Chamber and committees

Improvements are being made to the availability and analysis of equality data across the Scottish Government through the equality data improvement programme and the equality evidence strategy for 2023 to 2025. That includes improvements to the collection and analysis of disaggregated and intersectional data across policy areas. Good progress has been seen across the strategy as of July 2025. Of the strategy’s 45 actions, 17 are complete, 20 are in progress and officials are supporting the remainder to be delivered within the strategy period, where possible.

An evaluation of the current equality evidence strategy to examine its impacts, including how the work has improved outcomes, will commence shortly. Work is under way to begin the development of the next equality evidence strategy, which will be done in collaboration with analysts, policy makers and external organisations that are interested in improving equality evidence.

I will come in on that. During my previous appearances in front of the committee, I have emphasised my personal commitment to provide support and challenge across portfolios. As I said in my opening remarks, I have had 14 ministerial meetings so far, and we are now working differently. Governments are set up with departments, and everyone has subject areas while, in the chamber, we have shadow ministers to cover portfolios. It is also about cultural change. As I have said, there needs to be a will to change. We need to take people with us in order to make the change by demonstrating the positive effects that it can have.

That is part of my challenge. If we undertake impact assessments earlier, it will lead to better decision making in the future, especially in these times of fiscal challenge when serious financial decisions must be made. Money is not infinite. Therefore, we need to ensure that we look after the most vulnerable people, as the cabinet secretary says, and see the intersections in how a decision in one portfolio area can affect another.

There is much more to do. That is why having a vision and a bold ambition is important. It gives us a clear trajectory to aspire to. The journey is long and complicated but I assure the committee that we are making good progress along that way.

I will deal with the minimum core requirements. I recall that, when I was convener of the committee, I asked questions of Government representatives regarding the minimum core, so I take a special interest in that.

We understand the minimum core as the most fundamental requirements of social, economic and cultural rights, such as the right to adequate food, housing and healthcare, that every state must uphold at all times, irrespective of resources. The Scottish Human Rights Commission promotes those concepts within the context of a potential human rights bill that will aim to incorporate certain international treaties in domestic law to ensure that everyone in Scotland can access those essential rights.

We understand that minimum core obligations fall into two categories. The first concerns the budget process, in relation to which they include running the process differently, driven by principles of transparency, participation and accountability—I know that the committee has been considering those themes. The second category concerns the budget itself, in relation to which they include demonstrating that the content of a budget—the decisions that are taken about how money is raised, allocated and spent—is in line with human rights obligations. That covers the maximum available resources in particular. Governments are obliged to take steps to progressively realise the rights to the maximum of their available resources. Minimum core obligations are understood to be the minimum protections that Governments should guarantee to everyone.

The human rights discussion paper that was published in July sets out proposals for ministers to run a participatory process to inform the minimum standard of social, economic and cultural rights. One of the actions that was identified in that paper was to develop the thinking on minimum standards and what that participatory process might look like. It might be worth noting that there is no global agreement on minimum core obligations, because they will differ for every nation, depending on the maximum resources that are available. It is new territory, but I can assure the committee that it is being taken incredibly seriously. I hope that that covers that bit of it.

On the decision not to legislate, Tess White quite rightly asked what we were doing in the meantime. As I said, we published the discussion paper. We are implementing the capability building programme to help the public sector and the wider duty bearers with the human rights bill. In the current financial year, we have invested up to about £200,000 to increase the knowledge and understanding of the rights that are proposed for incorporation across local authorities and health and social care providers. We will also engage with organisations’ funding through the equality and human rights fund to facilitate a knowledge exchange on the proposed rights and how to prepare the ground for future duties. Our capability building workshop group is helping to inform the delivery of that work in 2025-26 and beyond.

On making that information on human rights accessible and available, it is vital to allow the rights holders to claim those rights. Working with stakeholders, we will develop plans for information and awareness raising, including a campaign that is aligned with the future timescales for the implementation of human rights. We are developing a toolkit as part of the mainstreaming strategy that will assist with improving competence in that area. That will be an online platform that will have resources and checklists around training, continual professional development and best practice, which means that there will be a lot of practical support. There will be examples to support Scottish Government directorates and the wider Scottish public sector, so that people can evaluate the mainstreaming strategies and human rights priorities and take actions where appropriate.

I will add a couple of short points. I remind everyone that health boards, like other public service providers, have to undertake equality impact assessments on any decisions that they make. That puts it on the record that they have looked at the equality impact and are taking mitigating factors into account. If there is a disproportionate impact on certain groups, the mitigating actions that they are going to take are on record.

I can confirm that the responsibility for the EHRBAG secretariat function has officially been transferred to the Scottish exchequer. I know that doing that was a request for some time, so I hope that it gives clear evidence of that alignment—so that, as members have said, we can “follow the money”. That portfolio has been shifted into the Scottish exchequer, which demonstrates the direct link between them.

I can come in briefly on that. The way that it works is that we give money to strategic delivery partners who undertake that work, because they are best placed to do it. They have the knowledge and expertise and, usually, they have the voice of lived experience. I could give the example of the Scottish Refugee Council.

On the funding and procurement process, when the grant offer letters go out, the contract is very clear about what services we expect to be delivered. We have internal and external organisations that monitor that, analyse it and make sure that all the processes are followed. For example—I always get this one mixed up—Inspiring Scotland has more than 17 years of experience and it does regular checks and balances to make sure that the money that we provide is used for the intended purpose. If it is not, there are ways of managing that, as there are with many contracts.

I have been over how and why we procure services. In previous sessions, the issue of conflation has been raised—maybe it was Tess White who raised it. Different organisations provide different services. Some of them are campaigners and provide services, too. I have made it very clear in the past that the organisations that we fund are funded for specific services that they provide. Some of them may undertake campaigning work while others may not. None of that campaigning work is funded by the Scottish Government in any way whatsoever. Generally speaking, the organisations provide services such as providing information, gathering data, listening to the voices of lived experience, running suicide helplines and informing future policy. They are undertaking very valuable work.

I will have a go. If anything is left unanswered, I am also happy to follow up with you on it.

Cat McMeeken was correct, and I have reinforced what she said. One of the services that is provided is advocacy work. Often, the most marginalised people are not in a place to be able to represent themselves, so they need somebody advocating for them. For instance, the Scottish Refugee Council has just been awarded a contract to assist migrants—they are some of the most vulnerable people, as they are not able to access their rights on issues such as housing, benefits or healthcare. It is important to remember that the principle applies across all protected characteristics. Being trans is a protected characteristic, so trans people would and should be entitled to the same services as anyone with any other protected characteristic.

We will continue to work with our partners in Inspiring Scotland, with whom we have a well-established relationship. In response to Tess White’s question, on the budget that comes out of my portfolio and the equality and human rights fund, it might be helpful for you to be aware that 31 per cent of my total budget is spent on disability organisations and supporting people with disabilities. Twenty-two per cent of the budget is spent on advancing race equality and in the wider field. Twenty per cent of the budget is spent on women and girls. Fourteen per cent, which is the least amount, is spent on supporting organisations that work in the LGBTQI arena. I hope that that gives you an indication of the proportions of the money that is spent.

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.