Official Report 492KB pdf
Agenda item 1 is an evidence session with the Scottish Government’s Minister for Europe and International Development, Humza Yousaf. Welcome back to committee this morning, minister; we are delighted to have you here. We are going to speak to you this morning about the Scottish Government’s European Union engagement. I believe that you have a short opening statement.
Yes. Thank you for welcoming me back, convener. Good morning to you and to committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
I wrote to the committee on 4 August with a summary of the Scottish Government’s EU Brussels-based engagement in the first half of 2015. That included a brief update on how our refreshed action plan for EU engagement is starting to influence our EU activity, bringing a new focus and greater transparency to our actions and to our interests in Europe. Alongside that, there was a short summary of the priorities that have been published by the Luxembourg presidency. I hope that the committee found it useful. I am happy to elaborate on any aspect of that correspondence if you would find that useful.
Turning to the second half of 2015, I would like to say something about the Scottish Government’s EU priorities during the current period of Luxembourg’s presidency of the European Union. I will begin with what is undoubtedly the major issue facing Europe at the moment—that of the refugee crisis and the need for community agreement on a package of measures that offer solutions that will endure.
European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, said during his state of the union address to the European Parliament last week that
“now is not the time”—
for Europe—
“to take fright—
at the scale of the challenge. He said:
“It is time for bold, determined and concerted action by the European Union, by its institutions and by all its Member States. This is ... a matter of humanity and of human dignity.”
Those are sentiments that the Scottish Government echoes.
We have repeatedly made it clear that Scotland stands ready to play its part and take its fair share of refugees to help some of the most vulnerable people in need. The First Minister has announced the refugee task force, which has now met twice and has considered the immediate, practical actions that we can take to help. The Parliament debated these issues only two days ago—members of this committee made passionate speeches in that debate.
In the first instance, we are working with local authorities across Scotland to identify capacity to accommodate refugees. We must identify which services local authorities will need to put in place to support families to start a new life in safety in Scotland and to ensure that the appropriate integration takes place. It is very encouraging to hear that the majority of local authorities have indicated a willingness to accommodate refugees. We will build on that positive and overwhelming response and ensure that appropriate support and integration services are put in place.
I think that all of us have been overwhelmed, in our constituencies and across the country, by the support for refugees throughout social media and other means. The Scottish Government, along with our partners the Scottish Refugee Council, has launched a website as an essential online hub to help to co-ordinate the efforts and the kind offers that have come in from the public. That website is www.scotlandwelcomesrefugees.scot.
Following the emergency EU justice and home affairs council meeting on Monday 14 September, the Scottish Government now hopes that member states can find a consensus to allow the EU to deliver the comprehensive package that is required for refugee resettlement and relocation. A further emergency meeting will take place on 22 September. The issue will also be discussed by leaders at European Council level. Scottish ministers have pressed, and will continue to press, the UK Government to ensure that Scotland’s views are reflected in the United Kingdom’s position. We would continue to urge the UK to opt in to the various European schemes.
Secondly, I would like to say something about the forthcoming renegotiation process and the UK referendum on membership of the EU, which we know will take place by the end of 2017, although not, as we now know, on the same day as the May 2016 elections to the Scottish Parliament or, indeed, the May 2017 local elections. We understand that, following the Prime Minister’s introduction of the UK Government’s renegotiation at the European Council in June, technical talks have now commenced between the UK Government and EU institutions. Their progress is due to be considered at the December European Council, which will take place during the Luxembourg presidency. In the meantime, the Prime Minister will continue to meet member states, having visited Madrid and Lisbon earlier this month.
It is vital that Scotland’s voice is heard in that process. The Scottish Government must be kept informed of those discussions and our interests must be represented. That must include genuine opportunities for Scotland to have a clear role in the development of the UK’s position, to ensure that Scottish ministers are fully involved. It cannot be right that other member states know more about the UK’s possible renegotiation than Scotland.
Where there is common ground, we will be constructive. Where there is disagreement, we will argue robustly to protect Scotland’s interests. Of course, we realise that the EU is not perfect: I have never met a member state, an ambassador, a diplomat or a politician who believes that it is. This Government believes that the EU should focus more on economic and social policies that make a tangible difference to the lives of its citizens, while allowing member states more autonomy to address specific domestic issues, particularly those with a health and social impact. Progress towards those goals can be made within the framework of the existing EU treaties. A protracted process of treaty change is neither desirable nor realistic within the referendum timeframe.
