Chamber and committees

First, I offer a warm welcome to the visitors in the public gallery. They include many individuals and representatives of organisations, including colleagues from Running Out Racism, Show Racism the Red Card, Active Life Club and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, among others, that work tirelessly to eradicate racism in all its forms, including in sport. I acknowledge the overwhelming cross-party support for the motion—we are all grateful for that.

This is an uncomfortable topic. Recognising the existence of institutional racism is to admit to years of apathy as people suffered around us, and to accept that processes and structures that were designed without all voices present have caused harm and affected the achievements of so many people. If there is one clear message that we should take away from the debate, it is that we need to get comfortable with being uncomfortable, for it is in that discomfort that true change can take place.

Today, we reflect on the findings of “Changing the Boundaries: The Plan4Sport Independent Review into Racism in Scottish Cricket”. I commend sportscotland for commissioning the review. It is never easy for anyone to come forward, and those who do often suffer negative impacts on their career, family or mental health. However, it is because of people’s bravery that we now have a chance to reflect and move forward in the true spirit of sporting endeavour. Maya Angelou said:

“when you know better, do better.”

This is our chance to do better.

Woven throughout the damning report of the review are themes of an absence of leadership, a lack of accountability and transparency and an overall loss of confidence in the incident report handling processes. Four hundred and forty-eight examples of institutional racism were identified against the national governing body, Cricket Scotland.

Sir William Macpherson, in his 1999 report of the public inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence, defined institutional racism as

“The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin”.

That is the definition that is referred to by the authors of the review. From participants, we heard that there were “too many close friendships” in Cricket Scotland for confidentiality requirements to be upheld. We heard that people who had previously raised concerns were victimised as a result and that the familiar old adage of, “It’s just banter,” was invoked as a means of silencing those who spoke out. At board level, there was no overall vision or strategy for tackling racism and there was a total lack of diversity in workforce and governance structures.

Although the findings of the report are certainly alarming, it is vital that we not only consider the consequences of our inertia but seize this opportunity to learn. I am grateful to Aneela McKenna, an experienced diversity officer, for informing my thoughts on the subject.

I acknowledge the examples of excellent practice that are clearly evident, especially at grass-roots club and association level. We can learn from the good and, with a collective will and responsibility, we can improve across all sporting disciplines, not just in cricket.

As a starting point, the review includes many practical and deliverable recommendations. I acknowledge the work that is already under way by sportscotland and urge it to proceed in partnership with organisations that have expertise and experience to offer. That may well help to rebuild trust and confidence. I welcome Cricket Scotland’s commitment to have a new board in place by the end of this month.

Let us be clear: racism exists everywhere in society. What makes an organisation institutionally racist is not that it has racism. The issue is whether an organisation prioritises tackling racism and being actively anti-racist in its policies, procedures and culture, or remains passive and content with a never-ending cycle of deny, defend and deflect, on repeat. Even if we never truly understand the experiences of others, it is important to strive to be an ally. Paul Reddish OBE, who is here today, talks of allyship as

“standing up for those when they are not in the room and handing the microphone back when they are present”.

I am minded of the words of Nelson Mandela, who said:

“Sport has the power to the change the world. It has the power to inspire. It has the power to unite people in a way that little else does.”

In allyship, we must strive to share the pitches, the tracks and the boardrooms as equals.

Looking forward, there is a need for on-going proactive oversight and scrutiny of sporting bodies and organisations, and to include critical expert voices in the process. One option may be to link into the Government’s on-going work on a national anti-racist infrastructure, led by Dr Ima Jackson. A key recommendation of that work is to establish a more effective accountability and governance infrastructure in Scotland. The terms of reference state:

“Too often recommendations have been made on racism and minority ethnic ‘issues’ that have subsequently been forgotten and not implemented. They may then be raised again by other groups without reference to what has been asked before. This absence of institutional memory within the current system and structures is frustrating, disempowering and can be understood as a mechanism by which systemic discrimination occurs.”

I believe that governance structures and polices that adhere to and deliver on the Macpherson definition of institutional racism should become a statutory obligation for bodies in receipt of government funding. That should be able to be applied robustly across different groups, with support from the national agency, while recognising the varying size and demographics of sporting bodies.

Let us ensure that another generation do not suffer from racism, with nowhere to go and no hope of redress or apology, but are instead embraced by the sport that they love. We must rebuild trust among our sportsmen and women of colour and ensure that we are not discussing the same issues yet again in the next parliamentary session.

I would like to thank Qasim Sheikh and Majid Haq for their enormous bravery, and I note that Majid is in the gallery today. However, we cannot continue to rely on the bravery of individuals to raise these issues.

There is momentum for positive change. Scotland has given us great sporting successes. Imagine the increased scope of that success if the potential of all of Scotland’s sportspeople was set free from the shackles of discrimination. This is truly a leadership moment. I urge everyone, including those in authority, from Government to sportscotland to clubs and associations, to embrace the facts—uncomfortable though they may be and might make us—and deliver the necessary policies to change them.

I will finish with the words of James Baldwin, who said:

“Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

[Applause.]

That is the perfect point for me to come in at, because I want to pick up on that issue. You have talked about the challenges with the recruitment of teachers. Could you give us some information about what is being done to attract and train people in order to increase the number of Gaelic teachers?

Will the minister join me in welcoming Ireland’s pilot project, dubbed “the little baby bundle”, which will see 500 newborn babies receive a baby box in a policy initiative that is similar to Scotland’s? Does she agree that universality is an essential aspect of Scotland’s scheme, which promotes an equal start for all children in Scotland, reducing stigma and conveying benefits beyond the purely financial?

