Chamber and committees

I rise to support the amendment in the name of my friend, the member for West Scotland, Mr O’Kane, and I thank the Government for lodging the motion for debate this afternoon.

The Illegal Migration Bill is, arguably, one of the most grotesque pieces of legislation that has ever been introduced in this country. It has received widespread, almost universal, condemnation from those who operate in the field. It will criminalise human beings for having the audacity to try to reach these shores while looking for safety and sanctuary. Amnesty International says that it is a

“huge step towards the UK completely abandoning its responsibilities under international law to respect and protect the universality of human rights.”

The Human Rights Consortium and JustRight Scotland call its introduction an “urgent human rights emergency”, and the Scottish Refugee Council condemns the legislation as “morally repugnant, practically unworkable”, and states its belief that it will have

“severe impacts on women, men and children seeking safety”.

All of that begs the simple question why. Why would the UK Government seek to introduce legislation that is so callous, so devoid of compassion and so clearly designed to sow division and incite hatred? The answer is quite simple: the UK Government does not have one single positive thing to offer this country—not one. This is the last desperate vestige of a Government that is flailing towards a massive defeat at the next election, and all that it has to offer this country is inflammatory rhetoric that is designed to fan the flames of culture wars, which it hopes might save it some seats by appealing to people’s worst instincts.

There is no clearer example of the fanning of those flames than the Rwanda policy. Let us think about for a second about a refugee who is fleeing persecution while genuinely fearing for their life and who is so desperate that they are willing to put their children into a rubber dinghy and make the horrific journey across the channel. They have legitimate reasons—they have family and are desperate to reunite with relatives, or they might speak English rather than French or German. When they get here, rather than being treated with compassion and dignity, they are detained without limit of time or charge, processed, and then shipped off to Rwanda, despite warnings about that country’s human rights record, which is subject to case before the Court of Appeal as we speak.

That is cruelty that I cannot even begin to comprehend. I am not entirely sure why the Tory party thinks that we will stand by and allow it to do this to some of the most marginalised and vulnerable human beings on the planet. Even the costs are absurd: the £120 million down payment works out at something like £600,000 to send just one asylum seeker to Rwanda. That would cover the cost of making bus travel free for a year for every asylum seeker in Scotland. It would also pay for universal credit for one asylum seeker for 149 years. It is absolutely ridiculous in its own terms, too.

The Tories have ravaged our asylum and immigration systems. Thirteen years of austerity have hollowed out our public sector to the extent that we are now unable to do something as simple as process asylum claims. It is an atrocious waste of human life; it is also an atrocious waste of public money.

Will the member give way on that point?

I am happy to give way.

I welcome the cabinet secretary to his new role.

Data from Public Health Scotland shows that the overall risk of developing cancer is 30 per cent higher in the most deprived areas of Scotland compared with the least deprived. That is just one example of deprived communities paying the harshest price of health inequalities. Data shows that cancer, drug deaths and alcohol-related admissions are all more prevalent in those areas. In his new role, how will the cabinet secretary prioritise prevention to tackle the root causes of the multitude of health inequalities that have occurred under his Government?

I thank Ms Harper for bringing the motion to Parliament on wear a hat day 2023, which is for Brain Tumour Research. I also thank the member for delivering such an emotive and powerful speech at the outset of the debate. It is welcome that we have time in the chamber to discuss the impact of this disease and the importance of research into brain tumours in Scotland, and across the United Kingdom. As is mentioned in the member’s motion, brain tumours kill more children and adults under the age of 40 than any other cancer, with one in three people knowing someone who has been impacted by a brain tumour.

However, despite that prevalence and the harrowing impact of this cancer, to date, just 1 per cent of the national expenditure on cancer research has been committed to brain tumour research. Brain Tumour Research, the charity behind wear a hat day, is calling for an increase in the national research investment to £35 million per year so that work can continue to find a cure for all kinds of brain tumours.

