The system that we have in place is well rehearsed and organised. I will ensure that Jamie Greene gets more detail on the HEF and conversations with key partners such as Oxfam, which gives us a sitrep almost every day on the situation in Gaza.
]]>We would add our voice to that aim. The Scottish Government supports a two-state solution. We think that it is the only way to progress to peace. In November last year, the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister in those terms. We will continue to make such representations to the UK Government as the issue continues. Today is another example of the Scottish Government calling on the UK Government to get round the table, call for a ceasefire and make some progress to peace in order to support the people—the civilians—in Gaza.
]]>We have recently responded to emergencies in Pakistan, Malawi, Ukraine, Turkey and Syria, and Gaza. Key considerations in those cases were which organisations were already on the ground and able to provide a rapid response and value for money. That was the case for Gaza and, similarly, for Zambia, for which I announced last week £500,000 to respond to a deadly cholera epidemic through the Red Cross.
]]>that we remain committed to working with the UK Government and speaking with it about ways to ensure that aid gets to the people who need it.
The situation needs to change, and it needs to change now. The only way to do that is through a ceasefire, the hostages coming home, and aid going into Gaza to support the civilians who are impacted by the situation and prevent famine from arising in the next few weeks.
]]>Israel must facilitate and secure sustained delivery and distribution of vastly increased levels of aid in Gaza, in line with last week’s ruling by the International Court of Justice. We remain mindful of the words of
António Guterres and the UN community.
]]>The only way to bring a stop to the horror and bring the hostages home is an immediate and permanent ceasefire on both sides. The international community cannot stand by while women and children starve, knowing that it could have done so much more to save them.
]]>Given that more than 2 million people are at imminent risk of starvation, the United Kingdom Government and the international community must work with the UN to find mechanisms to increase the level of life-saving aid that is getting into Gaza, which Israel must facilitate.
]]>As far as tourism goes, I will endeavour to ensure that the minister who is responsible for tourism understands the importance of the work that Christine Grahame is doing in her constituency with regard to Robert Coltart and “Coulter’s Candy”.
]]>We welcome and encourage any exploration and celebration of our heritage. I congratulate Christine Grahame on running a keen campaign to have the song and Robert Coltart recognised. Although we cannot guarantee any funding from the Scottish Government or even our partners, Ms Grahame may find it helpful to contact Museums Galleries Scotland, which provides development work and funding on our behalf, for advice and support as she explores the opportunities to tell Robert Coltart’s story.
]]>On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes.
]]>It is right that there is a process for considering and determining asylum applications, but the UK needs an effective and efficient asylum system that delivers for people who may be highly vulnerable. That asylum system should ensure that the UK upholds the 1951 UN refugee convention. The experience of Mrs Ibrahim, which Paul Sweeney told us about today, is testament to why we need a system that works. Paul Sweeney asked in his speech for an update on how we can contribute to the work that he is doing, and the Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees is willing to speak to him about that. If the member drops her a line, she will pick up that issue with him in more detail.
The 1951 convention does not prescribe a specific mechanism through which states should determine refugee status. According to international law, everyone who satisfies the definition that is set out in the convention is a refugee, and signatory states have responsibilities to recognise and protect refugees. It also does not require someone to seek asylum in the first country they come to—that is a dreadful misrepresentation of asylum law.
As Gordon MacDonald reminded us, the UK does not take anywhere near the numbers of people seeking sanctuary that our close European neighbours do. The UK Government’s asylum policy and legislation increasingly seek to undermine the established international refugee protection system. That damages the UK’s international reputation and puts people in need of protection at risk.
The Rwanda policy makes decisions on the basis of someone’s mode of transport, not their protected characteristics or their vulnerability, and certainly not on the reasons why they seek sanctuary. There are no safe routes to the UK, apart from some specific programmes—I challenge members to tell me that there are, because no one can find them. Instead of pushing back the boats and using all the rhetoric about trying to keep people safe, the UK Government should create some safe routes, then people will be safe and they will not need to go to people traffickers.
The focus of the debate is the impact of UK Government asylum policy and legislation in Scotland. The hostile environment and the Government’s dangerous rhetoric have a direct impact on people who live in our communities. I share Kaukab Stewart’s and TARA’s concerns about the impact on trafficking victims of the legislation that the UK Government has brought in.
People seeking asylum are members of our communities who live with constant uncertainty about when they will receive a decision and what it will say. They live in contingency hotels and dispersal accommodation. They are restricted from working and rely on low levels of financial support—£1.25 per day. Health and wellbeing are particularly challenging for people in such situations, and there are key concerns about people who are in institutional situations.
Some members have mentioned the Bibby Stockholm barge. We heard today that Leonard Farruku lay dead for 12 hours on the Bibby Stockholm barge before anybody realised. That is a disgraceful situation to be in, and it should be nowhere near anything that we want to be recognised for in the UK.
