���˿���

I have two questions and will address my first one to Professor O’Hagan. You have just talked about the intent of the bill and Dr Hill talked about the lack of a scoping exercise. We looked at three local authorities and our data shows that, of 700,000 pupils, 143 pupils withdrew from RO only, nine pupils withdrew from RME and 61 pupils withdrew from both. Why not wait until the Scottish human rights bill and do it all properly? We have four legal experts here who support the view that the bill is a sticking plaster. So, Professor O’Hagan, why not just wait until the Scottish human rights bill?

On my point about access to justice, we already have a problem with legal aid. We have looked at only three local authorities but, for the whole of Scotland, based on the stats and the estimates, 4,000 pupils could fall into the category. There could be disputes between what a parent wants and what a child wants. We need to think about that.

My second question builds on what my colleague Dr Gosal talked about in relation to capacity. The bill is looking to give very young children the ability to make decisions, when the age of capacity is usually 16. My understanding is that a child is legally allowed to be left alone at age 12 and that there is a different age for when a child is allowed to be left overnight. Therefore, the law must be very clear.

Professor O’Hagan talked about access to justice. If there is a conflict, will legal aid need to be provided to children if they disagree with their parents? I understand that the age at which a child has the capacity to access legal aid is 12. My point is that the law must be clear, as the starting point in the bill is that the child has capacity. Professor Sutherland, what is your view? I know that it is very complicated, but the law must be clear.

My next question is for Emma Congreve. The feedback that we have been given this morning is that there is, as Angela O’Hagan put it, a

“gap between narrative and practice.”

We hear these words, but it is quite damning that, although something is said, nothing happens and things are kicked down the road. In your view, does the Scottish Government’s positive narrative in the equality and fairer Scotland budget statement and in its budget responses to the committee reflect the reality in relation to policy impact and the changes that it has made to budget processes, data and documentation?

You are smiling, Emma.

We hear you loud and clear on those very important points. The mood music can quickly turn sour if there is no delivery. I read in the papers today about carers going on strike. People have had enough if their basic needs are not being met. I also refer to the point that Emma Congreve made about the Pareto principle and the focus on the few important things. We had an example this morning of people being locked up. The committee learned about the huge percentage of women and girls with learning difficulties who are being sexually assaulted. That resonated loud and clear. The Promise, social security and violence against women and girls have also been mentioned. As I said, we hear you loud and clear.

The next evidence session is with the Minister for Equalities and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, and it is our job to take what you have shared with us this morning, and what we have heard over the past few months, and to present it to the Scottish Government—so, thank you.

Good morning. The human rights bill has been flagged as essential to helping citizens to understand minimum core requirements. How is the Scottish Government working to progress the public’s understanding of human rights, given the decision not to legislate during this session?

Thank you, cabinet secretary, but, in the previous evidence session this morning, we heard a huge concern about the gap between narrative and practice. With something as clearly beneficial as breastfeeding, if even the most basic provision is not being followed through with defined minimum core criteria, do you have a concern that there needs to be a tighter follow-through to ensure that there is accountability for that?

On 6 May, you and your official, Cat McMeeken, gave evidence to this committee. Your official responded to my questions regarding funding for third sector organisations that are supported by the equality and human rights fund. Ms McMeeken stated that the Scottish Government does not

“provide core funding, which is for the wider lobbying activities that organisations do. It is much more about giving funding for specific services.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 6 May 2025; c 20.]

That is also what you have just said, minister. Why, then, did the fund manager, Inspiring Scotland, specifically include a list of the advocacy work that is carried out by the Equality Network, LEAP Sports Scotland, LGBT Youth Scotland, the LGBT Healthy Living Centre and Stonewall on gender identity services in a recent progress report on the equality and human rights fund? That is a specific question, minister. If you do not know the answer, I am happy to follow up with you separately.

That is an answer to a different question from the one that I asked.

I am an MSP for North East Scotland.