With 16,000 people diagnosed with a brain tumour each year across the UK, our approach to treatment and research must show ambition. I commend Brain Tumour Research for its centre of excellence strategy, which is building capacity and pioneering research through four specialist centres across the UK. It is crucial that research into brain tumours is properly funded so that that valuable work can continue and so that we can continue to further develop research and treatment here in Scotland, too. That includes building on the centre of excellence model, as exists at the Institute of Neurological Sciences in Glasgow, which was founded in 1966 and is scheduled for a major new redevelopment by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Let us look at the opportunity that that proposed investment could present for transforming research into brain tumours in Scotland.

Research into the treatment of tumours is one important aspect of improving the options and support that are available to people living with brain tumours and other types of cancer. Another crucial aspect is the availability of psychological support for people who have received a devastating cancer diagnosis, and for their families. A cancer diagnosis is transformative in a deeply distressing way at any time in a person’s life, but brain tumours in particular kill more children and young people than any other cancer, and a diagnosis at a young age can come with its own unique concerns and challenges.

At present, there are two specialist psychologists for young people with cancer in Scotland—one in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and one in NHS Grampian. Given that 200 young people are diagnosed with cancer every year in Scotland, there is simply not sufficient or equal access to specialist mental health support for patients across the country. I hope that the minister will address that point in her remarks. For the 200 young people in that situation, the distress that is caused is absolutely appalling.

In considering the unequal access to support in this context, it is important for us to recognise, as part of the debate, the wider inequalities around the prevalence and treatment of cancer that exist in Scotland. Recent Public Health Scotland data showed that the overall risk of developing cancer was 30 per cent higher in the most deprived parts of the country than in the least deprived parts. We also know that the most recent data shows that almost one in three suspected people with cancer was not treated in line with the Scottish Government’s two-month target time in the final quarter of 2022. Indeed, the last time that the 62-day target was met was in 2012. It is therefore abundantly clear that access to support and treatment for people with cancer is not consistent or reliable.

I would be grateful if the minister would outline in her closing remarks her plans for funding brain tumour research for the future and how she plans to tackle the cancer inequalities of today so that everyone in Scotland has equal access to psychological support and treatment, regardless of their postcode.

I welcome the minister to her new role in the Scottish Government. I would like to follow up on her point about investment, particularly in relation to the institute of neurological sciences in Glasgow, which is an ageing facility that has long needed replacement. Could there be an opportunity to build on the investment, particularly for brain tumour research activities, so that the institute can be built on as another UK centre of excellence in the field?

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what discussions it has had in relation to access to translation services for cross-party groups. (S6O-02098)

I thank the corporate body for that helpful response.

As the convener of the cross-party group on migration, I recently asked whether our CPG could access translation services, as the group has a number of non-English-speaking members. I was told that the group would have to cover the cost of a translator. However, as a CPG with a number of members who are seeking asylum without the right to work, we do not charge membership fees, nor do we have cash to cover translation costs.

I appreciate that the standing orders state that CPGs are not part of formal parliamentary business. However, will the corporate body commit to reviewing its policy on access to translation services, specifically, for all meetings in the Parliament, whether formal parliamentary business or not, so that we can ensure that this Parliament is accessible to all?

A critical part of the problem is that CMAL has no mind for industrial strategy. We need more funding for Ferguson Marine, beyond hulls 801 and 802; we need to see Scottish Government plans to invest to meet the productivity standards set by First Marine International; we need the Scottish Government to offer builders refund guarantees to win export work and commercial work; and we need the Scottish Government to award the small vessel replacement programme on a standardised basis, or Ferguson Marine will collapse. Does the minister agree that those fundamental principles need to be at the heart of the strategy to get a sustainable shipbuilding industry in Scotland?

A Glasgow Centre for Population Health report on life expectancy highlighted that mortality rates have stalled since 2012, and the Scottish Government’s recent health inequalities report found that the gap in health outcomes between the most deprived and least deprived communities is the widest that it has been since monitoring began in 1997. Can the minister advise how the Government plans to tackle the unacceptable disparity between the health outcomes of the best off and those of the worst off people in our communities, in line with its commitment to address systemic inequalities through the Covid recovery strategy?