Seòmar agus comataidhean

That point has been made clearly by this panel and the panel at last week’s committee meeting. It is helpful to have it on the record again.

I had a round-up question to finish on, but I think that a lot of the issues have been covered. However, I will look at a specific angle.

The witnesses have talked about those we might be able to hear from to inform the committee further, and they have talked a lot about getting in people with lived experience, which I agree is very important. The clerking teams in this and other parliamentary committees are good at ensuring that that happens in a safe space. I know that from being a member of committees in the previous parliamentary session, and I am sure that we will make that happen.

Can the witnesses expand on the value they think the committee will get from hearing from those people? The answer might seem obvious, but it would be good to get it on the record. What do you think the value of that will be for the committee in taking the petition forward?

I agree with Pam Gosal that this seems to be a very difficult subject—certainly online.

We have talked a lot about engagement, and 17,000 responses seems to be a fairly large response. Will the cabinet secretary comment on the most recent poll on the issue and on many other subjects—I mean the election, of course—and on the manifestos of all the political parties that were elected to Parliament? How important is it that political parties commit to their manifestos when the Parliament restarts its work?

I have a range of questions in the same area, so if anyone else has a supplementary, I can wait.

I was thinking that as well, convener, and I got a good cover on it. Like Pam Duncan-Glancy, I declare an interest, as I also signed the end conversion therapy petition during the election campaign.

Megan Snedden has already given a good overview of the issues and, given what the convener said, I do not want folk to have to go over things, but I wonder whether any of the other panel members want to talk about the complexities of legislation, such as what the UK Government is likely to legislate on, what we can legislate on and how those areas might interact, where that interaction might hold us back and where it might present opportunities to go further. Does anyone want to elaborate on the points that have already been made or bring new points to the table?

Thank you. I see by your fellow witnesses nodding their heads that they are very much in agreement.

I was going to ask about the public sector leadership summit on race equality and employment, so I am glad that the cabinet secretary included some comments on that in a previous answer. That issue is really important. As she mentioned, our predecessor committee held an inquiry into the topic, and it is good to hear that the work is being progressed.

I will move on to the Gypsy Traveller action plan. It is worth putting on record that, in the previous parliamentary session, Christina McKelvie, who is not here today, and Mary Fee were big advocates in that area. Will you comment on current progress with the action plan? Is there any evidence that it is having a positive impact on the lives of Gypsy Travellers?

Thank you. With the convener’s permission, I confirm that that would be helpful.

On the same topic, cabinet secretary, I want to draw your attention to a newspaper article that I saw today on Christina McKelvie’s social media. Referring to the UK Government, the article has the shocking headline:

“Government says discrimination against black people and Travellers ‘objectively justified’ with new laws”.

Under the headline, it says:

“Documents defend disproportionate impact of Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill”.

I do not know whether you have seen that. I do not expect you to comment if you have not, but I wonder whether, broadly speaking, I can seek an assurance that our Government in Scotland will not seek to have a similar response or ideology, given all the work that you have outlined.

I want to ask about the race equality framework and action plan that was published in March, and about—you referred to this—the immediate priorities plan that was announced in the programme for government last week. Will you tell us about the immediate priorities plan and the ethnic pay gap strategy? How will they make a difference as quickly as possible to communities across Scotland?

I was the convener of the cross-party group on racial equality during the previous parliamentary session. You will be aware that organisations representing those communities feel that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government have good intentions but that things do not always happen as quickly as they would like them to. Will last week’s announcement help in that regard?

It was useful for you to put on the record the fact that the service for high-risk individuals has continued throughout the pandemic, as has been the case with the other emergency services that we have heard from today.

My final question relates to an announcement in yesterday’s programme for government. As you will probably be aware, the First Minister announced plans for a new national community justice strategy, which will involve investment in community justice services, work on diverting people from prosecution and the promotion of alternatives to prison. There will now be a year of discussions on that. What are your expectations for the strategy? What solutions or plans to help your services to recover from the pandemic would you like to see?