In relation to the referendum itself, the Scottish Government is committed to protecting Scotland’s EU membership. We will continue to argue that the double majority principle should apply to the referendum. It cannot be right that, if Scotland votes in favour of remaining in the EU, it can still be dragged out of the EU against its will.
To conclude, the Scottish Government supports the Luxembourg presidency and the efforts on the part of the rest of the EU to see sustainable and inclusive growth take hold again in Europe. Unemployment is far too high, particularly among those who are under 25. We need it to fall from its unacceptable levels. In order for investment to drive economic recovery, we will be pushing for full—for fiscal stability. That was a Freudian slip, I promise. We will push for fiscal stability to be the norm and for strong and sustainable policies to support key sectors. Therefore, we will continue to pursue our work in key areas such as the digital economy, the environment, energy, agriculture and fisheries, research and innovation, and justice.
In addition, we will continue to promote the best of Scotland—particularly in this year of food and drink—through our cultural diplomacy at home, in Brussels and across the EU. I thank the committee for the opportunity to come here and I look forward to answering your questions.
Thank you very much for a detailed and concise contribution. You touched briefly on the work of the refugee task force, which is a moving feast every day. Maybe we could have a wee update on that.
In my speech in the chamber earlier this week, I raised the issue of the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and the issue within that of children’s rights—for example, the right of a child to be reunited with their family. I wonder whether the minister has any avenues to take that forward, for example through the joint ministerial committee on Europe.
Yes. Let me first put on record the incredible efforts of members of the Scottish Parliament, including yourself, convener, to show Scotland in a passionate and compassionate light throughout the years when it comes to the refugee question. Scotland has a phenomenal reputation in the United Nations and among international players for the way in which it has responded in the past to the most vulnerable in the world. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the sole credit of the current Scottish Government; it is the credit of previous Governments, Executives, Administrations and MSPs past and present.
Convener, you are absolutely correct in your description of the task force. It is a moving feast, not even day by day but hour by hour. The refugee crisis is taking a twist and a turn in different directions, often in a very negative way. On the task force, one of the advantages of being a country of our size is that we have been able to bring people around the table very quickly. I thank all the stakeholders and non-governmental organisations, particularly the local authorities and many others who have managed to come around the table so speedily. That shows a determination to take the issue forward.
The task force has a few immediate priorities. Of course, one is to find suitable accommodation for the immediate 1,000 refugees who we have said we are ready to take. As I reiterated in the debate, Scotland will take more—we will take a proportionate share of refugees. However, the immediate concern must be to find suitable accommodation. I use the word “suitable” deliberately, because I would say that Scotland has not always got the accommodation right in the past. We have put people in accommodation that nobody else wanted or that was seen as substandard. We have also put refugees only in areas of high and multiple deprivation. We have to ask local authorities that do not have areas of multiple deprivation to play their part. Suitable accommodation is the first aspect and we have made good progress on that.
The second thing is to ensure that the wraparound services of integration are there for refugees, not from the day they arrive but pre-arrival. As you know, these things have to be in place before people arrive—we particularly need to work with local communities where refugees will be housed. I will endeavour to keep this committee updated on the work of the task force, which meets weekly. There are now two subgroups, one on housing and one on refugee integration, which will also meet regularly.
Furthermore, Amal Azzudin, Pinar Aksu, Margaret Woods from the Glasgow campaign to welcome refugees and one of the members of the task force are on their way to the island of Lesbos as we speak—they are probably on a flight in transit. They will give us an update from the island on how the refugee crisis is panning out.
Your second point is very well made. I am hoping to secure a meeting with the minister for refugees, who has just been appointed by the UK Government. Once I get confirmation of that meeting, I will raise the issue with him. Family reunification is a huge issue. A number of refugees could be brought into this country if the UK Government changed the family reunification rules. It seems utterly bizarre that those who are recognised as refugees here—who have been given refugee status because they have fled from war-torn Syria—still have to jump through hoops of fire to be reunited with their family. That cannot be right; when it involves children, it is even more disturbing. I will certainly raise that issue in my next meeting with the UK Government, particularly if I can meet the minister for refugees.
Thank you very much. We will look forward to that.
Obviously, I share the concerns about refugees, but my question is not about refugees. Before I ask it, I should declare an interest and refer members to my agricultural interests, as set out in the register of members’ interests.
