Chamber and committees

I have a point about the uptake of ADP and the increase in the number of people receiving the benefit. You have said that analysis is under way. Do you intend to share that more widely to inform this committee’s work?

That is helpful. There is a degree of uncertainty around the new benefits that are coming on stream this year, particularly the pension-age disability payment, which will replace the attendance allowance. You have said that costings remain highly uncertain in that space. To what extent has your experience of forecasting other disability payments informed your costings and assessment of the pension-age disability payment?

One thing that will not help with the cost of living crisis is slashing the affordable housing supply budget by more than a quarter in real terms in the coming year. Anti-poverty charities such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have used words such as “disappointing”, “brutal” and “baffling” to describe the decision. Surely access to affordable housing is the bedrock of dealing with cost of living pressures. When will the Government recognise that there is a housing emergency on its watch and take action—including by reviewing its budget decisions, which are exacerbating the cost of living crisis?

I am sure that the minister will want to note that that suggestion, which came from civil servants, was not taken forward by the UK Labour Government and was, in fact, dismissed. For the accuracy of the debate, she will want to acknowledge that.

We gather in a new year but, in many ways, not much has changed on the issues that we are debating or the approaches that are being taken to asylum policy and legislation. Prior to Christmas, we had no fewer than five debates on asylum, which covered issues ranging from the Illegal Migration Bill—now the Illegal Migration Act 2023—and the provision of free bus travel for asylum seekers to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s important inquiry into the experience of asylum seekers and refugees and the Scottish Government’s latest independence paper on migration. Those debates have been most beneficial when we have found consensus on our approach and discussed how we can use the Parliament’s powers to make a real difference to the lives of refugees and asylum seekers in Scotland and continue to support them. I point to the important recommendations in the committee’s report in that regard.

On each of those occasions, and in many other debates last year, Labour members condemned the shambolic and uncaring asylum system that the UK Conservative Government operates. On each of those occasions, we reiterated the need for a more humane approach to asylum processing and migration and that migrants, refugees and asylum seekers should feel safe and welcome when fleeing persecution, war and violence. Each time that we have come to the chamber to debate those issues, Labour members have asked the Scottish Government what more it can do to support asylum seekers, address the issues that are outlined in the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s report and respond to the challenges that are posed by the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

It may be a new year, as I said, but we have not seen a new approach from the UK Government, which continues to press ahead with the Rwanda scheme despite it being ruled illegal. Next week, it will again be rushed through the House of Commons in its new form. Suella Braverman may have gone as Home Secretary, but the pernicious approach persists, with Tory MPs now battling it out to see how the plan can be made even more deplorable. We have a Prime Minister who now privately thinks that it does not work but clearly sees culture wars as his last throw of the dice this year. I quote Yvette Cooper in the House of Commons yesterday:

“In the end, the only deterrence that the Prime Minister believes in is deterring his Back Benchers from getting rid of him. It is weak … and the taxpayer is paying the price.

It is a totally farcical situation: a Prime Minister who does not think it is a deterrent, a Home Secretary who thinks it is ‘batshit’, a former Home Secretary who says it will not work, a former Immigration Minister who says it does not do the job and everyone”

else who thinks that it is a complete

“sham”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 9 January 2024; Vol 743, c 228.]

Labour has been clear that we would scrap the Rwanda scheme. It is unethical, unworkable and extortionate. We need real policy changes to deal with the challenges that we face, not the gimmicks that the Conservatives continue to pursue. That is why Labour has set out a five-point plan to fix the asylum system—to form cross-border policing units to crack down on the smuggler gangs that are trafficking people and putting people into unthinkable situations; to clear the backlogs, which we have heard about, to end the long waits and the expensive use of hotels; to reform legal routes for refugees coming to this country; to negotiate new returns and a family reunion agreement with France and other European countries; and to tackle humanitarian crises at source and better support refugees in their own regions. It is simply disingenuous—

I will finish this point and then I will give way. It is disingenuous to say that there would be no change with a Labour Government.

I will.

I am very sorry, Deputy Presiding Officer. I blame Yvette Cooper rather than myself, but I take the point, which was well made. I apologise to any colleagues who may have found the language in question offensive.

I want to answer Donald Cameron’s question directly, because there was some commentary on the issue over the Christmas period. It is clear that the processing of asylum claims in third countries can and does happen in a number of scenarios. For example, people from Ukraine and Hong Kong can have their cases considered while they are in those countries. We can certainly look at the processing of people’s asylum claims when they are in a safe country. For example, it would be worth looking at whether the asylum claim of an asylum seeker who had arrived in France could be considered while they were there. What the Labour Party is absolutely clear about is that we should not offshore asylum claims to third countries such as Rwanda. We stand against the proposal that the Conservative Government continues to make in that regard.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I want to focus on the approach that we should take in this Parliament. Over several debates, I have raised my concern that we must do more to ensure that our local councils and communities are able to support asylum seekers when they live in those communities, and to ensure that we are taking the action that we can take against the Conservatives’ Illegal Migration Act 2023 and its immigration policies.

