Official Report 308KB pdf
14:10
Middle East Conflict (Support for Residents in Scotland)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding any assistance that the Scottish Government could provide, within devolved competence, to support anyone resident in Scotland who might be affected by the escalating situation in Iran and the Gulf region. (S6T-02931)
The Scottish Government has been in daily contact with the United Kingdom Government’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office since Israeli and US military action began against Iran. The FCDO has responsibility for consular support of British citizens overseas, and I am grateful for its updates and co-operation so far.
The Scottish Government has been proactively amplifying FCDO travel advice for all UK citizens in the region, and I encourage all members to do likewise. Anyone who is affected should monitor FCDO travel advice and any official updates. The FCDO has asked British citizens in Bahrain, Israel, Palestine, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to register their presence in order to ensure that they receive updates. If anyone needs consular assistance, they should contact the nearest UK diplomatic mission—be that a consulate, an embassy or a high commission—or the FCDO’s 24-hour helpline, which is on 0207 008 1500.
At the First Minister’s request, officials across the Scottish Government are working at pace to understand and mitigate any impacts that the conflict may have for Scots at home and abroad. That includes any steps that can be taken to reassure different communities around Scotland.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that helpful update. I do not think that any of us is in any doubt that the Iranian regime oppresses minorities, suppresses and murders peaceful protesters and, indeed, threatens the very existence of its neighbours. However, conflict in the middle east has rapidly destabilised that region; currently, at least eight countries have been hit with retaliatory strikes.
An estimated 40,000 Scots live in the middle east, which has long been a popular destination for expats. Many people who live in Scotland—Iranians, Israelis and others—will have family in the middle of the conflict. What further work can the Scottish Government do to offer them assistance?
Jamie Greene is absolutely right to highlight those two groups. First, although estimates vary, it is thought that there are 300,000 UK citizens in the affected region; pro rata, that would be about 24,000 people from Scotland—it might be slightly more or slightly less. Some of those people are permanently resident in one of the territories or countries that I was talking about a moment ago; others are visiting those areas. Many of us have constituents who have been finding it very difficult to get back. We are working with the FCDO on that issue.
Mr Greene is also right to highlight that Scotland is a country in which there are people from all backgrounds and all parts of the world. There are people living in Scotland who are originally from Iran or other countries that are impacted, and they have friends and families.
I assure Mr Greene and colleagues across parties that work is proceeding across Government to understand ways in which we can support community cohesion, find out whether any help or support is required and make sure that the consular advice that has been issued is reaching the people who need it most. I would be grateful if Jamie Greene and colleagues from across the parties amplified the advice that has been issued by the FCDO and the Scottish Government, to help people understand where they can get the maximum information.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that update. It is important that we are on guard for an increase in antisemitism and Islamophobia in Scotland.
Although most people would welcome regime change in Iran, it is also true that international conflict must be legal and must limit civilian casualties. If we are honest with ourselves, Mr Trump is not famed for consistency of rationale on these matters, and history has painted a very dim view of how US-led regime changes in the past have left humanitarian crises in their wake. Millions of innocent civilians often pay the price for conflicts that they did not start.
How will the Scottish Government use Scotland’s international development role and budget to support the world’s most vulnerable? In the face of a growing number of voices that say, “No refugees here,” will the cabinet secretary confirm that Scotland will continue to welcome those fleeing conflict and war, wherever they come from?
I thank Jamie Greene for his follow-up question. There was much to it. The First Minister has outlined the Scottish Government’s position that we support international law and has outlined our concerns. Those concerns are shared by a great many people around the country and around the world and—no doubt—by members in the chamber.
We are very much seized of the issue of community relations. There will be a lot of people who, on the one hand, are delighted to see the demise of a dictator in Iran who has the blood of tens of thousands of Iranians on his hands, including opponents of the regime, people of different minorities and LGBT people—I could go on. However, at the same time, a conflict is on-going. People are dying and, understandably, people have grave concerns about what is happening.
Returning specifically to the scope of the question about what the Scottish Government is able to do, I assure Mr Greene that we are working across Government to establish where there is a locus for us to be helpful and supportive to people in Scotland and to think about Scottish residents who find themselves in the war-torn and impacted region.