The Scottish Government’s EU action plan states that the Government will continue to work with other devolved Administrations and the UK Government to ensure that Scotland’s interests are represented at EU level. The common agricultural policy is, I think, 40 per cent of the European budget. On Radio Scotland this morning, I heard crofters and farming interests from the north-west of Scotland complaining that those with grade 3 land get only £7 per hectare subsidy, whereas the equivalent Welsh farmers get £88 subsidy. When you work with the other devolved Administrations, do you have conversations with the Welsh and, if so, will you try to get to the bottom of that?
09:30
I understand that the member has an interest in the issue—he certainly has done for the years that I have been in the Parliament. We work closely with the other devolved Administrations. The convener mentioned the JMCE. We tend to meet with the other devolved Administrations before the JMCE takes place, and we have a good and frank discussion. However, we have not touched on the specifics that the member asks about, so I will endeavour to raise that with my devolved counterparts.
The member may have seen—if not, I will ensure that we send him a copy—a press release put out just a couple of days ago by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment, Richard Lochhead. Mr McGrigor will know that farming and agriculture are a huge issue in Brussels, and that there are a variety of sectors from dairy to livestock and arable farming. He will no doubt have seen the scenes of protest that took place in Europe. The UK’s allocation of the EU emergency funding package of €500 million, which was announced by the Commission earlier this month, is €36.1 million. Richard Lochhead has written to the UK Government to determine what Scotland’s share of that will be and, obviously, to make a case for Scotland’s share.
I will get to the bottom of the specifics of the issue that the member asks for. I will certainly work with the other devolved Administrations—we work with them very closely. Perhaps I can give the member an update. I can also find out from my colleague Richard Lochhead what conversations he has had with his Welsh counterpart.
Thank you. I refer to the issue because there is a very real worry about depopulation of certain areas of the north-west of Scotland, and the fall in the euro has added to the woes of those who receive subsidies, which are paid in euros. I would be grateful if you would look into the issue.
My next question also relates to food products. Could we have an update from the minister on the Government’s talks with the UK Government on the TTIP—transatlantic trade and investment partnership—negotiations? With regard to CETA, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, which is the deal with the Canadians, an issue was raised the other day about Scottish and other British food products that might be under threat, such as Arbroath smokies, Scottish farmed salmon, Stornoway black pudding, the Cornish pasty and Cumberland sausages—obviously, those last two are not Scottish, but the other ones are. Can you give us any reassurance as to the protection status of those iconic Scottish food products?
Yes, I hope that we can give you reassurance on that. The work on CETA is progressing well. I have seen the press reports, and we were deeply concerned by them. From our conversations with EU officials, I think that protected names will remain as they stand within the EU. We have had that reassurance at official level. Notwithstanding that, the cabinet secretary, Richard Lochhead, has written to his UK counterpart to get a response and to get reassurances. Once he receives those reassurances, which I am sure and certain he will, we will pass that letter on to the committee and to the member in particular. We share the concern. From official discussion, it seems as though protected names will remain as they are, so there is no disturbance to that. However, it is important to have that confirmed in black and white, so the cabinet secretary has written to his counterpart.
On progress on TTIP, the member will understand that, because of the refugee crisis, other issues have tended not to move at the pace that we might have wished. Our concerns remain the same. I met the Minister of State for Trade and Investment, Lord Francis Maude, a couple of days ago and had a good conversation with him about how we can work more closely on trade and investment. TTIP was mentioned and, once again, I put on record our concerns around it in relation to public services and, in particular, the national health service.
I also told Lord Maude that we are not convinced about the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. The member may have seen that the EU made a statement about ISDS and how it sees it progressing. The press conference took place just a couple of days ago, so I will need to look at the detail.
TTIP is progressing. We will continue to raise what we think are the legitimate concerns of the Scottish people. Of course, there is potential benefit from TTIP, but our economic modelling shows that it is modest, and it certainly would not outweigh some of the concerns that we have around the NHS, public services and ISDS.
On the member’s first question, I will ensure that, once a response to Richard Lochhead’s letter is received, that is presented to him and to the committee.
Thank you.
I want to touch a wee bit more on the TTIP question. Obviously, the European Commission’s further proposals are for what it now calls, I think, an investor court system, rather than ISDS. Do I take it from what you are saying that you remain sceptical about that but that you will be looking more closely at those proposals?
Yes. The investor court proposal is a step in between: it would happen before something goes through an ISDS mechanism, but an ISDS mechanism could still be a last resort. Therefore, we are still not convinced about the need for ISDS for this particular agreement. Although such a mechanism is present in other agreements, we have to take each agreement on its merits and consider them on a case-by-case basis.
