Face Coverings in Public Places

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

Mr Kerr, the member has made it clear that they are not taking an intervention.

Will you please quote the standing order on which you are making your point of order?

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.

Yes.

The member must come to a conclusion.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Mr Kerr, you must conclude.

Mr Kerr, can you move your amendment?

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

Will the member conclude, please?

You have had extra time for the interventions.

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

I call Maggie Chapman to speak for four minutes.

17:02

I am not minded to accept a motion without notice on this issue. The timings were agreed with business managers prior to both debates.

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 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.

The member must make her point.

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

Sorry, Mr Kerr, but I must remind everyone to speak to one another and refer to one another with respect.

This is Scotland.

The member must conclude.

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—

I will give way to Mr Harvie, who I think is seeking to come in.

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.

Yes. I am sure that it will be enlightening.

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

I am sorry, members, but too many conversations are happening while the member is speaking.

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.

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.]

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.