Chamber and committees

Thank you, Justine.

I will go next. I have the pleasure of asking your question, Erika, but is there anything further that you wish to let me know about it or your thoughts around it? You do not have to, but would you like to add something?

Thank you for that, minister. In our communications with members of the panel, and during the participatory process, what has come through is that members of the public do not see the portfolios in silos. Their lives are interconnected, and lots of issues impact on them. There is crossover in all of those—for instance, between housing and education. Their question is about the different portfolios and different departments working together in order to produce a budget that is relevant and appropriate in that way.

Can you or Rob Priestley give us further information about delivering a diverse workforce? I think that the intent behind that question was that a diverse workforce would be reflective of the diversity of the children that those people will work with.

Thank you—that concludes the evidence session. We will take time to reflect on the evidence that we have heard. We will be grateful to accept offers from the members of the panel to supply further information on matters that arose during the session and we look forward to getting that information. We will also write to the Scottish Government in due course. I thank the minister and her officials—Rob Priestley and Fi Robertson—for their attendance.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to make this announcement on behalf of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. Today the committee published a report on its inquiry into the human rights of asylum seekers in Scotland.

The committee began taking oral evidence on 25 April, at my first meeting as its convener, and we continued throughout May and June.

Paragraphs 65 to 71 of our report set out the witnesses from whom the committee heard. We are extremely grateful to all those who contributed to the inquiry, but I particularly want to thank the asylum seekers and refugees who spoke directly to us in our engagement sessions. It was essential to me that we heard about their lived experience, which was often traumatic, so that the committee clearly understood the significant challenges that they face. I encourage members to read the notes from our engagement sessions, which are published on the committee’s web page. They provide a telling picture of the conditions that refugees and asylum seekers face. We hope that our report gives a voice to those experiences, which informed our conclusions and recommendations.

Sadly, we heard about substandard, inappropriate and inadequate conditions—especially in relation to accommodation—which presented people with an increased risk of being a victim of crime and/or exploitation, as well as an increased risk of physical and mental health issues developing or being exacerbated.

We heard that support in accessing English as a second language classes is inconsistent and that there is a lack of quality interpreters. English language teaching is essential in helping asylum seekers arriving in Scotland to integrate in our communities, so that issue needs to be addressed.

There is a significant reliance on the third sector, as asylum seekers rely on it for clothing and for accessing transportation and education, medical, community, religious and cultural facilities. I know that the convener of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee has raised the issue of concessionary travel with the First Minister directly. I also note that, later this week, Paul Sweeney will lead a members’ business debate on the issue, which I look forward to contributing to in a personal capacity. On behalf of the committee, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the incredible work of all the third sector organisations that help asylum seekers to find their place in our communities.

Although immigration is a reserved matter, our report challenges the Scottish Government to make full use of its existing powers to support and protect asylum seekers. Among our recommendations, we challenge the Scottish Government to ensure that the third sector can benefit from improved resourcing; to honour its commitment to maintain and enhance the wellbeing of children in local authorities; to maintain and enhance anti-trafficking protections; and to ensure that asylum seekers understand their rights by providing them with accessible education and information.

We look forward to the committee debate, which we hope to secure before the end of the year, and to the Scottish Government’s response to the report in advance of that debate.

I am grateful to my colleague Collette Stevenson for bringing the debate to the chamber.

I was elected to this place just two and a half years ago and have engaged in many debates about poverty, but I am struggling. I am struggling because time and time again, we come here to discuss poverty, its effects and the impact that it has on health, wellbeing, educational attainment—I could go on. Time and time again, the Scottish Government implements mechanisms to alleviate that poverty in targeted areas, such as the Scottish child payment, which has been praised by many as a game changer, and yet, time and time again, those efforts are undermined by a UK Government that has been hellbent on reducing welfare and access to welfare for more than 13 years. A person who needs support in Scotland simultaneously has one hand giving it, while another, from 400 miles down the road, snatches it away.

If we reflect on the 24 years of this still-young Parliament, we can see that this place has flexed its ambition for our country with the creation of Social Security Scotland. It is not a silver bullet—no organisation is—but it demonstrates a clear intent to treat people who need support with the dignity and respect that they deserve. We should contrast Social Security Scotland with the Department for Work and Pensions, which, over the past decade and a bit, has contracted private companies to assess benefit claimants to make sure that they are not scamming the system. People with lifelong degenerative disabilities are still required to present to an assessor frequently. If they do not, they face being sanctioned and losing the support that they need simply to get by.

Even with welfare benefits, getting by is a struggle. The Tories’ benefit cap is set at roughly £14,750 per year for a single adult living outside London. In contrast, the real living wage is the minimum income that it is calculated that a person needs in order to be able to afford life’s basics. The new rate announced today of £12 per hour works out at a take-home pay of around £18,900 per year, after income tax and national insurance.

We cannot have a Tory welfare system that is difficult to navigate—in the hope that people just give up—and makes inadequate payments. The Tories have not even ensured that work pays, either. George Osborne introduced the national living wage as the legal minimum amount that a worker can be paid, but it was nothing but a con—a rebranded minimum wage. Outside London, it amounts to more than £1.50 per hour less than the real living wage, which works out at £2,730 per year less for a full-time worker on 35 hours per week. Is it any wonder that the number of people in the UK who use Trussell Trust food banks has increased from around 26,000 in 2010, when the Tories came into power, to almost 3 million in 2023?

It is time for a different kind of politics. Sadly, we have had no indication that that will come from Keir Starmer’s Labour Party, which will not even reverse the two-child benefit cap and rape clause, which loses families more than £3,000 per year.

While many welfare streams remain under Westminster control, I urge all parties to look to Scotland and the ethos of our devolved social security system. People need and deserve dignity and respect. Work should pay. There should be no more con tricks—a living wage should be exactly that.

During challenge poverty week, I encourage colleagues to engage with the events so that we are reminded of how important it is to alleviate and eradicate poverty.

To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on the work that the Scottish Government is undertaking to support the establishment of a pilot safer drug consumption facility. (S6F-02415)

Alongside other Glasgow MSPs, I wrote to the Home Secretary regarding the issue last month. The response suggests that the Home Office will not stand in the way of the Lord Advocate’s authority on the matter, provided that it is exercised lawfully. Although that is welcome, it is disappointing that the United Kingdom Government seems unwilling to work with the Scottish Government to actively progress this public health measure. Does the First Minister agree that it appears that the UK’s inaction on the matter is political rather than pragmatic, and that true co-operation from the Home Office would help to provide even better care and support?

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the on-going local governance review, what discussions the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance has had with ministerial colleagues regarding any potential benefits to public services and assets of granting Glasgow metropolitan status. (S6O-02563)

Metropolitan status is given to city regions in other parts of the United Kingdom and in many European nations. Like Glasgow, many of those cities are home to nationally significant infrastructure. In the next two years, Glasgow City Council is investing £3 million in the Clyde tunnel and the upkeep of Glasgow Botanic Gardens, while the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh is directly funded by the Scottish Government. Does the minister share my view that there is room for a healthy discussion on the long-term funding settlement regarding national assets in Scotland’s largest city?

Good morning. Agenda item 1 is a decision on whether to take in private item 4, which is consideration of evidence heard, and item 5, which is an informal briefing from the Scottish Government’s bill team for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill, in private. Do we agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.