The position as you have summarised it—that we remain sceptical but we will look at the detail—is absolutely correct. For advanced democracies that have very secure and safe legal and arbitration systems, there is a question of whether ISDS is needed, and I think that that has not quite been addressed. The investor court proposal is interesting, but it does not remove ISDS from the equation.
Does the Scottish Government plan to carry out more economic modelling to assess the impact of TTIP?
That is a good question. I asked the UK Government for its economic modelling because, in my discussions with Lord Maude, he disagreed slightly with the presumption that there would be only a modest benefit for business. I was happy to have a discussion with him, but I asked him for the economic modelling that the UK Government has done. We will have a look at the UK Government’s economic modelling. We will continue to do that and to work with businesses here. It is difficult to do that when we have a draft agreement and we do not have all the specifics, but I am happy to share whatever information that we have on the economic models. We will of course share with the committee whatever we are able to share and is appropriate to share.
I wish to ask about two areas. The first is the upcoming EU referendum. I think that everyone who is in the broad coalition that is supporting a yes campaign is talking about reform and the need for change in the EU, but we have a Conservative Government that is controlling that situation. I am looking for a couple of assurances from the Scottish Government. If the Prime Minister comes back with a package of measures that the Scottish Government is not happy with, will that change its commitment to a yes campaign in any way?
Secondly, I have concerns that, if we involve Scottish constitutional politics in the politics of an EU referendum, there is a risk that that will weaken the effectiveness of a yes campaign. Therefore, is the Government looking to create a broad coalition of work with other partners in presenting the case?
The answer to the member’s first question is that our stance will not change. Our stance of being pro Europe does not rely on what the Prime Minister does or does not renegotiate at the European Council and with other member states—it is irrelevant to that.
Of course, we will push for Scotland’s interests to be represented in the areas that the First Minister mentioned in her speech in Brussels a couple of months ago. We will continue to push for more autonomy for member states on social and health issues. We will continue to push for Europe to focus on producing less but better regulation, and to work on single markets, digital single markets, international co-operation and so on.
We will continue to push those interests and to push the Prime Minister on them. Of course, during his renegotiation, if there is any weakening of the social rights that Europe affords, we will be robustly against that. That is how we will approach the issue but, regardless of what the UK Government and the Prime Minister specifically come back with, we will campaign to remain in Europe. I hope that that gives the member reassurances on that point.
It is important that we have mechanisms to feed in. As I said, the Prime Minister is travelling to capitals across Europe and it does not seem right to me—I think that it would not seem right to many people—that people in Madrid, Lisbon, Berlin and other cities and countries across the world know more about the Prime Minister’s plans than we do. We need to have a dialogue with the UK Government so that the information is fed in two ways.
On Claire Baker’s point about constitutional politics, I suspect that she and I will not reach agreement, in that I think that the two issues are completely interlinked. No matter whether people voted yes or no in the referendum on Scottish independence, if people in Scotland democratically choose to remain in the European Union, how can it be right for the UK to leave? The Scottish Government has always said that another referendum on Scottish independence will happen only when the people demand it and dictate it. If there is no outcry from the people for another referendum, there will be no referendum. It will be for the people to decide when that is.
There is an article in The Herald today on a survey done by the Federation of Small Businesses across the United Kingdom. I suggest that the member looks at that, as it shows that, in Scotland, businesses are pro Europe by quite a margin, at almost 60 per cent, whereas only 45 per cent or thereabouts of businesses in the rest of the UK support Europe. Those are worrying and concerning attitudes.
We will continue to make a positive case and we will join with anybody. On the member’s latter point about a yes campaign, we have not determined exactly how that campaign will look. I can say that we certainly will not share platforms with the Conservatives, as we do not feel like we need to do that. However, we will make a positive case for Europe, with any other partners in sectors across Scotland.
In Scotland, the signs are generally good. I hope that, whatever case we make for Europe, it remains positive. We do not have to go into the language of trying to scare people into voting for the European Union. If we keep it positive, we will get the result we need.
The example of businesses is a good illustration of the point that I am attempting to put across. If the polling is correct and Scotland has a stronger pro-EU feeling, how do we use that to our advantage to gain a yes vote across the whole UK? Regardless of the issue of double majorities or how that would be resolved, if the UK as a whole—where a vote in Glasgow is worth the same as a vote in Manchester—votes to leave the EU, that is extremely problematic for Scotland and is not an outcome that I want. Surely, it is in all of our best interests to make sure we have a yes vote. How can we use the seemingly pro-European stance in Scotland not to say that in Scotland we are different from the rest of the UK but to get involved more in the UK campaign—for example, by the FSB in Scotland working more with its national partners—and to strengthen such relationships?