I very much associate myself with the comments and questions of Jamie Greene. I will ask the cabinet secretary a question on a related note. The Prime Minister’s decision to allow UK military bases to be used by the United States in this operation has drawn the UK into this conflict. There should be real cause for concern about the risks and dangers that are faced as a result of that decision. What communication has the Scottish Government had with the UK Government in that regard?
With regard to the substantive question, cabinet secretary.
As the First Minister has said, it is not clear that the actions taken by the United States and Israel were compatible with the international rules-based system. The Iranian regime is, of course, repugnant and repressive, but we all still have to operate within the law.
The Prime Minister was correct not to be involved with the initial intervention. However, there is now a significant risk towards UK interests due to the fact that the Prime Minister has made UK bases available to the United States for defensive action. That demonstrates the severity of the situation and the risks that we now face. The international community must apply pressure to ensure that we seek a diplomatic solution and avoid further escalation.
Scottish Government officials and ministers have held regular discussions with the UK Government over the past few days. We have heard its position and discussed with it the importance of consular support for people from Scotland who are in the region.
Middle East Conflict (Scottish Airports)
To ask the Scottish Government whether Scottish publicly owned infrastructure, such as Prestwick or Wick John O’Groats airports, has been used by the US Air Force for the recent strikes on Iran. (S6T-02933)
Glasgow Prestwick airport and some Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd airports are an important stopover point for many air forces—including the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force and those of other NATO partners, such as the United States—and have been for many years. That is in line with UK law, international aviation standards and long-standing agreements between allied nations.
Prestwick is a civilian facility, and there are, of course, a plethora of military bases available to the United States in the middle east. We have no information on whether any aircraft that recently passed through Scotland, or whatever nation, were involved in operations against Iran. That said, we believe that it is essential that all nations abide by the international rules-based system. The events in Iran over the past few days do not suggest to us that the United States and Israel have done that.
It is also the case that the UK Prime Minister has said that UK military bases must not be used in US or Israeli offensive operations against Iran. The same must apply to non-military bases. We are therefore seeking clarity, not least from the UK Government, that no aircraft passing through Scottish Government-owned airports are part of offensive operations against Iran.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his response. I also welcomed the First Minister’s statement yesterday, which questioned whether the US and Israel have abided by the international rules-based system with their strikes on Iran. I am pleased to hear the cabinet secretary repeat that today.
The Prime Minister is right not to involve the UK in those strikes, but does the Scottish Government agree with the mounting expert legal opinion that the strikes were unlawful? Will the Scottish Government condemn any such military intervention that breaches international law?
On devolved competence, cabinet secretary.
The Scottish Government is clear in our support for international law, but Mercedes Villalba will have to accept that I am not a lawyer, so I am not in a position to judge. The First Minister has been absolutely clear about the concerns that we have about the nature of the offensive action conducted by the United States and Israel.
Specifically on the question, Presiding Officer, I draw Mercedes Villalba’s attention to the fact that non-UK military flights are required to obtain diplomatic flight clearance from the UK Ministry of Defence in order to fly in UK airspace and land in the UK; I also note that aviation, national security and defence are all reserved issues. Notwithstanding those points, we are seeking clarity from the UK Government that no aircraft have passed through Scottish Government-owned airspace as part of offensive operations against Iran.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his response and remind him that, in 2024, following public pressure and intervention from the then First Minister Humza Yousaf, the Scottish Government confirmed that Scottish Government-owned Prestwick airport had taken the decision not to conduct further business with the Israeli air force. Given the First Minister’s publicly stated concerns about the escalation of the US-Israel strikes on Iran, and his call for diplomacy, de-escalation and a return to negotiations, will the Scottish Government now act again to ensure that publicly owned infrastructure, such as these airports, is not used by the US in this war?
I think that I have already answered that question. We have made approaches to the UK Government to seek clarity, because we want to be assured that no aircraft passing through Scottish Government-owned airports have been part of offensive operations against Iran. I have now said that twice. We are in the process of establishing clarity on that. Should there be any updates in regard to that question, I would be happy to keep Mercedes Villalba and other members of the chamber updated.
