Chamber and committees

[Made a request to intervene.]

Our population strategy sets out our ambition that Scotland is the ideal place to raise a family, where people are enabled to have the number of children that they wish to have. It is not for Government to dictate or influence whether people should have children, which is, rightly, a matter for individuals. The ministerial population task force continues to consider fertility trends, and we are engaging with the United Kingdom Government on its parental leave and pay review to ensure that any new provision supports working families in Scotland.

I share the member’s interesting views on our changing demographics. Falling birth rates are a trend across many high-income countries, with, as the member said, significant implications for our economies, communities and public services. We are committed to learning from other countries. In December 2024, the ministerial population task force considered potential international lessons from family-friendly policy interventions.

We are currently exploring next steps in the Scottish context, including scoping further research into the role of parental leave uptake on decisions to have children. From our 2022 attitudes to family formation research, we know that childcare is an important factor in people’s decision to have children. Through our addressing depopulation action plan, we are funding local authorities in depopulating areas in the Western Isles and in the north-west of the Highlands to scope and deliver, where possible, childcare interventions that support families to live and work there.

I acknowledge that campaign, which people continue to talk to me about. Through my portfolio, I have the pleasure of meeting many faith and belief groups, older people’s organisations and disability networks, and they all express to me the point that in every aspect of our society people are feeling the rise in negative rhetoric. I am listening carefully to those groups. Although they, rightly, challenge the Scottish Government to show visible leadership and give a strong, clear and consistent message on cohesion and protecting our communities, my challenge to everybody is to fulfil their responsibilities and their leadership roles—in their organisations, on the streets with their neighbours and in their communities—and make sure that we treat people with compassion and kindness. That is how we can counteract division.

The funding will support conversations about the difficulties that people are facing because of rising food bills. We must ensure that we deal with misinformation and realise that the challenges faced by different parts of our community are actually challenges that we all face and that we have more in common than what separates us.

We want to support organisations that bring local communities together to tackle exclusion and division. The additional funding stream will support grass-roots organisations working across shared interest areas such as sport, health, wellbeing and cultural activities, bringing communities together to build trust and connections through meaningful dialogue and engagement. We want to support activities that unite and that deliver outcomes that can benefit everyone, regardless of their background.

Paul Sweeney picks up many threads. The big difference with the Ukrainian resettlement scheme was that Ukrainians had the right to work, which we called for. There are big differences between them and asylum seekers who have no recourse to public funds. I commend the work that Paul Sweeney did in campaigning to secure a free bus travel pilot, for instance, which we are delivering on.

I understand the point that he makes about housing pressures. This Government has declared the housing emergency, and it is investing record amounts of funding not only in bringing on new bills, but in dealing with void properties. However, the bigger issue in this context is that we must not use the unhappiness that people are feeling and pit communities against one another. We must reject that division.

I absolutely agree that we all have a responsibility across this Parliament to ensure that our leadership and language are factual and respectful. Now more than ever, it is vital that we continue to stand in solidarity with all communities across Scotland against exclusion and division.

Tess White raises the important pressures faced by councils. However, and as I think I said in answer to a previous question, she will be fully aware that immigration is a wholly reserved area. Local councils do not fund hotel provision, which is meant to be temporary. We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to provide funding directly to local authorities, which we believe are best placed to provide all the services required to ensure that we have full integration.

We have seen examples of that. We had the Afghan relocation scheme, and one for Syrians. We have stuff that works and I urge the UK Government to give serious consideration to the examples that we already have of good practice that supports local authorities.

As I said in my opening remarks, the Scottish Government completely rejects the language and proposals of Nigel Farage, who has threatened mass deportation for people who have rightfully come to the UK and have established their lives, work and families here as part of our communities.

I suppose that new Scots integration—I am sorry, Presiding Officer, but I have lost the thread of Marie McNair’s question, although I am doing my best to answer the substance of it. Is it okay if she repeats the question for me?

Thank you.

As I said, the new Scots integration plan has been widely acclaimed and acknowledged as an example of good practice. It is shared equally—we worked with third sector stakeholders and with COSLA—and is multiportfolio, covering areas such as health, transport and education. We believe that it is an excellent example that the UK Government could learn from.