Chamber and committees

I raise this issue time and again when we debate such matters because of the Scottish Refugee Council’s calls for a comprehensive piece of work. What interaction has the minister had with the Scottish Refugee Council on those points and on its calls for a clear mitigation plan?

I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. As other members have done, I express my party’s sorrow at the news that a person who was seeking asylum has lost his life on the Bibby Stockholm barge. As the minister said, we do not yet know the circumstances of the incident, but we hope that the Home Office will undertake a full and frank investigation to understand what has happened. Our thoughts are with all those who are connected with that incident.

I thank my fellow members of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for their work on the report, as well as all the parliamentary staff and clerks who work behind the scenes on conducting a committee inquiry and producing such a report. That requires a team approach, which was very much the committee’s sense when we were developing that piece of work. Scottish Labour welcomes the report into the challenges that asylum seekers face. It is a strong and important piece of work on how we can better support asylum seekers through their experience in Scotland.

I am sure that it is hard for us all to imagine having to leave our homes and our families because of the horrors—both natural and man-made—that this world can contain. For many of us, having to make the decision to travel great distances for the sake of our own and our family’s safety, and then take a chance on asking for help from others in a state that we might never have been to before, is unthinkable. That is the context in which we must always approach the issues that the committee sought to explore in its inquiry. We heard that story so many times, both from asylum seekers themselves and from the organisations that support them, in the course of taking evidence for our report. I thank all the individuals and organisations involved for their full and frank engagement with the committee and for sharing their stories and their work. Asylum seekers’ stories were often very personal and, I am sure, difficult to share time and again. We are very grateful to everyone who did so.

It is incumbent on us to do all that we can to support people who are seeking asylum. As a bare minimum, we owe it to people not to make their lives more difficult, stressful and exhausting. Unfortunately, as the committee heard at plenty of points in our evidence taking, we do not always succeed in that task, both here in Scotland and across the UK.

Today, we meet to debate the committee’s report in the context of the strategy of a callous Conservative Government that is currently tearing itself apart over its inhumane and ineffective plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. It is a Government in chaos, which cannot and will not deliver an asylum system that works in the humanitarian interests that I have mentioned. That is off the back of the shameful Illegal Migration Act 2023, which it introduced. We have previously debated the challenges that that act poses. We have heard members from across the chamber say that they do not agree with what the Government is seeking to do, and that it will not build a system that is rooted in the humanity that I spoke about; in fact, it will do the complete opposite.

I will come on to speak about why we need fundamental change in the system. We need a completely different approach to migration to the United Kingdom and to those who come to our shores to seek refuge and asylum. Labour has outlined in a five-point plan the fundamentally different approach that we would take if we were to form the next Government. It would not seek to do many of the things that are currently happening, as I have outlined.

We need a broader conversation. Colleagues from across the Parliament have mooted different suggestions about what might work by looking around the world; one example is the Canadian model of looking at regional variations in migration—we could consider that in relation to the needs in the workforce in different parts of the United Kingdom. We are very open to those concepts.

I want to take some time to reflect on what we can do in Scotland to ensure that we continue to improve the experience of asylum seekers. We must ensure that we develop trauma-informed approaches and training for anyone in the public sector who works with asylum seekers. We must ensure that there is adequate funding and support for asylum support organisations across the country. We heard in the committee about the need for better access to support services for people who live in rural and island communities and who do not live in close proximity to our urban centres. Many of the issues that we covered in our report are in the gift of the Scottish Government or in its sphere of influence.

Although we are seeing progress at last on some issues, we have more to do. One item that I am sure that colleagues will comment on is access to public transport and bus travel in particular. I know that the Government has made a commitment on free bus travel for asylum seekers. We will wait for the detail in the budget before coming to firm conclusions on the delivery of that. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my colleague Paul Sweeney for his many years of campaigning work, along with other members from across the Parliament, in order to secure that commitment from the Government. I hope that the minister will continue to engage on that and on how it will be delivered.

Members were keen to hear more about the Government’s plans on mitigations to the Illegal Migration Act 2023. The minister and I have had an exchange on that before, so I would be keen for her to say more, now that we are a little further along than when we last debated the issue, about how some of the significant issues might be addressed in line with the calls from the Scottish Refugee Council and others.

I said that I would say something about Labour’s plans on shadow immigration at UK level. We have outlined a five-point plan for dealing with the asylum system and small boat crossings. It is focused on cracking down on smuggler gangs—we know the issues that are at play—clearing the backlog and ending hotel use. We have heard much from colleagues already about hotel use, particularly for women who are pregnant, and the issues therein. There are also issues around new agreements, safe returns, family reunions and tackling humanitarian crises at source. I am conscious of time, and so I will not get into the detail of that—I am sure that that will happen as we progress the debate.

I praise the report and the work that has gone into it. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the minister will be able to provide more detail on the recommendations that we have outlined as a committee—not just to repeat old promises and warm words but to ensure that there are concrete solutions that we have control over in Scotland, which will help people who are fleeing violence and other terrible situations to ensure that they are not faced with the same challenges here in Scotland.

Stuart McMillan seems to be suggesting that Labour somehow supports the bill that is being discussed in the House of Commons today and, indeed, the UK Government’s rhetoric. In my speech, I clearly outlined Labour’s approach to immigration and what a future Labour Government would do. It is clear that Labour MPs will oppose the Conservatives’ bill in the House of Commons tonight.

When the cabinet secretary made a statement to Parliament in April, in which she outlined the Government’s intention to take legal action, I asked her about wider supports for trans people in the intervening period, because any such legal process can create a vacuum. She said that, although the Government viewed the bill as being important, it was not the only area in which it was working to support the trans community in Scotland. Will she update Parliament further on what is being done to support trans people right now and in any further intervening period before the Government takes a decision?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. We have probably covered some of this, but are there other situations in which explicit consent would not be given but the information would be shared? I am thinking about some of the existing adult or child protection legislation and about interventions that may have to be made with other relevant authorities even though someone has not explicitly given their consent, in order to protect the public.

Let us turn to the stakeholder engagement that you have undertaken in preparing the bill. We have heard clear evidence on the importance of stakeholders’ lived experience and about its range, breadth and depth. Which areas might contribute to the expert advice that would go into the creation of the benefit?

I want to return to the comparison between a non-statutory working group and your proposal. Last week, the Government said that we will have a non-statutory working group. You touched on some of this in your exchange with Mr Doris, but it would be useful for us to hear you compare that working group with your proposed council. Why is having that on a statutory footing so important in ensuring that recommendations are acted on and implemented?

Your contention is that the Government would be able to abolish a working group on a whim, which would mean that we would lose the richness and diversity of representation. We heard the trade unions speak about the importance of having that worker representation. I also note Marie McNair’s point about gender balance being locked in under the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.

Essentially, you are saying that, without a statutory underpinning, the body would be much looser. Rather than the expertise that sits on it being chosen by the Government, you believe that it is important to lay out the requirements in statute so that there is a clear path to people being represented on it.

Good morning, Mr Griffin. I am keen to understand the opportunity for reform, which we have already mentioned. Last week, the Scottish Government, through the cabinet secretary, argued that the bill would not deliver a reformed benefit, and we have already heard discussion to that effect today. Will you explain how setting up SEIAC would address the desire for reform that was expressed by the stakeholders from whom we heard?