Absolutely. The current equality evidence strategy seeks to make improvements to the availability and analysis of equality data across the Scottish Government. That is running until December 2025 and work is under way to develop its next iteration.

The equality evidence finder is a web-based platform that was established to disseminate equality data to analysts, policy makers and the general public. Work is under way to advance the data that is included in that tool and to improve its accessibility and usability. Just because the data is there does not mean that everybody is able to access it equally. We are working on that and we have seen good progress.

Obviously, there is always more to do to refine it. However, an evaluation of the current evidence strategy, which runs from 2023 to December 2025 will, alongside the collaboration with analysts, policy makers and external bodies, directly inform the next iteration about which I was talking. That is happening in real time. I hope that that gives you an answer.

It is always strange when your words are quoted back to you, and I stand by them. I gave an outline in my opening statement of the work that I have been doing. That kind of infrastructural work of doing cultural change, enabling conversations and increasing knowledge, competence and capability, does not grab the headlines, but it makes the foundations for future decisions more robust and connected, as you say. That all feeds into some of the remarks that you said came out of the first evidence session this morning.

In that sense, none of that surprises me. Thanks for the opportunity to reinforce what the role of an equalities minister is. I take very seriously the right demand for mainstreaming. With my support and challenge to colleagues, I can say that, yes, they are speaking to one another, and they always have done.

I think that what sometimes gets lost, with the best will in the world, because we referred to it earlier, is that everybody has their different portfolios and people are very keen on getting on with their job. Having somebody who can take a wider view and see all the connections and then offer that view has been very well received by my colleagues. One massive demonstration of that is the fact that the cabinet secretary and I are both here during a pre-budget scrutiny evidence session. That is another indication that we are coming out of our silos.

I always say that everybody wants everybody else to come out of their silos until I turn around and say, “You come out of yours.” That is always a bit more challenging.

There is also the annual ministerial budget workshop, which is a great opportunity when everybody is in the room at the same time. It means that clear connections can be made between portfolio decisions in the room in real time, and I am able to add my voice to that as well. The focus on protected characteristics, socioeconomic disadvantage and children’s rights, for instance, embeds equality and human rights into decisions that ministers make.

The new equality outcomes were published in April this year. We have taken a new approach to the equality outcome-setting process, so that it provides the consistency that Pam Gosal asks for and leadership across Government.

The three key outcomes that act as enablers of that system-wide change, which is what we all want, focus on improving the use and awareness of equality evidence, improving how we are informed by lived experience and participation and strengthening the relevant impact assessments. Each outcome is underpinned by short-term and long-term actions over a four-year period.

I hope that that gives you a clear indication of our commitment to drive meaningful, long-term change by addressing the structural barriers that impact equality across all of the Scottish Government, as we are very much aware. I hope that that is enough information.

I open this debate on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill at a time of growing global instability. That instability can result in people having to flee their homes to seek safety in another country. Scotland has a proud history of welcoming those who are fleeing war and persecution, and the debate needs to be seen in that wider context.

Border security is central to the UK Government’s plan for change. The Border Security Command aims to co-ordinate efforts to dismantle criminal gangs, which prey on the desperation of those who are seeking a safe haven. At the time of the previous general election, more than 122 million people worldwide were forcibly displaced as they fled persecution and conflict, violence and human rights violations.

Many people risk dangerous Channel crossings out of desperation and rely on smugglers and criminal networks. These are not journeys of choice; they are journeys of desperation by men, women and children who are seeking safer shores.

In 2024, 73 people died attempting the crossing—more than in the previous six years combined. The boats are now more crowded, with an average of 53 people per vessel, which is up from 13 per vessel in 2020. The Scottish Government does not condone illegal activity and supports efforts to disrupt criminal networks. Measures such as enhanced data sharing and new offences can help, but they must be implemented with care. Strong oversight, safeguards and respect for privacy and due process are essential.

Strengthening border security is legitimate, but it must not criminalise those who are fleeing war and persecution. While we support sanctions for serious crimes, such as human trafficking, breaching immigration rules alone should not result in criminalisation. Many people who arrive in small boats are vulnerable individuals who are seeking safety. Detention and prosecution should always be a last resort.

The bill must be matched by the expansion of safe and legal routes, such as refugee resettlement, family reunion and humanitarian pathways. Amnesty has said that safe routes save lives, and the Scottish Refugee Council has called the bill a “missed opportunity”. Enforcement alone will not resolve the crisis. We must address the root cause and protect the most vulnerable. As a founding signatory to the refugee convention, the UK has a moral and legal duty to uphold its principles.

I welcome the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s report on the legislative consent memorandum and its recommendation that the Parliament should consent to the relevant provisions in the bill. The committee highlighted stakeholder concerns about age declaration forms and called for the reassurance that we are working with the UK Government to mitigate the risks for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We have engaged with the UK Government and we understand that those forms are used in Kent, not Scotland. We will continue to monitor the issue.

The Scottish Government remains committed to supporting those who come to Scotland in search of safety and to ensuring that the implementation of the bill reflects our values and respect for human rights. As head of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Lord Advocate has published instructions for prosecutors when considering the prosecution of a person who is, or appears to be, the victim of human trafficking and exploitation.

The Scottish Government introduced what became the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, which provides support when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an adult is a victim of human trafficking. That support can include accommodation, medical care, legal services and psychological support.

Alongside support services that local authorities provide to child victims, the Scottish Government funds the guardianship Scotland service to support unaccompanied children in Scotland who have been trafficked or who are vulnerable to being exploited.

