Seòmar agus comataidhean

When I asked Mark Jones what it means to have zero tolerance of racism, we had an answer that was, I think, a little ambiguous. I accept that it may simply have been a matter of being overly careful with language, but Mark Jones said:

“My understanding is that it means that wherever it is encountered it will be dealt with appropriately.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 30 October 2025; c 13.]

“Appropriately” is a very subjective term, and there will, of course, be individuals who are familiar with or are used to using racist or xenophobic language and who do not think that that is inappropriate. “Inappropriate” is another highly subjective term.

Does the Scottish Government set out proactively to organisations such as HES—not just HES, but across the board—how it expects the Scottish public sector to deal with these issues? At the moment, we are in a very challenging time as a society, with overt forms of prejudice of the kind that were more familiar to us in the 1970s and 1980s being normalised at the very highest level of politics, the media and social media. It is clear that simply expecting organisations to apply their duties under the Equality Act 2010, for example, is not adequate or enough to ensure that there is a proactive culture that achieves zero tolerance of racism and other forms of prejudice.

Does the Scottish Government generally leave organisations such as HES to figure these issues out for themselves as employers, or does it proactively set out expectations about how the Scottish Government’s political position on zero tolerance of racism, xenophobia and other forms of prejudice is to be put in place?

You need to respect the convener.

I look forward to seeing that further information. I will simply end by suggesting that the issues of interest to this committee in relation to HES ought to be prompting the Government to take a wider, cross-Government approach to the proactive effort that needs to be made to give effect to what the cabinet secretary says: that the Government abhors racism, xenophobia and other forms of prejudice. If we are to respond to the current circumstances effectively, a rather more proactive and cross-Government approach is probably needed. If that effort had been made, I would have hoped that it would have prevented some of the revelations that we have seen.

Good morning. Obviously, there are many aspects to the situation. I would like to focus specifically on the reports of racism and xenophobia in the organisation.

I said this to our witnesses last week. We do not expect answers, either from those witnesses or from you, cabinet secretary, on live investigations or individual staffing disciplinary matters. However, I did ask Mark Jones whether the media reports about the situation were accurate. He said:

“I cannot honestly speak to the entire range of media reports, but I think that, broadly, they are accurate.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 30 October 2025; c 12-13.]

There have been reports of racist and xenophobic language, and reports that the defence offered for that racist and xenophobic language was that the person concerned previously worked in an organisation where racist and xenophobic language was commonplace. That was seen as a defence. It has been reported that the person who raised concerns about these issues was sent on diversity training.

It has also been reported that these incidents have damaged the relationship with the University of Glasgow to the extent that a joint project on addressing issues of slavery and colonialism has been either suspended or in some way damaged—we do not have clarity about that.

Is the Scottish Government taking the view that those reports demonstrate very serious concern about the culture in HES? Would the cabinet secretary share my view that, if the reports are accurate, the organisation appears to have failed to deal appropriately with racism and xenophobia?

So that I can be clear about what the member is saying—is he saying that he does not support the amendments from Jackie Baillie at this point but that he is willing to explore the issues further? Is he resisting the amendments or is he ambivalent about them?

First, I have a brief comment on Liam McArthur and Jackie Baillie’s amendments. I agree with Liam McArthur that the meaning that is captured in the amendments is already included in the bill, but there is clearly a desire for some additional clarity, which I do not have a problem with. Liam McArthur’s formulation is slightly preferable, so I will support amendment 24.

On the specific argument about a prognosis, part of my worry is that we will end up placing an unbearable pressure on clinicians, who must make finely balanced judgments. There is also a potential risk that individuals who make a request could, in certain circumstances, have their access to the rights set out in the bill subject to challenge.

If we lived in a world where prognosis was a simple calculation—it was correct or incorrect—such a time limit would be workable. We do not live in such a world, and the judgments that are required to give a prognosis are not precise. One thing that we should be keen to avoid, if the bill passes and becomes legislation, is individuals—professionals involved in the process or people who seek to access the right to assistance—ending up with their circumstances subject to challenge and query and their rights essentially blocked by those who seek to challenge such judgments, which, by definition, cannot be precise.

Will the member take an intervention at this point?

I did not want to interrupt in the middle, but I hope that Bob Doris could say a little more about what seem to me to be subjective issues in the definition, in particular about coercion including being

“unduly influenced ... by ... the person’s own beliefs about themselves”.

We are all very conscious that we are discussing a subject on which people in society have profoundly different values. There will be people around this table with very different values on how we make decisions in our own lives. Legislation of this kind needs to reflect and respect the fact that people have a right to make decisions in line with their own values, not in line with the values that are imposed on them by society. Can the member tell me what the difference is between legitimately making a decision in a way that is reasonably influenced by my beliefs about myself and what would be considered coercion by being unduly influenced by my beliefs about myself? It feels to me to be a subjective and difficult-to-define area.

The most important thing that we should bear in mind is that that is how people are overwhelmingly likely to use the right to seek assistance. The idea that somebody would seek assistance and say, “I want help to end my life,” two days after a diagnosis is a bit of a straw-man argument. It is highly unlikely for somebody to be in such a scenario after two days.

As Liam McArthur said, a range of other safeguards are in place. Discussions and conversations will have to happen with the patient and other professionals, some of which will likely be strengthened as we debate other groups of amendments at stage 2 that will ensure that the conversations happen in a sensitive and understanding manner. Principally, the decision and the judgment need to be driven by the individual. It is about giving people a degree of control.

I am not convinced by the time boundary amendments. As the member might be aware, I was not on the committee for the stage 1 inquiry and have joined the committee since then. However, I think that the committee got the judgment right in its stage 1 report in suggesting that a time-bound prognosis should not be required, so I will not support those amendments.

I hope that we would all agree that, if legislation of this kind is passed, we should try to avoid, as much as possible, individuals incurring any financial cost. Will there be a financial cost involved in notaries public providing such a service? If so, how do we expect that it will be met?