Chamber and committees

Will the member take an intervention?

I absolutely accept that every human being has skills to offer. We could make full use of them, as any country in the world could.

This illegal Illegal Migration Bill does not speak for Scotland, our values or our needs as a nation, as Paul Sweeney mentioned. I join colleagues today and any other day in calling for immigration to be devolved, but we all know very well the UK Government’s attitude towards devolution and devolved powers.

It is clear to me, as it should be to everyone, that the only way that Scotland can exercise its values in the world and make our nation a welcoming home to those who need it is through taking full control of our finances so that we can invest in a fast and fair system of processing applications rather than the current profit-from-people-in-peril model that is perpetuated by the UK Government.

The bill is happening now and must be stopped now. I was glad to hear from the cabinet secretary that the Scottish Government will do everything that it can to challenge the bill. It breaks many of the UK’s obligations under the ECHR and the UNHCR refugee convention. It would be more suitable if it was actually called, as I said, the illegal Illegal Migration Bill.

I make a plea directly to Scottish Conservative members to make their voice heard. They know that the bill is wrong—it is morally, legally and ethically wrong—so they should not sit there meekly and nod along to what their London bosses are doing. They should stand up to them. My challenge to Douglas Ross is to whip his MPs to vote against the bill when it comes to the House of Commons for its third and final reading. All other Tory MSPs should speak out and encourage their colleagues south of the border to put a stop to what is proposed in the bill. To do nothing is to support the bill, and Conservative members’ silence gives consent. They should send a message that the Scottish Parliament does not consent to the Illegal Migration Bill.

I proudly represent one of the most diverse constituencies in the country. Many of those who live in Glasgow Kelvin are first-generation migrants—as am I, having moved to this country from Pakistan. Our diversity is far from a weakness. It is our strength—it is part of Scotland’s rich tapestry. Scotland, like the UK in general, is an ancient migrant nation. The contribution of those who pay Scotland the ultimate compliment by choosing to call our country their home is our past, our present and our future.

However, who gets to do so is currently at the mercy of a remarkably cruel UK Government. The name of its game is keeping people out. I, for one, cannot see any reason for the UK Government’s blind resentment towards displaced, disadvantaged and desperate people. Everything that it does seeks to hammer the vulnerable, and the Illegal Migration Bill is no different. It is, in part, disguised as an attempt to thwart organised criminals who are looking to make quick and easy money from those who are desperately seeking safe sanctuary. In reality, though, it makes criminals out of those who are escaping war-torn nations. Underpinning the whole thing is an outright ban on claiming asylum in the UK. That is how serious the bill is.

Unless someone is lucky enough to be from a nation with a specific refugee scheme set up by the UK Home Office, there is no route for them to make a claim for asylum within these islands. Under the Tories’ proposals, if someone comes to the UK seeking asylum, they face being detained indefinitely and left in a permanent state of uncertainty, with the threat of being deported. In fact, included in the bill is the removal of court oversight, which gives the Home Secretary free rein to lock up people who are seeking asylum in the UK, including children. It would leave the most vulnerable people in the world detained, destitute and dying.

I remind the chamber that the provisions in the bill will empower a Home Secretary who dreams of deporting refugees to nations with a questionable record on human rights. Just last year, Rwandan police arrested, detained and charged a woman at a concert in Kigali for what they labelled as a shameful dress. The police and Government in Rwanda frequently persecute journalists who speak out. We should not be outsourcing our human rights obligations. We live under an uncaring, unfeeling and—in my opinion—increasingly extreme Government that we, in Scotland, did not vote for.

During recess, I met the Women’s Integration Network in my constituency and heard from a number of refugee women and asylum seekers who faced the many challenges of the UK’s current immigration system. The asylum process is taking far too long. Those who are appealing decisions are served eviction notices. Where do they go? Some of the people who have been served notices leave prior to that deadline. Where do they go? In my opinion, that is enforced destitution. In addition, unlike in the USA, Canada, Germany, Australia and many other nations, those who are seeking asylum in the UK are not permitted to work at any point. They have to live on £6 a day. How many of us in the chamber spent that shortly after leaving the house? It is all part of the Tory Government’s hostile environment approach to dealing with people who arrive here from elsewhere.

This morning, I convened my first meeting of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, where we heard compelling and grim evidence from the Scottish Refugee Council, JustRight Scotland, the Simon Community Scotland and refugee support at the British Red Cross, all of which deal with the grass-roots effects of such terrible bills. Their message was clear: the bill undermines the power of the Scottish Government, including our obligations towards children.

I will come on to speak about some of the actions. The cabinet secretary has already mentioned those plans.

Last year saw the hottest temperatures that Scotland has ever recorded. It was a staggering 35.1°C in Kelso. Unfortunately, as Beatrice Wishart mentioned, it is now looking extremely likely that we will pass the 1.5°C marker in the early 2030s. However, knowing that we are likely to pass the marker does not mean that we should give up. We must be wary of an “It’s going to happen anyway, so there’s nothing I can do” attitude. Many people will adopt that pessimistic way of thinking, because it is the easiest approach in the short term, but doing so would continue to condemn everything we know. As Sir David Attenborough put it,

“What humans do over the next 50 years will determine the fate of all life on the planet.”