We facilitate refugee integration through the new Scots refugee integration strategy, which is delivered in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Refugee Council. We also provide tailored support through Scotland’s migration service, which helps people to navigate our complex immigration system, understand their rights, access services and build stable lives.

In moving the motion, I recommend the Parliament’s consent to the relevant provisions in the bill as amended. While recognising the UK Government’s efforts to combat organised immigration crime, the Scottish Government reaffirms its commitment to those who are fleeing persecution and urges the UK Government to expand the availability of safe and legal routes to sanctuary.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 30 January 2025, relating to the provision and sharing of trailer registration information (amended clauses 30 to 33), the provision of biometric information at ports in Scotland (clause 36), the repeal of certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (clause 38), the detention and exercise of functions pending deportation (clause 41), powers to take biometric information at detention centres (clause 44), offences relating to articles for use in serious crime (clauses 49 and 50), applicants for making of orders and interim orders (clause 54), and the validation of fees charged in relation to qualifications (clause 57), so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

I thank colleagues for their thoughtful and considered contributions to the debate, although the speeches have been varied and possibly a little polarised, which is not unexpected. I ask the chamber to support the Scottish Government’s motion to grant legislative consent to the relevant provisions of the UK Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I emphasise again that this is not a blanket endorsement of the UK Government’s immigration and asylum policy; indeed, just the other week, I stood here and expressed serious concerns about its approach to migration.

We welcome many of the intended benefits of the provisions of the bill, especially through the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the repeal of parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 that removed the duty on Scottish ministers to protect trafficking victims. That is a necessary step towards addressing the legacy of fear, uncertainty and hostility that was left in the wake of those deeply concerning measures, which were initiated by the UK Conservative Government.

The provisions on which we seek consent—particularly those concerning data sharing, enforcement, co-operation and safeguarding—demand our active engagement. Through that active engagement, we can ensure that they are implemented in a way that respects devolved responsibilities and upholds fundamental human rights. In an interconnected world, challenges such as migration, climate change and global security demand co-operation and not isolation. By working across Governments, we respond more effectively to shared crises.

We recognise the serious challenges in the current system, but the bill must come with a commitment to improving access to safe and legal routes for those who seek protection. Without such measures, we risk perpetuating the very vulnerabilities that the bill seeks to resolve.

I say on the record that I have much sympathy with Maggie Chapman’s contribution on section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Of course, that matter is wholly reserved and today we are talking about the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill.

I close with the message that Scotland stands—and will always stand—for dignity, fairness and respect and will remain a place of refuge for those fleeing persecution and conflict.

I am very grateful to the Alnisa service for working with us. The Government is benefiting from the experience, knowledge and expertise that that service has to offer. I reassure the committee that we are listening very carefully to its opinions and that we will continue to work with it.

Thank you for that question. You will be aware that the act was passed in 2020, so if it is all right to do so, I will bring in Nel on that point.

That is a really good point. As I said in my opening remarks, officials are undertaking a mapping exercise to identify the existing training in sectors such as education, health and policing, which will enable us to identify gaps and opportunities. Once that exercise has been completed, officials will engage with stakeholders to co-design appropriate training solutions. It is essential that they are co-designed and that we hear from people who have experience of the matter, whether they be victims or those who support or provide services, so that we have a joined-up approach. That is one of the reasons why it has taken a bit of time to do the work, but we are determined to do it well and to ensure that our approach is sustainable.

The training materials and the awareness-raising materials will be developed for the professional sector and for the wider public, because there is a need for education and awareness raising across society. As I said, the materials will be culturally appropriate and available in multiple languages. We will ensure that inclusive formats are used so that the materials are accessible to everybody.

In order to further raise awareness, officials are exploring the option of organising an event to mark the international day of zero tolerance for FGM in February 2026. That is an example of work not only with sectors and communities but with civic society at large.

I alluded to materials being developed with our advisory group for ethnic minority women and girls. We are drawing on that group’s expertise to ensure that the content is appropriate, accurate and targeted.

I can give you reassurance that that work is well under way. The development of the materials will begin in late summer or autumn. I am establishing a timeline for you over the next year, because we are absolutely on track for implementation in 2026.

Absolutely. Experience from England and Wales shows us that increased awareness and training among professionals led to a rise in the number of applications for FGM protection orders. That clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of awareness raising and training being part of implementation.

I am sorry, but could you repeat the last bit of your question? I am afraid that I am a bit hard of hearing.

Based on the awareness that I have gained while I have been in post, I think that it is difficult to pre-empt everything, especially when a piece of legislation cuts across other legislation and across many other domains; for instance, this legislation falls under child protection, too. When that happens, you have to deal with multiple organisations, and bringing people together always takes time. That is, it can be done quickly, but I think that for legislation such as this to be implemented consistently and to be done well, it takes time to iron it all out.

I am aware that the Minister for Parliamentary Business spoke to the committee in December. Like him, I accept that there have been disruptions and delay that we would not have wanted. He outlined clearly some of the reasons for that delay. In that sense, I understand Ms Chapman’s point that it has taken time, but we need to keep that in perspective. There are complexities in bringing together many agencies. As I said, the implementation of the FGM act is not within just the Scottish Government’s gift. Many other people have responsibilities, and we need to make sure that everybody works together in step. There were clearly also other reasons for the delay. Many things got caught up in Covid—that was well rehearsed at the December meeting, so I will not go into it further. Yes, there has been a delay, but that delay is not entirely to do with the work. I hope that I have demonstrated the clear progress that has been made since the committee was last updated in December.