It is a fair point that the member is attempting to make. I refer her to her colleague the Welsh First Minister, Carwyn Jones, who said that it cannot be right that any part of the UK is taken out of the European Union against its will. He made that statement, so it is recognised by the Welsh First Minister as much as by the Scottish First Minister that that cannot be acceptable. I think that she said that it would be “unacceptable”. It is worth putting that on record.
I do not think that anyone is agreed on that so far, but I accept that it is recognised that it would be problematic.
09:45
Sure—I accept that.
As far as the latter part of your question is concerned, I know from discussions that I have had with the organisations that will be campaigning across the UK for the UK to remain in the European Union that they are already in discussions with their Scottish counterparts across a variety of sectors, including farming, agriculture and fisheries, business, research and innovation, and the trade unions. Those organisations are already involved in discussions with their Scottish counterparts to ensure that a co-ordinated approach is adopted.
In relation to where the Government fits into that, I believe that the campaign to remain in the EU must be very organic. It will not be aided by politicians being at the front and centre of it. I mean no disrespect to anybody, but particularly if the campaign is seen as being in the interests just of middle-aged men in suits, whether we are talking about people from the Confederation of British Industry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anybody else, I do not think that that would portray a very healthy image. I think that we need to promote more diversity in the campaign. It needs to be grass-roots led—that is the way for it to be done.
I have no doubt that there will be co-ordination between the sectors that I mentioned, and I imagine that each of the political parties will have their own campaigns, which will be strong and robust, if they are able to agree a position.
I know we are short of time, convener, but I wanted to ask about the European social fund. Would that be possible?
Yes, if you are very quick.
You will be aware of the issue with the European social fund. What is the financial impact of that? Why did the situation arise? How does the Government plan to resolve the situation?
As far as the European social fund is concerned, it is important for us to say that no project has been impacted, because the Scottish Government made the payments and it is now looking for reimbursement. Therefore, all that is being delayed is a reimbursement to the Scottish Government. It is important to put on record that no project has been affected.
It is also important to put the issue in context. Almost half the projects that are involved in the ESF have been suspended at one time or another because of what can be marginal administration errors. We have written to those projects and have ensured that they correct those auditing errors, because it is important that any public money should be absolutely accounted for. We have submitted that to the EU—I think that it was submitted just at the end of August—and we are waiting for a response.
We agree with the EU that we should meet the highest possible standard when it comes to the auditing of public money and we have written to the projects involved to ensure that their mechanisms are more robust, but no project has been adversely affected, because it is the Scottish Government that will be reimbursed the funds and we have already paid out to the projects involved.
Rod Campbell has a quick supplementary question.
I want to pull together some threads of the discussion—the refugee crisis, renegotiation and the referendum vote. Are you concerned that the way in which the refugee crisis is being handled at a European level might impact on the referendum campaign here?
I would say that the UK’s approach to the issue and how it is portrayed in the European Union have been unhelpful. As the member will be aware, there have been calls from the Scottish Government and from across the Parliament for the UK to opt in to the relocation and resettlement schemes as proposed by President Juncker. Thus far, the UK Government has resisted. Some of the countries that do not have to opt in have chosen to opt in. Ireland is a perfect example of that—it is going above and beyond what its obligations are. Ireland has been commended for doing so at the highest levels of Europe.
The UK Government has chosen not to opt in, and although I welcome the fact that the UK is taking 20,000 refugees from Syria and neighbouring countries, we will continue to urge the UK Government to take refugees from Europe. We think that that is important.
It is clear that anything that presents the UK as being unhelpful, obstinate or difficult will not warm the hearts of other member states. That is a clear consequence of the UK Government’s stance, but—to separate the issue again—I hope that, regardless of what happens with renegotiation, the UK looks at the refugee crisis as a moral rather than a political issue and gets involved and opts in to the European schemes.
That pre-empted some of the questions that I had intended to ask. It is clear that the Scottish Government does not see eye to eye with the UK Government on how it is dealing with the refugee crisis, which is the number 1 issue across Europe at the moment. It is a humanitarian emergency that we should all be engaged with.
As far as the mandatory quotas that are being suggested by the EU leadership are concerned, I take it that the Scottish Government is in favour of that approach as well, which begs the question what Scotland’s capacity is to help in that regard. I presume that that is being discussed by the task force. The figure that you mentioned was 1,000, but I presume that that is just a starter for 10, because 1,000 just scratches the surface of the problem.