There are further challenges for people who are granted asylum and who become newly recognised refugees, as the UK Government removes support and accommodation after only 28 days. However, according to the Scottish Refugee Council, sometimes that is shortened to 14 days and, in some cases, seven days. I was glad to hear Miles Briggs recognise that issue; I hope that he will ask his pals at Westminster to fix it.
We also know that many people are receiving late notice of that removal of support. As was raised by Bob Doris, the minimum notice period and increasingly late notification are creating significant pressure for local authorities as newly recognised refugees present for mainstream housing support. The UK Government’s streamlined asylum process is exacerbating that, and it has not provided any additional funding to support local authorities.
That is before we take into account the needs of unaccompanied children. The UK legislation rides roughshod over our established child protection responsibilities and it treats cases with disbelief. I remember well when the UK Government proposed X-raying children’s wrists to determine their age. Please do not let us hear anything like that ever again.
People should not be at risk of homelessness and destitution at the point that the UK Government recognises their need for protection as refugees. That is not a new issue either. We heard that from Kaukab Stewart, in the committee that I chaired, in 2017. We have all wanted to tackle it. The 2017 report created the strategy that we have now, and I am happy to update Kaukab Stewart that the refresh of that strategy will be available in March this year. The UK Government’s asylum policy and legislation will continue to impact on all devolved areas. I encourage members to agree to the debate motion to recognise that impact and to oppose the UK Government’s pursuit of its plan.
The impact assessment cost for Rwanda was initially £169 million for 1,000 people, which is a sum of £169,000 per person. That cost has now topped £290 million. Imagine what COSLA and other organisations in Scotland could do with £169,000 per person. That would transform services and the work that they do to support people. The UK Government must recognise the engagement of Scottish local authorities in asylum dispersal and agree that the UK Government needs to engage positively with devolved Governments, local authorities and public services across asylum matters to reduce the negative impact on people who come to our communities.
Maggie Chapman, Kaukab Stewart and Karen Adam gave us a timely reminder of the dehumanising effect of language such as “Stop the boats” and words such as “swarm” and “invasion”. Such words have a dreadful impact on those who are most vulnerable. That is why we welcome the Together With Refugees campaign. The campaign has a set of principles that align with long-standing Scottish Government positions and with Scotland’s new Scots refugee integration strategy, which was developed by and delivered in partnership with COSLA and the Scottish Refugee Council. I ask everyone in the chamber to get behind the Scottish Refugee Council and the refugee integration strategy.
]]>I know the Maryhill Integration Network, which has been championed by Bob Doris, and I know that it will welcome the pilot, because it has called for it for many years. Bob Doris also asked about the challenges in Glasgow. The housing minister is working closely with Glasgow City Council, and I will ask him to ensure that he responds to Bob Doris in more detail on that issue and to others who raised it in the chamber.
We need to be clear that we are talking about people who have applied to the UK Government to have their refugee status recognised or to access humanitarian protection because it is unsafe for them to return to their country of origin.
Paul O’Kane asked about the 2023 act’s implementation and the mitigations that we are considering. I wish to update him on the fact that the Government continues to work to consider all the available mitigations that are within our devolved powers and within the law. We are doing that as we speak, and we will continue to engage with all stakeholders. If Paul O’Kane wishes to add any positive ideas to that, we would be willing to hear them, and we thank him for that.
]]>It is important for this Parliament to discuss these matters because of the impact on devolved services and the support that is in place in Scotland. That was recognised by Foysol Choudhury in his summing up but, sadly, not recognised by the UK Government’s representatives in this Parliament—the Scottish Conservatives. As the Scottish Refugee Council briefing says,
“We recognise that asylum is a reserved matter, but people are not.”
]]>On the reopening of facilities and historic properties, Historic Environment Scotland publishes all the updates on its website. The information can be easily found by anyone, but I would be happy to make sure that Historic Environment Scotland updates Alexander Burnett on the issues that affect his particular case.
On a number of occasions, Historic Environment Scotland has offered to take individual members on visits to sites to talk through some of the issues, and I urge Alexander Burnett to take up that offer.
]]>There is now full or partial access at 53 of the 70 sites where access was restricted because of high-level masonry issues. I am pleased that Historic Environment Scotland continues to put the health and safety of individuals first and is reopening sites only when it is safe to do so.
Details of the inspection programme and site reopenings are published on the Historic Environment Scotland website.
]]>whole-heartedly.
Keith Brown also reminded us that the use of section 35 powers in denying this Parliament’s democratic decisions is an outrage. As John Swinney has just said, the threat is growing of UK ministers using delegated powers to legislate on devolved matters—bypassing democratic accountability and the vital scrutiny role of this Parliament. I also agree with John Swinney’s intervention on the cabinet secretary, when he said that at no time has the consent of the Scottish people been sought when changes have been made by the UK Government. Anyone who supports devolution in this Parliament—regardless of party loyalty—should be very worried about those developments.
