It is ludicrous of Mr Whitfield to suggest that.

The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, unlike Scottish Labour, remains the only party in Scotland that is serious about restoring the integrity of our borders through proper control—I stress “proper”. However, we also respect the competences given to the Scottish Parliament through the devolution settlement and the functions that are reserved by the UK Parliament. Therefore, despite our significant opposition to the bill, we will abstain in the vote on the motion.

I will take this opportunity to raise my concern about the process that the Parliament has allowed for the passing of the LCM. The Scottish Government has highlighted the serious issue surrounding the LCM; it is fundamentally one of criminality, as Mr Whitfield says. However, due to the lack of time, the Parliament has disregarded the usual standing orders, skipped the stage where a lead committee would thoroughly scrutinise the LCM and brought it straight to the chamber. It is much more than “far from optimal”, as the cabinet secretary says—it is much worse than that. It is the third time that this has happened. The disregard for our standing orders and normal process of methodical scrutiny is of some concern to me and my colleagues. Although I understand that there might be little option left, in the interest of time, I urge the Scottish Government to ensure that disregard of our normal process does not become the norm.

Today, the Parliament is again asked to consider a legislative consent memorandum dealing with the UK Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. As a whole, the bill has given my colleagues—both here and in the UK Parliament—significant concern. Against the tide of illegal immigration, the bill proposes little in the way of solutions. It was reported just this week that 39,075 migrants have made the journey across the channel so far this year. Labour has failed to deal with immigration and securing our borders.

Scotland’s prison system is a shambles and it needs leadership from the cabinet secretary. While the Scottish National Party is preparing to let more criminals out early, because its soft-touch approach to justice means that our prison estate is buckling under the weight of a surging population, its prison guidelines leave vulnerable women and girls at serious risk. If those guidelines remain, I am extremely concerned about the spine-chilling risk of a repeat of the Isla Bryson case in which, under the Scottish National Party’s watch, a dangerous male criminal was put in a women’s prison.

My understanding is that the cabinet secretary can answer my question. Does she still agree with what she said on 28 November 2017, which was:

“Women should feel safe in every space they wish to inhabit—this is a matter of fundamental human rights.”

Does she stand by what she said—yes or no?

Police Scotland has ordered a director of For Women Scotland to attend a police station to face vandalism charges over a complaint about a broken umbrella. If she does not attend, she could be banned from Holyrood—a Parliament that is supposed to represent her, too. The optics of that for the Scottish Government are terrible. To many people, it looks like a threat to free speech and an attempt to silence criticism, silence women and intimidate that particular organisation. Who is protecting whom here? Does the First Minister agree that the police should focus on much more serious incidents than a broken umbrella? Does he think that Susan Smith should receive an immediate apology?

Deaf women are more than twice as likely as hearing women to experience domestic abuse. In the north-east, local stakeholders report that BSL services remain seriously underresourced, with limited interpreting capacity and little dedicated funding for specialist support. Given that Gaelic and BSL are both the Deputy First Minister’s responsibility, does she accept that that failure of national co-ordination and investment has left deaf women in particular at greater risk, and that equality means nothing without the resources to make it real?

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether British Sign Language receives parity of treatment with Gaelic within its languages portfolio, in light of evidence given by stakeholders to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, as part of its inquiry into the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015, that, although BSL plans are delivered locally by listed authorities, strong national co-ordination, oversight and dedicated funding are still essential if the aims of the act are to be met. (S6O-05061)

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I have two questions. First, you talked yesterday to some of the witnesses who came before the committee. When we heard from stakeholders, they were fairly unanimous that the bill will create conflict between parents and children. Such conflict could be one of the bill’s unintended consequences. It is almost as though the state is stepping in when—as, I think, you said yourself—headteachers manage that nuance all the time. Why should the state step in when it is not a problem for headteachers?

That is not the point. The point is that nobody can see why we are doing this. In the past few weeks, we have heard from witnesses such as the Church of Scotland, the Scottish Catholic Education Service and the Scottish Human Rights Commission, and we are all scratching our heads about this.

Will you be giving extra support to headteachers to manage the situation when conflicts arise and students have to be given additional support?

Cabinet secretary, the committee is spending a huge amount of time—and you are here today—looking at a technicality. The sample size is so small, and we are doing a huge piece of work on a bill that is going through Parliament when none of the witnesses have said that there is a problem. It just seems as though we are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.