If we reach 2°C above pre-industrial levels, the risk to human life is much higher. Diseases such as malaria will spread much more quickly, food security will be volatile at best, and economies across the world will suffer greatly, pushing yet more people into poverty.

My constituency was home to the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26. Nations from across the world met and agreed on statements around reducing carbon to net zero, achieving a just transition to greener energy and protecting nature. No one nation can do it alone, but we can do our bit here, at home.

Glasgow City Council agreed that 2030 should be the target for bringing the city to net zero carbon emissions. That is no mean feat, because our nation’s largest city is home to many great and varied industries, and hundreds of thousands of people commute into Glasgow on any given working day. Most arrive by car—recent figures show that nearly 70 per cent of people travel to work by car or van, as either the driver or a passenger.

Glasgow City Council has done and is doing much work to change people’s attitudes and behaviour when it comes to moving around the city. We hear a lot about modal shift, whether that be moving people on to public forms of transport, such as our rail, bus and subway networks, or encouraging people to take a more active travel path by walking or cycling to work.

As of June, Glasgow City Council will be enforcing a low-emission zone throughout much of the city, the chief aim of which is to reduce extremely dangerous levels of air pollution. Unfortunately, two of the highest recorded levels have been in my constituency of Glasgow Kelvin. I have no doubt that the LEZ will encourage some to consider taking other modes of transport into the city, thereby helping us to reduce our commuter carbon footprint.

However—I say this as an ardent supporter of any measures to tackle the human impact of climate change—we must accept that, for many people, a car will remain the most appropriate mode of transport for getting to work. Those people include people with mobility issues and people who live in rural areas.

Cars are and will remain a major presence on our road networks for some time to come, and we need to get even more creative about how we manage and reduce the impact that they have on our environment. A move to electric vehicles is an obvious answer but, currently, they are too pricey for many people. Incentivising car-sharing schemes might alleviate the need for multiple cars to make the same or similar journeys. That is part of the answer to Glasgow reaching net zero by 2030, but it is only part of the answer. Home energy retrofitting, district heating, decarbonising industry, moving to hydrogen or electric transport and protecting and growing natural solutions for carbon sequestration all have a major part to play in Glasgow’s journey to net zero.

I put on record my thanks to and appreciation of our hard-working councillors in Glasgow—particularly Councillor Angus Millar, who chairs the climate, Glasgow green deal, transport and city centre recovery committee. Councillor Millar and his colleagues are very much alive to the challenges that we have before us as we seek to meet the 2030 target, but they have shown a determination to get the work done. However, that work comes with a very high financial burden. To date, central Government has put its money where its mouth is, but much more will be needed if we are to reach our 2030 targets.

As I understand it, there are opportunities to tap into alternative finance options but there are not the appropriate structures in place to enable local government to procure what it needs, at a fast pace, in order to meet timescale demands. I would be grateful if the minister, in summing up the debate, could say more about what work the Government is doing to free up councils to work more flexibly with external partners to reach their climate goals.

It is a no-brainer. Last year, parts of the UK were literally on fire. Let us not weather this storm; let us beat it.

I welcome this timely debate on the urgency to deliver on tackling climate change and to ensure a just transition. We have to reimagine behavioural and cultural change. Change can be uncomfortable but we have to accept some discomfort, because the alternative is much worse.

Across the SNP and Green seats, we talk about setting high ambitions for Scotland to tackle the causes of climate change—we are the most ambitious nation in the UK. Younger generations and generations yet to come are relying on us to deliver on that vision. We need to act on that ambition.

The First Minister will recall his meeting with me and representatives of sportscotland and Cricket Scotland following the “Changing the Boundaries” report, which found institutional racism within Cricket Scotland. [Interruption.] Despite that body having been placed in special measures, the working group has made no meaningful progress to date. In fact, it has met only once in seven months. Well-respected members of Cricket Scotland’s anti-racism and equality, diversion and inclusion advisory board have resigned, and many in the sport have spoken out about their concern that the issue is just not being taken seriously. It is a fast-moving situation, so who knows what will happen next?

I am sure that the First Minister will agree with me that enough is enough and that polished PR from Cricket Scotland just will not cut it—we need action. Will the First Minister commit to calling for an urgent meeting to meet me, the chair of sportscotland and Cricket Scotland to discuss the woeful lack of progress and to find a constructive way forward?

That is really interesting. My colleagues will pick up on movement restriction conditions in a bit more detail. We have talked a lot about the bill regarding where a child has to be deprived of their liberty and the point about no child under 18 being committed to a prison or young offenders institution but going to secure and residential care. Do you wish to share any further views? We have already heard about those issues, but I just wanted to give you an opportunity, in case anybody has anything further to say on that before I hand back to the convener.

Do you get feedback from the young people themselves? What is their opinion? How do you test that feedback?

Okay. Does any other witness want to come in on that point?

We have had some great and detailed answers already with regard to smaller, safer, trauma-informed secure places for our young people. Do you think that the bill goes far enough in addressing the recommendations in “The Promise”? Sue Brookes, do you have anything to say about that?