To what extent can the Scottish Government influence the UK as the member state in responding to the refugee crisis? If you cannot influence the UK Government, to what extent can you act independently, if at all possible, with European institutions to deal with the crisis? We saw some shocking scenes on the television last night, with people being tear gassed and prevented from crossing the border from Serbia into Hungary. Is there not something that we can do more immediately to open our doors to deal with people who are in extremis and who are already here in Europe?
I realise that I have asked a number of questions; I am sorry, minister.
I will do my best to address all of them as concisely as possible. I thank the member for the questions. He hits a number of nails on the figurative head.
When it comes to the question of how Europe responds to the refugee crisis, relocation and resettlement of refugees is only a part of the solution. Tackling the issue at source is, as the UK Government has often mentioned, another part of the solution. A third part of the solution that is not often talked about, or not talked about nearly enough, is that the EU needs to come to some sort of resolution on how to create safe and legal passages for migration and asylum. At the moment, the only way for someone from war-torn Syria to claim asylum legally is to go to the British embassy—which, by the way, does not exist any more—and fill out a form. That is the way to get into Britain.
I was debating the matter with a Conservative member of the European Parliament, who suggested that we should be prioritising only the people who are able to—I think that these were his words—fill out the appropriate forms and form an orderly queue. I cannot comprehend how people are meant to do that when Assad’s forces have just ransacked their village or their town, but the position is not unique to the UK. That is the position across the EU, so the first thing that the EU needs to do is to create safe and legal passages.
As far as your more substantial points are concerned, you are correct to say that this is not an issue that has started only in the past four or five weeks. We have been involved in discussions on Syrian and other refugees since I came into post. I wrote to the then Foreign Secretary, William Hague, almost three years ago to say that the UK should accept Syrian refugees at that time. It is only because of pressure—this relates to your secondary point—on the UK Government that it has now come to the figure of 20,000 over five years, which, as you say, is scratching the surface.
The pressure from the Scottish Government may have played a part but, in all honesty, it is the public outcry that has forced the UK Government to change its tack and to respond to the humanitarian crisis. Although, as I say, devolved Administrations and Governments and local authorities have played their part, the credit for getting the UK Government to change its mind should go to campaigners and the public at large, who responded overwhelmingly.
In relation to the 20,000 and 1,000 figures that we mentioned, the figure of 1,000 relates to those refugees whom we can take immediately, but we will take our proportionate share. When we say “proportionate share”, we are talking about around 10 per cent of whatever the UK Government will take, so if it is taking 20,000 over five years, we will take at least 2,000 or thereabouts, but we will push the UK Government to take more.
The relocation and resettlement schemes talk about there being 160,000 people in total to deal with across the European Union. They use something called the distribution key, which is an algorithm or an equation that would make the mind boggle. It allocates distribution across the EU. Even if the UK Government were to double the numbers and were to take 20,000 to 40,000 people, or even if it was to triple them—which would not be the case under the distribution key—it would still only be scratching the surface. In the context of a situation in which there are 160,000 refugees to deal with in the EU and a crisis involving 4 million refugees, that is just scratching the surface. However, we must push the UK Government and urge it to do whatever it can.
We must deal with the source of the problem, which is—I was about to call it a civil war, but it is difficult to call it that—brutality by the Syrian Government’s regime and the threat of a global terrorist organisation. Innocent people who are trying desperately to defend their land are caught in the middle.
Your final question was about the influence that the Scottish Government has and whether it can act unilaterally. Let me say definitively that, without any doubt, we cannot act unilaterally. It would give me pleasure if I could open up Scotland to take more refugees. I would not hesitate to do that, nor would our local authorities hesitate for a second, but that cannot be done. There is no legal route for us to do that.
As things stand, we are represented by the UK when it comes to EU schemes or to negotiating with the United Nations, although we have a dialogue with them. We cannot simply send out boats and bring people here; that is not possible for us. What we can do is continue to influence the UK Government and to put pressure on it, but the public will need to continue the pressure. We cannot allow the issue to disappear off the front pages of the newspapers—it will; another issue will come along—with the result that the refugees are forgotten. As a result of that public pressure, added to the Scottish Government’s pressure, perhaps the UK Government will act to help those in Europe, as well as helping those in Syria and the neighbouring area.
I give Adam Ingram and the committee the commitment that the Scottish Government will not forget this issue. Even when it goes off the television screens, we will continue to work and pursue the UK Government to take more refugees, not just from Syria and the neighbouring countries but also from Europe.