It is simply not good enough to say that it is unclear whether the US and Israel have complied with international law. Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, said yesterday that the US action would continue
“regardless of what so-called international institutions say”.
He said that there would be
“No stupid rules of engagement … no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars.”
The US is being quite explicit that it has contempt for international law. What more will it take for the Scottish Government, as the owner of Prestwick and other airports, which are therefore within devolved control, to say that it will not do business with US military forces under any circumstances?
The first thing that I would say to Patrick Harvie is that, as he knows, the Scottish Government’s position on international law and maintaining international law is absolutely clear, and the First Minister has outlined that.
I remind Patrick Harvie that I sat in the House of Commons and voted against Iraq military operations in past decades, so my record on the subject is absolutely clear. The Scottish Government’s position is absolutely clear. We support international law.
I have pointed out that we are seeking clarity from the UK Government in relation to aircraft passing through Scottish Government-owned airports. We have no information, as I have already said, that any such aircraft have taken part in offensive military operations, and we are seeking clarity from the UK Government on that point.
It is believed that almost 800 Iranians have been killed because of the missile and air strikes undertaken by the United States and Israel. Those strikes are clearly in defiance of international law. They have inflamed regional tensions and there has been loss of life and damage in other countries across the middle east. Will the cabinet secretary outline whether the Scottish Government has made any representations to the US consulate in Edinburgh in relation to concerns that international law has not been followed by the US? Does he think that that kind of action would be appropriate?
I must remind members that, within devolved competence, it is important that they consider the substantive question when they come to put supplementary questions.
The First Minister has made public his views and the views of the Scottish Government for everyone to hear, so I have no doubt that they have been heard by the United States consulate in Scotland. The Scottish Government’s position in relation to the United States and Israeli offensive in Iran has been made absolutely clear.
On the specific question, I have updated Parliament on the position as we find it. We have no information about any aircraft passing through Scottish Government-owned airports taking part in direct military operations. Of course, there is a great distance between Scotland and Iran, so the attacks by US and Israeli forces have been taking place from that theatre. Nevertheless, questions have been raised about the use of Prestwick and other airports, and we are seeking clarity from the United Kingdom Government on that.
Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill (Funding)
To ask the Scottish Government, further to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care’s letter to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee regarding the funding required for the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill on 26 February, what current NHS services would potentially be reduced to meet such costs. (S6T-02930).
The Scottish Government is neutral on the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. The letter to which Mr Mountain referred states:
“we recognise the challenges of accurately estimating the costs of delivering this Bill, particularly given that, at this stage, the Bill does not set out a model of delivery. There remain many uncertainties as to the overall costs of the Bill, not least as there may be amendments at Stage 3 that further impact these considerations.”
Given that, any funding reprioritisation would need to be assessed if and when the bill is passed and its final form is known.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the answer, but, in that letter, he said:
“the Scottish Government does not agree with the assumption that much of the provision of assisted dying would be absorbed into existing budgets”,
nor does the Scottish Government agree with Liam McArthur’s assertion
“that the Bill will have minimal cost”.
Surely the cabinet secretary is able to indicate rough costings on the bill as it currently stands. Are we not talking about tens of millions of pounds, cabinet secretary?
Always through the chair, please.
As I said in my initial answer, it is difficult at this stage to be able to alight on a figure, not least because there are amendments still to be considered on the back of the closing of the submission period for amendments at noon today. Until such time as those amendments are considered and the bill in its final form is considered and voted on, it will be difficult to ascertain a final figure.
However, there is always prioritisation and reprioritisation and the seeking of efficiencies to ensure a sustainable future for our national health service. The Government has embarked on that work over a number of years, culminating in the publication last year of three strategy documents setting out how we can reduce demand on our health service, make our population healthier and ensure the safe and sustainable delivery of services over the coming years.
I am afraid that I am looking for an answer on the bill as it stands. When I come to the chamber and ask for something, the Government always tells me, “If you want to fund something, tell me whose care you will cut.” With regard to funding this bill, we know that the palliative care budget cannot be cut, as one in three people already do not get their care needs met. We know that the funding cannot come from the cancer care budget, because that is still not on target.