I have raised with the minister a number of times the importance of having a mitigation plan and the work that the Scottish Refugee Council is calling for in that regard. In our most recent exchange, the minister committed to engaging in on-going work with the Scottish Refugee Council. It is clear that commencement of the IMA is definitely upon us in 2024, so I am keen to hear more from the minister or Christina McKelvie in her summing up—

That said, the Scottish Refugee Council has highlighted a number of issues on which action could be prepared and planned. It is incumbent on us and on the Government to ensure that those preparations are well advanced, because we know where some of the most serious impacts will arise.

Given that time in the chamber is limited, it would be productive, as I said, for us to focus on some of the work that we can do. The minister mentioned the new Scots and ending destitution strategies and the fact that a refreshed new Scots strategy is due in March. It is important that we continue to scrutinise that work and ensure that the voices of lived experience and the third sector organisations that are so crucial are heard in the formulation of those strategies, and that we push them forward to ensure that we provide good support to asylum seekers and migrants in Scotland.

Our amendment outlines the challenges that exist in relation to local authority budgets and the provision that local authorities can make, not least in the context of the challenges that exist in housing. The promise to provide 110,000 affordable houses by 2031 is unlikely ever to be met by the Government after it cut the affordable housing supply budget by 30 per cent in real terms this year. It is crucial that it is borne in mind that the decisions that are taken in that regard will have a knock-on impact on all our communities, including on the members of those communities who are new Scots or people who are seeking refuge and asylum.

It is clear to me from speaking to people in local authorities that they are really struggling to keep services on the road and to ensure that populations are being well looked after. It is therefore crucial that we get to the nub of the issue, which is the need for sustainable local authority funding and for local authorities to have the resources that they need to support all their citizens.

It is important that we continue to call out the UK Conservative Government for its failed policies and its callous approach. It is clear that change will come with a UK Labour Government, which will take a different approach to our asylum system and ensure that we treat people with dignity. However, for our part, here in Scotland, we need to ensure that we use all the powers of this place to support asylum seekers and our local communities.

I move amendment S6M-11803.2, to insert at end:

“; acknowledges the pressure placed upon local government budgets after a decade of Scottish Government cuts; calls for fair funding settlements from the Scottish Government for local authorities; notes that Scottish Government commitments to provide safe and secure accommodation for refugees must come with support for local authorities to provide suitable long-term housing, and acknowledges that Scottish Government cuts to affordable housing budgets will negatively affect local authorities’ ability to provide adequate accommodation for refugees.”

As convener of the cross-party group on changing places toilets, I am delighted to participate in this evening’s debate. I thank Jeremy Balfour not just for securing the debate on his motion but for the work that he does more widely with the CPG and in Parliament to keep these issues at the forefront, as is vital.

The cross-party group was established to keep focus on an important issue. This evening, we have heard about how important the issue is to people who rely on changing places toilets, and to their families and carers. The group was largely inspired by the campaigners and by the people whose lived experience was the often patchy provision across Scotland.

What inspires me most when the cross-party group meets is our hearing not just about the experiences of many people in trying to attend hospital appointments or to get to the various supports that they need, but about the experiences of families with young children who have complex needs, who want, as all members would, to live spontaneously—for example, to go on holiday, take day trips or just go to the shops. The lack of facilities is a real challenge to living with the spontaneity that everyone deserves in their everyday life.

I pay tribute to some of the people in the cross-party group—in particular, to Angela Dulley, who has been a driving force; to PAMIS, via which secretariat support for Angela has been received; and to all the individuals and organisations who have come together and pushed issues forward.

I never thought, when I became a parliamentarian, that I would spend time looking at toilets and at potential sites for them, but that is what I now do. I must say that I have become something of a geek when it comes to what is required to make a toilet a bona fide changing places toilet. I have been delighted to see many community organisations and local authorities taking the active steps that are needed to put them in place—in particular, in Rouken Glen park in my constituency, which has allowed people to use the park more freely.

In addition, I recently visited Tyndrum—which was spoken about by Evelyn Tweed and is in her constituency—to meet Sarah Heward and the campaign team there, who are bringing together local businesses and community organisations to provide a vital facility. However, what was interesting about my visit to Tyndrum is the challenge that remains when it comes to levering in the funding that we have been speaking about—£10 million—for communities across Scotland to begin to plug gaps. Communities, local organisations, community councils and businesses are willing to put in funding themselves and to attract funding from other organisations. However, support from Government could make a crucial difference as enabling funding or as the last piece of funding to allow a project to be delivered for a community and people more widely who wish to use a facility. What is coming across loud and clear from the cross-party group and from campaigners across Scotland is that we need a sense of urgency about that money.

We have rehearsed some of the arguments that I am sure the minister will hear tomorrow when she comes to the cross-party group. There are concerns about the length of time that it will take to get the money out the door. I appreciate that such things can take time, but campaigners would like to know what will be the criteria for getting the money. How will it be given? Who will it be given to? How will it be applied for? When will it come? That information is crucial, because if we waste more time when we do not know those things and do not deliver the money, projects will stall and will become more expensive and, crucially, we will not move forward on the agenda.

The issue is key to the lives of many of our fellow Scots: it is about a basic human right and basic decency. It is time that we got the money out the door and into communities, where it is needed.