Thank you for that fulsome response. We could spend all morning discussing the issue, but I know that there are other subjects that need to be dealt with.
We will have a round-table session dedicated to the issue in a few weeks’ time, which will allow us to keep it on the front page, as the minister said.
Good morning, minister. I want to continue the discussion on the refugee crisis, if you do not mind. You told us that the UK Government had been brought to the table pretty late to step in and assist and accept refugees to the UK. For the record, can you clarify whether, if the UK had not done that, Scotland would have been able to take any refugees? If the UK had not agreed to take any, would we have been able to take any?
If the UK had not acted in that way, the only way that refugees would have been able to come to the UK is through the normal asylum process.
The refugees would have to go through the asylum process, which, as MSPs, you will know can often take years. We are not talking about one or two years; some people who have come to me through the asylum process have spent 10 years in limbo. People would have to go through the asylum process and a judgment would be made about whether they were a refugee. That would be the only way they could come here.
There is no way that Scotland would be able to take refugees unilaterally. The UK Government controls our borders, it controls immigration, it controls asylum and it controls who is a refugee and who is not a refugee. We have not an inch or an ounce of control over that. Of course, it will not come as a surprise to any of you to hear that I wish that we did have control over that, but we do not, so we will have to work within the existing structures.
As far as wider European policy is concerned, I think that there is a perception among the public that Europe was particularly slow to react here, particularly in relation to the rescue mission in the Mediterranean. When you compare and contrast that experience with the amount of effort that Europe puts into things such as the TTIP process that my colleagues have mentioned, one stands in stark contrast with the other. Do you think that there is a need for Europe to sharpen up its act in terms of policy on issues such as migration and refugee crises so that it is absolutely clear about its position and is ready to act, instead of being, as I think the public perceive it to be, slow to act?
10:00
Yes, I think so. The European Union does not have a choice; it has to act. It must. This refugee crisis is not going anywhere. The Syrian conflict—the brutality in Syria—has been going on for four and a half years and there is no end in sight that I can see in the immediate future. Of course, we will continue to push world leaders to find that diplomatic and political solution but that conflict has been raging for four and a half years.
Even if we take Syria completely out of the equation, plenty of refugees will come because of the effects of climate change. We know that the Commonwealth has a young population—two thirds of its population are under the age of 25. If their countries are in abject poverty, as many Commonwealth countries are, it is hardly surprising that they will look for opportunities in more developed parts of the world, and Europe would be a prime destination for anybody.
People call them economic migrants but how can we call somebody coming from Afghanistan an economic migrant? What made him or her an economic migrant? It is the fact that the Russians invaded in the 1980s and it is the fact that we invaded, along with a coalition, post-2000. That is why their country is in such poverty, and we can hardly blame people from Afghanistan or Iraq for trying to seek a way out of economic poverty. My point is that Europe has to come to a solution that includes safe passages and legal routes for migration.
I also agree with Willie Coffey’s point about the coastguard operation. Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs, raised that issue with the UK Government. When mare nostrum, the Italian coastguard operation, was withdrawn, she said that it would lead to more lives being lost. The rationale for withdrawing that operation was because it was seen as a “pull factor”. They removed it and, since then, more people have died trying to cross the Mediterranean than ever before. For anybody who tries to suggest that those things are a pull factor, I would say that the evidence suggests otherwise.
Although Europe has been slow to respond, I was heartened by what President Juncker had to say. The solutions that he talked about were positive. They were also courageous because it will be difficult to get other member states to agree to all the measures that he put forward. Although the European Union has responded late, what it is proposing will certainly go a long way towards helping in the future.
My final question is on rescue operations over the summer months—in July and August. You mentioned the Irish Government, minister. We saw the Irish navy rescuing 3,500 people from drowning in the sea, but we also know that the UK Government withdrew HMS Bulwark from rescue operations in early June. Is the Scottish Government pressing the UK Government to increase its rescue operations in the Med so that more people do not drown at sea?
I will look into the issue but my understanding is that, although HMS Bulwark was removed, it was replaced with other vessels. I will check on that point, but certainly, if there is more that the UK Government can do, we will always press it to do so. If I get to meet the minister for refugees, I will certainly raise that issue if necessary.
