Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government whether its policy position in relation to an independent Scotland seeking to rejoin the European Union includes rejoining the common fisheries policy. (S6O-04519)

A culture of disrespect and violence is clearly developing across society—there is almost a dehumanisation of women and girls—so it is no surprise that we are seeing that more and more in our schools. It is clear that some of the Government’s policies and choices, both in wider society and in school grounds, are contributing negatively to promoting that negative culture. Will the Government realise its role and work towards improving the culture so that it upholds women’s boundaries and promotes respect for women and girls?

I extend the deep condolences of all in the Alba Party to the friends and family of Christina McKelvie at this very sad time.

To ask the First Minister, in light of reports of an escalation in gang-related violence in Edinburgh, with recent shootings in Niddrie and West Pilton, what immediate action can be taken to support the emergency services in ensuring the safety and reassurance of communities in the Edinburgh Eastern constituency. (S6F-03970)

The very serious concerns that were raised at the Scottish Police Federation conference over issues such as officer burnout and underresourcing leading to reactive policing must be urgently addressed to support our police, who, in turn, support our communities’ safety. Edinburgh residents have the right to reassurance from visible, proactive policing and the right to not be left at the risk of being caught up in gang warfare. Will the First Minister commit today to reviewing the allocation formula for police funding for Edinburgh and consider targeted support for policing in areas of rising gang activity?

I, too, congratulate Michael Matheson on bringing this critical issue to the chamber. I hope that the Government will allocate time for a fuller debate on the topic in the future.

Today’s debate should be not a formality but a crucial step in eradicating the criminal exploitation of children and in using our role for their protection. The decisions that are made in the chamber are key to creating an environment where the children of Scotland are free from abuse and protected from exploitation. We cannot explore solutions to tackling any form of child abuse without first acknowledging the elephant in the room, which is the systematic erosion of child safeguarding that has left children vulnerable to exploitation.

As other speakers have said, we must listen to Professor Jay, who has spent many years working to understand the consequences of child exploitation. The recommendations from her reports over several reviews must now be implemented with a sense of urgency.

We all have a role in preventing exploitation by ensuring that children are not just rescued from harm but equipped with the skills and support to prevent exploitation from taking place in the first place. Our job as decision makers cannot be to pour support for exploited children into a bucket when the bucket continues to have its safeguarding base completely eroded, because that is self-defeating.

I will take a minute to explore the mixed messages that we are sending to children and broader society regarding safeguarding, such as the language that is used around children’s sexual activity.

The law states that sex with a minor is statutory rape, but how many times do we see headlines discussing the lifestyle choices of abused children? In schools, we ask children under the age of consent about their sexual activity, thereby normalising what is against the sexual offences law that is there to protect children. Furthermore, we publicly fund lobby groups such as LGBT Youth Scotland, which has a remit to provide services to an extensive age range, from 13-year-old children to adults aged 25. However, responses to freedom of information requests have shown that it is working beyond its remit by accessing primary school children and even influencing materials in nursery schools. I ask the Government to respond to that point, if possible, during the minister’s summing-up speech.

Dr Cass was clear that affirmation is not a neutral act. However, what has changed to make materials Cass compliant throughout our education system, reflecting the accepted recommendations in Dr Cass’s report? What are the learning objectives and measured outcomes of teaching sex and gender identity to nursery children, many of whom are not even toilet trained? Children look to adults and older peers to make sense of their world. Nurseries and schools are a child’s first communities, independent of their parents and care givers. Those places have positional authority and have a key role in ensuring that safeguarding is embedded and understood.

If we are seeking to protect children from criminal exploitation, we must continue that important focus on child safeguarding and put it before any other adult-driven agenda.

[Made a request to intervene.]

To ask the Scottish Government what work it has carried out in 2024-25 to further the case for Scottish independence. (S6O-04449)

Young Scots who voted yes at 16 will be approaching 30 at the next Scottish election. A political generation has therefore passed with pro-independence parties winning mandates at election after election, but Scotland is no closer to independence. Polling today shows an independence majority in 2026 of 66 seats across three parties. Will the Government take instruction from the people of Scotland, and not Westminster, by committing to put a clear democratic vote for independence on the list ballot next May?

I congratulate Tess White on bringing this important debate to the chamber, and I congratulate the Women’s Rights Network on its report.

Observers of proceedings in the chamber and in some of our committees over the past months may conclude that sex realists are from Venus and gender ideologists are from Mars, such is the difference between the two positions, so I seek now to bring some clarity where confusion has been reigning across all levels of the Government and in our public sector.

I start with the purpose and effect of the Equality Act 2010. Its purpose is to balance rights across nine protected characteristics, but those rights are not hierarchical, as some people seem to believe that they are. Its effect is to protect individuals from discrimination, harassment and victimisation, based on those protected characteristics. The purpose of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 is to ensure the health, safety, welfare, privacy and dignity of employees, and the effect of those regulations is to ensure that employees are provided with legally compliant welfare facilities, including single-sex toilets, changing rooms and washing facilities.

The certainty of the protections that are provided by the Health and Safety Executive regulations and the 2010 act cannot be overridden by internal policies, and equality impact assessments are not nice-to-haves.

I will bust some myths, given the confusion around the case-by-case approach that the Government seems to be labouring under at the moment. Public bodies and the Government appear to think that access to single-sex provision must be decided on an individual case-by-case basis, and that blanket policies that exclude all males from female-only spaces are unlawful. That is wrong. Blanket policies that exclude all males, regardless of how they identify, are lawful, and the fairness of a policy must be assessed not on the fairness of its application to individuals but on the application of the policy.

It is critical to understand that sex-based safeguarding is a result of the risk of mixed-sex access in vulnerable situations. The consequence for women arising from the risk of access by any males in female-only spaces—be they prisons, hospital wards, changing rooms or toilets—is that it removes that sex-based safeguarding. Allowing the introduction of risk by removing the assurance of single-sex spaces is a dereliction of governance and fails women.

Data is also critical to good governance, and there are clear obligations on that under the law. The Istanbul convention requires state parties to collect data on all forms of violence against women. As a minimum requirement, recorded data on victims and perpetrators should be disaggregated by sex, age and type of violence, as well as by the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim and the geographical location. Therefore, for hospitals and other public bodies to fail to collect that data on forms of violence against women is a breach of international obligations and a failure by the state with regard to women.

The Government must get a grip on that outrageous situation and demonstrate that Scotland values and will protect the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls. Quite frankly, we expect nothing less.

With another week comes another egregious breach of the human rights of women and girls, this time impacting on vulnerable children in care and on women on the prison estate, many of whom will have backgrounds involving trauma.

Does the Government not understand that promoting illegal and illiterate gender self-identification policies that override and nullify sex-based safeguarding and giving out access-all-area passes is completely unacceptable? When will the Government wake up to its obligations to ensure that public bodies follow the law? Will it ensure safeguarding and that women’s human rights are upheld before the next scandal unfolds, which will probably be next week?