Brexit continues to have a substantial economic impact on the UK and Scotland. Will the minister provide further information about the assessment that the Scottish Government has made of the impact of Brexit on Scotland’s economy? Will he say more about the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to mitigate the impact of Brexit on Scotland’s public finances?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the implementation of the baby box programme. (S6O-01269)

I agree in principle to looking at any opportunity to provide dignity and respect to all those we welcome here. I further suggest that all immigration policy should be devolved to Scotland as soon as possible so that we can make those decisions for ourselves.

Children who live in hotels are close to my heart. Thankfully, the policy that said that children could not enrol in school until a permanent catchment area was decided has been changed and children can now go to school from day 1. They now have the opportunity to play, make friends and learn, which is so important. I place on record my thanks to the community, staff and pupils of Garnethill and St Patrick’s primary schools, among others, for their welcome to asylum-seeking children. I have had the joy of teaching children from Syria and Afghanistan and have been privileged to see their progress.

I believe that we must move away from a profit motive in our system for asylum seekers and refugees. It is long overdue that the right to bid for contracts to house and care for asylum seekers should be returned to councils, along with the funding to do so.

I am mindful of the time and will skip to my final point. I thank asylum seekers and refugees for their courage and tenacity in challenging the system, both for their own sake and for the sake of those who follow them in calling Scotland their home.

I am grateful for the opportunity to mark world refugee day and to highlight Scotland’s efforts to welcome asylum seekers and refugees from around the world to what I consider to be a safe haven, where they have the opportunity to live meaningful lives free from fear and persecution.

I will go on to talk about asylum seekers and refugees in Glasgow, but it is impossible to talk about this subject without first and foremost condemning, in the strongest possible terms, the UK Government’s latest appalling immigration policy, which is to traffic asylum seekers to Rwanda for their claims to be considered and decided. The policy is inhumane and the Home Office that pursues it is callous, uncaring and in breach of international obligations. As Filippo Grandi, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, stated:

“The UK Government has breached the foundational principle of international refugee protection.”

[Kaukab Stewart has corrected this contribution. See end of report.] Just as I thought that the Home Office could not strip away any more dignity from refugees, it is now electronically tagging them, further dehumanising and depriving human beings of even a moment of peace.

In complete contrast is Scotland’s approach to asylum seekers and refugees, which is outlined in the “New Scots Refugees Integration Strategy”. The approach places refugees and asylum seekers at the heart of the communities in which they live.

I whole-heartedly celebrate the contribution that asylum seekers and refugees make to this country, and I agree that there are many positive aspects to Scotland’s approach and practice. However, I will point out some things that need to be improved.

According to Professor Alison Phipps, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization chair for refugee integration through language and the arts at the University of Glasgow, the UK Government’s Nationality and Borders Act 2022 undermines our ability to pursue a compassionate and progressive strategy. Professor Phipps highlights the efforts of Together with Refugees, a coalition of expert lawyers led by the University of Glasgow honorary graduate Dr Sabir Zazai OBE, who is CEO of the Scottish Refugee Council and of JustRight Scotland. Those groups work tirelessly to advocate for asylum seekers and to unpick the legal impacts on Scotland of the UK Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

I commend to the minister the work done by Refugees for Justice in preparing an asylum dispersal proposal for Scotland. I would also commend it to the Home Secretary, but I fear that all compassionate approaches are far from the hostile environment agenda that is clearly being set down there.

Last Monday, I was privileged to speak with asylum seekers living in Glasgow Kelvin, who had recently been residents in one of the several private establishments that house asylum seekers when they arrive here. Some of their experiences were far from ideal. I was struck by their stories. They had previously been doctors, teachers and other professionals and were all desperate to work and to provide for their families. The right to work should be at the heart of any compassionate system. They paid tribute to the warm welcome that they had received from Glaswegians and were very grateful to Migrant Empowerment, which I note is represented here today, for its assistance.

Hotel accommodation is not part of the agreement between the UK Government and those who are paid to house vulnerable people. The maximum amount of time that any asylum seeker should spend in a hotel is five days; the average stay in hotel accommodation in Glasgow is currently 72 days, and many residents have been there longer, due to a lack of accommodation for placements. That is unacceptable.

Asylum seekers get around £40 a week from the UK Government, via a voucher card that can be used only in certain shops and does not give change. If the card stops working, that can take days to resolve, meaning that the asylum seeker has no access to money. That is obviously unacceptable.

Kaukab Stewart has identified an error in her contribution and provided the following correction.

At col 26, paragraph 4—

Original text—

As Filippo Grandi, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, stated:

“The UK Government has breached the foundational principle of international refugee protection.”

Corrected text—

As Professor Alison Phipps, UNESCO chair in refugee integration through languages and the arts, stated:

“The UK Government has breached the foundational principle of international refugee protection.”

I am interested in parity of esteem for all courses. It was good to hear about the widening participation routes. If a student chooses one of those routes, how well prepared do they feel to take the next steps, whatever those may be? You have demonstrated that, by and large, students can choose different routes, but how well prepared for that do they feel? Are they nervous or apprehensive? Are they supported? Do they get advice from the right people at the right time?

Is there anyone who would particularly like to answer that?

Just to explore that a bit further, what suggestions could be given to the students whom you consult with? I was going to come on to the ones who might slip through the net, because we want to be there for everybody and leave nobody behind. What do colleges do to make sure that they catch everybody? Do students who are not so prepared feel that they can ask for extra support, and can the colleges respond to that?