Can you tell me, cabinet secretary, which group of patients will lose out on their care in order to fund the bill? You must have thought about that.
Always through the chair, please, Mr Mountain.
Mr Mountain sets areas in which we are making significant progress. “Palliative Care Matters for All: Palliative care strategy (2025–30)”, which was published last September sets out areas in which we want to improve performance on palliative care. We have seen data on performance against the 31-day cancer target that demonstrates that we are meeting the target. Indeed, from the time of decision to treat, the median wait for patients on a cancer referral pathway is two days, so it is clear that significant improvements have been made in the performance of our health service.
Again, I reiterate that the Government is neutral on the proposition in the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. It is a matter for debate next week when the amendments are considered, and then, at the conclusion of the bill process the following week, there is a decision for Parliament to take. We will ensure that we do what we can to set out the Government’s position where it is relevant for MSPs, but ultimately it is a decision of conscience for MSPs to take, and colleagues will have a free vote on the bill.
In the light of consistent international experience, including data from across Australia, where record additional investment in palliative and end-of-life care accompanied the introduction of voluntary assisted dying, does the cabinet secretary agree that decisions about whether to provide a safeguarded option for terminally ill adults should be determined not solely by projected cost but by whether we are prepared to respond compassionately to dying people who are asking for choice and dignity at the end of life?
I understand Elena Whitham’s question, but I reiterate that the Government is neutral on the issue of assisted dying and Mr McArthur’s bill. It is for members of the Scottish Parliament to consider all the evidence that is put before them to determine whether assisted dying should be legalised in Scotland.
Regardless of the outcome of the final vote on the bill, the Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that everyone has dignity and respect at the end of their life. To that end, for example, we updated our palliative care strategy in September and we have committed £9.4 million in the budget to help hospices to achieve parity with NHS pay levels for their staff. As I have said previously, Parliament’s decision should be based on the merits or challenges of assisted dying rather than any other consideration.
The Government clearly shares the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s concerns about the challenge of costing the bill, which were set out in the committee’s report. We are about to vote on the most significant legislation of this parliamentary session, but fundamental details of the cost and implementation remain unclear.
Last week, the Scottish Fiscal Commission highlighted the crisis that our NHS faces, stating that
“Most waiting times standards are not being met”.
The cabinet secretary might not want to name—or maybe cannot name —areas where he thinks there will be cuts or challenges, but can he at least acknowledge that dealing with these challenges in our NHS would be made more difficult if an as yet unspecified portion of the budget were redirected to assisted dying?
We are building an NHS that is recovering from the pandemic and has turned a corner in its performance. The figures that were published today on performed operations over the past year demonstrate that. We now have eight months in a row of falling long waits, and figures today demonstrate year-on-year and month-on-month progress in activity in the health service. I therefore do not take the position that Michael Marra offers on the state of the health service.
The discussion to be had next week and the week after on assisted dying is about the principle of assisted dying. We will have a discussion and debate on that, and members will have a free vote. Parliament will need to come to a position as to whether it should legalise assisted dying.
The health committees here and at Westminster heard evidence from Australia and elsewhere confirming that the introduction of an assisted dying law of this type does not lead to cuts in services. Indeed, such laws often go hand in hand with increased investment in and access to palliative care.
Does the cabinet secretary accept the need for all MSPs to look at the evidence of what happens in practice? Does he agree that, with an election in May, all parties are free to propose additional investment in health and care while also delivering more choice for dying Scots, which recent polling by John Curtice—for the social attitudes survey—confirms enjoys overwhelming public support across Scotland?
I reiterate that the Government is neutral on Mr McArthur’s bill. It will be for Mr McArthur to set out the points as he wishes and persuade—or otherwise—members of this Parliament as to the merits or challenges of assisted dying.
We have put record levels of resource into the national health service. As I have pointed out to Mr Marra and Mr Mountain, we are seeing a sustained improvement in the performance of our health service, thanks to the hard work and efforts of our staff. We are proposing reforms and changes to the way in which we deliver health in this country, so that a more sustainable health service can address the issues that the people of Scotland are facing.
That concludes topical questions. I will allow a moment or two for members on the front benches to organise themselves.
Previous
Business MotionNext
Ferries and Ports