We should give the UK Government credit where it is due in terms of the international aid that it has spent. It is only second to the United States when it comes to international aid in regard to Syria and the camps. HMS Bulwark played an important role in saving lives but I believe that the UK Government has replaced it with other vessels. I would not say that all of that pales into insignificance compared with the camps because that would be absolutely unfair, but certainly the root problem that we need to deal with is ensuring that refugees are taken out of squalid conditions in camps, both in the southern coast of Europe and in neighbouring countries, and brought to a refuge here in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom.
It makes sense to do that from the moral obligation that we have—from a moral perspective—but even if we were to look at it from a rational perspective of demographics, the European continent has an ageing population and many countries have a declining population. Who is going to take care of me when I get older? I do not know. When I was at a national care home open day a couple of months ago it seemed to me that the majority of those who worked in care homes came from an immigrant background. Perhaps there are ways of ensuring that those who come here are appropriately skilled, can go into education and can then even fill existing skill shortages if that is an appropriate thing to do.
Thank you.
Anne, do you have a quick question?
My question has been asked, so that is fine, thank you, convener.
Minister, I wanted to ask you about your thoughts on a programme that we saw yesterday from Siemens in Germany, which has set up a whole training programme for refugees coming to Germany, to identify the skills that the people have and to fit them in or retrain them for the skills gaps that they have. I just want to get your thoughts on such a proactive, positive intervention. The Germans are quite clearly saying, “These people are a boost to our economy”. I would not like to put human beings into the proposal that there is an economic bounce from tragedy but there is almost an equality
there in saying, “We have the capacity if you are willing to come here and we will support you to come here to do that”. I see what a big company such as Siemens is doing, and other German companies are following suit. As part of the task force in the longer term, would you be looking at Scottish companies doing something along those lines?
The point is well made, convener. It is appropriate to put on record the leadership that the German Government has shown on the refugee crisis. It has been exceptional in how it has handled it. You would have to have a heart of stone not to have been moved by the scenes of refugees coming through airports and train stations and being welcomed by the German population with signs, with flowers, with chocolates, and with kisses and cuddles from kids to kids. I thought that it was a beautiful spectacle for which I applaud the German Government and, more so, the German people.
As you have said, convener, we should not look at the training programme as an economic bounce from human tragedy. I would look at it as fulfilling the needs of refugees. Every refugee I have ever come across has told me that they want to work—they are desperate to work. I have never come across a refugee who wants to be signed on. I have never come across an asylum seeker who is happy with the Azure card and £35 a week—never, never. They are desperate to work. Refugees, of course, have the right to work, but asylum seekers do not. People have the right to work when they come here as refugees. The task force will definitely be looking at how we get people ready for employment.
There will be a couple of key points to that. One will be to ensure that we have appropriate provision for teaching English. That is going to be vital in terms of integration but also in terms of finding educational and employment opportunities. That will be a huge challenge; the upskilling of teaching English will be a big challenge. Also, on the employment front, getting ready-for-work programmes designed particularly for refugees will be important.
A third aspect—we have not touched on the point but it is important—is to ensure that we work with local communities before refugees arrive. If I lived in an area of multiple deprivation, for example, where the unemployment rate was higher than the Scottish average and I saw refugees coming in and being given jobs, how would I feel? Understanding what is going on and working with communities is going to be absolutely vital. I cannot stress that enough because we will not have seen the acceptance of refugees on this scale in Scotland ever before. Whatever we have done before with the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, we have seen nothing on this scale before, so that aspect will be important.
The final point is one that Jamie McGrigor made earlier, which I forgot to pick up on. He mentioned the depopulation of rural areas; there are parts of Scotland where depopulation is a real problem. Of course, with increased population comes infrastructure, access to broadband and so on. I am pleased to say that a number of local authorities that cover rural geographies of Scotland have also expressed an interest in taking refugees. Many of them have done that publicly and I commend them for doing that. There is no doubt at all that they are doing that for a humanitarian purpose but there is no doubt that they also see the advantage of addressing depopulation and that is something that we should consider.
Thank you very much, minister. Obviously the refugee crisis has dominated our session this morning and will no doubt continue to dominate. If we have anything to do with it, we will ensure that it continues to dominate and we take forward the work so that it is done.
I should put on record that I have been a proud member of the Glasgow campaign to welcome refugees. Margaret Woods started it and I wish her, Amal Azzudin and Pinar Aksu well in their endeavours this morning. I managed to wave them off on Twitter first thing this morning when they left for the airport.
We thank you for your contribution this morning, minister. We look forward to seeing the pieces of work that you said you would share with the committee, and we look forward to seeing you at the committee at a future date.
Thank you, convener.
10:10 Meeting suspended.