Presiding Officer, I apologise to members that I will have to leave before the end of the debate and I thank you for your understanding in that regard.

I am pleased to lend my voice in this debate in support of the continuing work that we must do to realise equality for women and girls, not just at home but around the world. I acknowledge the many powerful contributions that we have heard from my colleagues on the Labour benches and the leadership that women in my party and across the Parliament have shown in working to break down barriers, smash glass ceilings and staircases and support other women to become engaged and involved in politics and public life. On that note, I welcome the minister to her place in her first debate in her new role.

However, we know that we have so much more to do, and it is clear to me that men have so much more to do. In contributing to previous debates on these issues, such as the debate in November on the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, I have focused largely on the role that men must play in bringing about change and equality, and I intend to do that again in the time that I have today. The theme of this year’s international women’s day, which is “Inspire Inclusion”, is critical to changing men’s attitudes to women in all aspects of life.

As the UN’s IWD campaign organisation notes, when women are not present, all of us, but men in particular, need to ask why they are not. What could we change to make spaces more accessible to women? What could we change in our own behaviour, or call out in the behaviour of others, to ensure that all spaces are inclusive? What do we need to change in our systems to ensure that we actively encourage more women into those spaces, to promote equality?

I am proud of the work that my political party and movement has done in playing such a large part in advancing gender equality over many years. A previous Labour UK Government passed the Equality Act 2010, and Scottish Labour MSPs have been ferocious campaigners on ending period poverty, increasing women’s representation in politics and tackling the on-going problem of gender-based violence. However, we know that, across this Parliament and other legislatures, there is much more work to do towards achieving equality and inclusion.

As we have heard during the debate, we need to face up to the challenges that we, in Scotland, continue to see in our systems, and, in particular, in our workplaces. In workforces in which the majority of workers are women, we must properly value and develop roles and pay structures so that we can support women to get out of poverty and into long-term sustainable work that pays them not just to get by but to get on. We must continue to examine the issue of institutionalised sexism in the social security system and the unfairness that is embedded in some of its payments. In our justice system, too many women are failed, ignored, sidelined or treated with appalling misogyny. On today of all days, that should be at the forefront of all our minds. In healthcare, we must move forward with purpose—for example, on the creation of buffer zones so that women can access their right to healthcare free of harassment.

As legislators, we have an important role to play in all that work. On wider social and cultural levels, men have a similarly important role in ensuring that the burden of opening up spaces to make them more inclusive and to make society more respectful does not fall on women. Instead, the burden should fall on men to listen, change their behaviour and proactively take steps forward, rather than just expect someone else to take responsibility.

I am therefore pleased to support campaign groups such as White Ribbon Scotland, which does vital work in challenging pervasive and persistent misogyny, which is so often the root cause of enduring inequality and exclusion. I am also pleased to work with organisations such as Close the Gap, which works to close the economic gap that remains a barrier to women’s inclusion in the labour market and other places. It is crucial that we educate men, in particular, about such on-going work.

Domestic issues and work to change approaches remain a priority but, as we have heard, the issue is about more than just the problems here at home. Right across the globe, women and girls find themselves facing violence, oppression and misogyny every day. In the face of war and state violence, women stand up for their rights and, in many cases, their lives with incredible bravery. In Iran, women and girls risked everything to protest against the death of Mahsa Amini and the actions of the hardline regime’s morality police. In Afghanistan, women are fighting to retain their freedom and their lives following the Taliban’s return to power. In conflict zones from Ukraine to Africa, women’s rights organisations lead efforts to ensure the upholding of international law and to stop sexual violence being used as a tool of war. Our thoughts turn to the experiences of the women in Israel who were taken hostage by Hamas on 7 October and who have still not returned to their families, and to those in Palestine who, as many members have already referenced, are suffering unimaginable horrors in the most desperate of situations. Tomorrow, on international women’s day, we should all redouble our calls for an immediate ceasefire in that war—an end to rocket fire in and out of Gaza, the return of hostages and an end to violence and bloodshed—as we aspire to a two-state solution where no woman has to live in fear.

It is incumbent on us all to play whatever small part we can to support and stand with women, to ensure that they are empowered as agents of change, to call out and hold accountable the perpetrators of violence against them, and to ensure that men change and regulate their behaviour and the behaviour of others. We must all work together to make the change that we want to see in the world.

The minister will recognise that, when large employers leave a town, the impact on the town centre can be substantial. Since the Inverclyde socioeconomic task force was formed, 1,200 jobs have been lost in the local economy, and the position will worsen if EE leaves the community.

The local council has invested £72 million in capital projects to regenerate the town centre. When will the Government come to the table, get involved with the socioeconomic task force, and make the impact that we are already seeing from the council—

—to keep jobs in Inverclyde and improve the town centre?

Good morning to the panel. I am interested in continuing the themes that we have already discussed, particularly regarding the role of local authorities. We have heard stories about children being abducted from asylum accommodation in England. Is there a threat of that happening in Scotland, or are there instances of it happening here? Are local authorities fulfilling their duties in that context in respect of asylum-seeking children? I invite Phil Arnold to respond first.

No, convener. The new Scots strategy has been covered adequately, so I am happy to hand back to you.

In relation to the expertise and resourcing of local authorities, and in relation to the wider context of supporting refugees, research commissioned by the Scottish Government suggests that local authorities have built up expertise. However, given some of the answers this morning, it is clear that there are gaps and there is more to be done. Graham, do you want to comment on local authorities’ capacity to support refugees?

I will pick up on some of the points that you have raised in your questioning, convener.

The Scottish Refugee Council’s briefings for our debates in Parliament on the Illegal Migration Bill referred to the importance of having a mitigation strategy from the Scottish Government. The Government has said that it is challenging to provide one, as it is not entirely clear what the provisions of the UK Government’s bill will be or when they will be enacted. Graham O’Neill, you have mentioned a mitigation strategy a number of times this morning and I am keen to hear your view on whether providing that is still important.

Good morning. I am interested in a similar theme—that of assessing the impact that budgetary decisions have with regard to equalities and human rights. When I asked the question of other ministers at other committees, I discovered that there was no consistency around the use of equality impact assessments.

I will start with the broader equality and fairer Scotland budget statement, and I will then come on to discuss equality impact assessments. The equality and fairer Scotland budget statement was offered by other ministers as an indication that the entire budget and its impact was being looked at in the round, but it is fair to say that there are inconsistencies in how different portfolios have provided detail on that.

I am interested to know what guidance is given to ministers on how they complete that work. What is your view? Do you feel that you have a role, as the minister with responsibility for equalities, to support your colleagues to give as full a picture as possible?

I appreciate what you have said about the aspiration of Government. However, we can evidence some inconsistencies. Do you feel that a better, standardised format should be given to ministers to ensure that everyone reports in the same way, or do you feel that it is up to individual ministers to make their own interpretations?

Okay. On the point about individual equality impact assessments and their use as a tool, there have been calls from organisations relating to individual budgetary decisions. Many organisations have said that the decision on the reduction in the housing capital budget should have been subject to an equality impact assessment. I put that to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, who pointed to the broader piece of work that we have just discussed. However, organisations feel that the ramifications and the understanding of the impact that that cut will have are such that it should have been subject to an equality impact assessment. Is it your view that there should be individual equality impact assessments on specific decisions?