causes. Eradicating child poverty is one of those, and tackling violence against women and girls is another. I have said quite a bit about that, and we have a ministerial task force on that second issue. I will also be taking forward the community cohesion task force with colleagues in the cross-ministerial portfolios.

I can therefore give the committee reassurance that a lot of practical things are happening. We are working closely with Police Scotland, for example, and with local authorities through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I met our COSLA representative yesterday. There is a shared ambition and shared leadership in that space, and I hope to continue in that spirit.

I will almost be repeating myself here. Traditionally and historically, some people have used “sex” and “gender” interchangeably. The Government is clear—and I repeat myself now—that we accept the Supreme Court’s ruling on the definition. As I said, if there is any interaction between definitions, the Equality Act 2010 will take precedence. According to the Supreme Court, the 2010 act has given a definition of “sex” and of “biological women”. I do not see a conflict with that. We need to be clear about the UK equality law taking precedence; that is a matter of what is within our devolved competence.

Therefore, I do not see ambiguity in that regard, but, as I said, I am happy to work with you and the rest of the committee to clarify matters. I do not see a conflict, but I will happily bring in Kavita Chetty, in case there is anything that I have not covered.

Thank you very much, Ms Lindsay. I was noting down the different elements of your question. I thank you for the assertion that you have made about condemning racism. That is really important. I am heartened to hear you say that, because one of the things that I have heard time and again in Parliament is the use of words such as “strangers”.

When Keir Starmer, as Prime Minister, used the word “strangers” in his speech, there was an appropriate public response to its use. That word serves only to divide communities. I am now hearing it regularly in Parliament. As an immigrant sitting in that room, it has made me feel so unwelcome. It has caused me to question my being here, my existence and the contribution that I have made, not to mention those of everybody else in our vibrant migrant, asylum-seeking and refugee communities.

I want to challenge you on the use of the term “illegal immigrants”. People are not illegal. As I said, Scotland has always had that fantastic, welcoming nature, and I want to preserve that. I have seen the beauty and the positive versions of Scotland that I know and believe in. I am sure, Ms Lindsay, that you will share that belief.

The issue with some of what you have said is that much of it is to do with misinformation. I will take each issue in turn. We have seen an increase in the number of people coming in—you used the term “small boats”—but that has been a result of Brexit. As you will appreciate, a lot of the issues that you have touched on are reserved matters, but we need safe and legal routes for people to come to this country. As a result of Brexit, those routes have been taken away. I would challenge some notions around the issue.

I—and, I am sure, a lot of people around this table—have seen images of small boats being used and promoted in the media as something to fear and to suggest that their use has increased. However, if you look at the statistics—which I do not have in front of me but am happy to provide to the committee, although they do not sit with us in the Scottish Government—you will see that there has been a decrease in the number of people arriving on our shores.

However, there is also a lot of misinformation. You touched on housing, and I have a great example of misinformation relating to that. There was an article in The Telegraph, I believe, that said that the City of Edinburgh Council is prioritising housing for asylum seekers. That is categorically untrue. The chief executive—the leader—of the council wrote to The Telegraph highlighting that claims are untrue. There is a fair system in place that analyses the priorities of anyone waiting to be accommodated in our housing, but those untrue claims are being repeated time and time again in Parliament—

Thank you for your questions, Ms Mochan. Before I start answering, I welcome the spirit of generosity that you have shown me in the past couple of months. I very much echo your points about cross-collaboration, especially where we have shared ambitions, values and goals. Before wearing my Government hat, I worked for Public Health Scotland, so data is in my professional healthcare background and I am a firm believer in it. No one will need to convince me about the importance of data, because that is part and parcel of who I am, given my professional background.

I hear you strongly in relation to the intersectionality of data and the intersectionality of the equality groups, which is key. Some practical considerations have been set out in the intersectional evidence review that was published in 2024, especially around ethnic minority women. The equalities analysis team also undertook a disability evidence review in partnership with disabled people’s organisations. I want to assure you that officials are mindful of that intersectionality and of data in general. We have some fantastic examples of that from public bodies, but there is also variation from public body to public body, and it is my job—and, I suppose, the job of the committee—to ensure that we have consistency across public bodies. Ms Mochan, I am very mindful of the fact that, the more data we have, the more we will be able to understand the challenges and issues and address them better, so I will take that point away.

Your second point was about human rights and access to services in rural communities, and the answer is yes—I absolutely understand the challenges that women, in particular, face. We have touched on violence against women and girls, which is a really important issue, and, as part of delivering equally safe, we have funded something like 114 projects across 110 organisations, over all 32 local authorities. That funding is used partly to make sure that we have services up and down Scotland that understand the challenges that urban communities face as well as the challenges that rural services have. In the domestic violence space, there are many challenges in helping women to get accommodated elsewhere. We are mindful of that, and the Government is doing things such as delivering equally safe and, through our funding, making sure that it is happening across all communities.

I would welcome any thoughts that you have on anything that you and I can do in that space, Ms Mochan, because it is about representing the views of all our constituents in our programme in order to make sure that we address those challenges.

Very simply, I would welcome that. Anti-racism is in my portfolio, but it applies across Government and the services that we deliver. In all the work that we do, we have to see through that lens. As someone who has personally experienced racism, whether in this role or wearing any other hat, I am profoundly aware of the issue. I would welcome the committee’s understanding of the rise of racism. As I said, if there is anything that we can do in support, collaboration and partnership to take forward that work, I would be all ears.

If you want to see a lot of evidence of that, you should visit my X—or Twitter—account to get a flavour of the abuse that I get in that space. We are seeing a rise in the use of artificial intelligence and the number of bots. You are absolutely right that there is co-ordination in what is going on in the online space. As I said, I am conscious of misinformation and disinformation online and of the co-ordination to double down on that kind of speech.

On your experiences with your social media posts, I apologise to you and to the community that you serve that we are in that space and that communities are experiencing that. When we go into the communities that we serve, we can have such a positive impact; the flip side of that is the co-ordinated response of horrible language, misinformation and disinformation. That is impacting our Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu communities—people of all faiths, and of none—and it concerns me.

I will pause there because I know that you have a second question. However, I know that there has been a rise in the use of AI and the number of bots, and a rise in the number of co-ordinated takedowns and comments. I strongly encourage people to ignore those as much as they can—or to call those things out, because it is really important to do that, too.