I will pick up on a point that Alexander Stewart made when he talked about dispute resolution mechanisms. Wholesale legislation such as the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020—without discussion, never mind consent—suggests that, whatever the dispute resolution mechanisms that Mr Stewart referred to, they are simply not working. The behaviour of the Secretary of State for Scotland is a bare-faced example of that.
Jackie Dunbar asked whether Brexit has made our lives easier. The answer is no. She also asked what “taking back control” means. Who knows? It was on the side of a bus and on billboards around the country, but who knows what it actually meant? I know: it meant taking back control from this place and all the work that we do here.
Emma Harper suggested that the UK Government take some lessons from the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly and its processes. It should do that. The Scottish Government welcomes that idea, and we will look at it too.
However, like the majority of MSPs in this Parliament, I believe that only independence can offer protections for the institutions of self-government in this country. Since Brexit, the actions of successive UK Governments have shown how vulnerable those institutions are.
Kate Forbes picked up on that. She is absolutely correct to ask what it would take to secure our devolution powers and the legal frameworks that are needed to keep those powers safe. I recognise that others in the Parliament hold different views on Scotland’s constitutional future.
Kate Forbes and John Swinney asked what we need to do. I will end with a few suggestions on how best to protect the powers of this Parliament, even under the current constitutional settlement. Regardless of party allegiance, all of us, as parliamentarians, should be able to support those suggestions. Let us call them a reset.
First, the pre-eminence of the Parliament to decide on devolved matters should be restated, even if we still have to acknowledge Westminster’s continued claim to sovereignty in all those matters.
Secondly, there should be a recognition that there is no hierarchy of Governments. Each has its own powers and responsibilities, and those should be acknowledged and respected. They are not currently respected.
I will pick up on another point that Alexander Stewart and Maurice Golden made on the use of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Effective internal markets are based on the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity—factors that are completely lacking in the unworkable, rigid internal market act. Surely Alexander Stewart and Maurice Golden have to accept that.
Thirdly, there should be a commitment to working together with mutual respect and co-operation among the Governments of the UK as equals. That is not a hard concept to understand, and it has been called for by just about every member who has spoken in the Parliament today. We, the Scottish Government, agree, and we are keen to work together in that way.
That commitment should be demonstrated in actions and behaviours and not just words. We have heard about the behaviour of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the behaviour of others. I have to say that my dealings—and the cabinet secretary’s dealings with other UK Government ministers—have been very convivial and proactive. We want to work in those ways. Flowing from that, the Governments should co-operate through negotiation and consensus, using agreed intergovernmental processes such as common frameworks.
I want to pick up on intergovernmental processes. We agree that there should be a review of intergovernmental relations, which we look forward to and will support. Of course that is welcome, but no process can be effective without a genuine commitment to conducting those relationships with genuine good faith and integrity. A change of attitude and behaviour is required if there is to be genuine improvement in those relationships.
Rather than the UK Government centralising and imposing its view on the formal powers of the Westminster Parliament, I agree with Mark Ruskell that there should be a return to the previous constitutional norm that the Sewel convention should always be followed, underpinned by proper legal duties on the UK Government.
I look forward to the proposals that Neil Bibby set out in his contribution in relation to putting the Sewel convention on a statutory footing. I hope that he is in a position to deliver that—I really do. I believe that there is a lot of merit in that. [
Interruption
.] I look forward to what he has to say about the IMA when he comes to have the responsibility to do something about it. It was an easy yes-or-no question, and it has not been answered yet.
I believe that there is a lot of merit in the committee’s recommendations on new agreements and processes to promote a more respectful and collaborative system of intergovernmental relations. Before we consider those, however, we must see existing constitutional norms and rules respected. The rules and democratic decisions of this place need to be respected, as do the committee’s recommendations. We are ready to do that, and we are ready to work with the UK Government on that. I ask all parties in the chamber to work with us on that, too.
]]>I thank the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, its members and its clerks for producing its insightful and unanimous analysis of the steady erosion of the devolution settlement since Brexit, so ably chaired by my friend Clare Adamson MSP.
As John Swinney and others articulated, at the heart of the issues that the report addresses lies a double democratic outrage—a deeply damaging, reckless and unnecessary Brexit, which was rejected by the voters of Scotland, being used to usher in a sustained attack on the institutions of devolution, which the people of Scotland endorsed decisively in 1997.
As Keith Brown does, I remember that the EU afforded protection for devolved nations such as ours. The UK Government is undermining this place not by the back door but by the front door. That cannot be waved away as scaremongering or stoking grievance. The committee was unanimously clear, and its unanimity is its strength.
The Welsh Government, which is a Labour Administration with different constitutional ambitions from those of the Scottish Government, is equally alive to the growing threat to devolution in Wales, and agrees on the causes: the now routine disregard of the Sewel convention—a constitutional convention that was scrupulously observed by UK Governments of all stripes between 1999 and 2018; and the imposition, without the Parliament’s consent, of the Trojan horse that is the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which reduced our powers in effect and allows UK ministers to make further changes unilaterally.
]]>