Chamber and committees

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

During the recess, there was a protest outside the asylum hotel in Westhill, just outside Aberdeen. There were three groups: the protest, the counter-protest and a group at the other side of the road, where I was, who were just watching what was going on.

Regardless of what people think of the protesters, we have to acknowledge that a lot of people are angry at what they see going on over immigration. Let us set this straight up front: legal migration is good, our country is great and it is the way it is today because of legal, controlled migration. We owe so much to those who have come to this country and who call the United Kingdom their home. We are in a position where we can control our own borders, and we can attract the skills and professions that we need—be they doctors, dentists or nurses, all of whom we have a shortage of. The problem that fellow Scots are angry about is illegal migration.

The First Minister likes to remind us at every opportunity that we are a country that follows the rule of law.

If people are coming here illegally, it is illegal migration. I think that is the term that everyone accepts. When it comes to illegal immigration, the Government is quite happy to look the other way and welcome with open arms these individuals who have dangerously entered the country illegally.

The SNP seems genuinely confused about what is legal and what is illegal. Let me try to spell it out for its members. A person applying for a visa, being granted that visa, bringing their skills to the UK and contributing to our economy is perfectly legal—and welcome. Crossing the Channel in a small boat is illegal. Not only that—it is dangerous and life threatening, and it enables criminals. We should not be welcoming people into this country who cross the Channel illegally. If SNP members cannot understand that, it proves that they are out of touch with communities right across Scotland, who are angry.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Transport for her explanation of the legislative consent motion, as I now know a little more about it. It is a pity that there has not been time for the legislative consent memorandum to be considered at committee so that we could understand more about it. The Parliament has standing orders for a reason: they are there so that we can have good governance and so that committees can review and report on legislative consent motions. Committees produce such reports so that members who are not on the committee can learn what changes are being proposed and give their consent to them. There has been no report on this legislative consent memorandum and it has not been reviewed by a committee. We have not examined what the legislation will mean or asked bus operators for their views. We do not know whether the legislation will have any unintended consequences. It might be a simple legislative consent motion with no, or limited, impact, but we have had very little description of it, so it is difficult to take a view.

I am not blaming the cabinet secretary or the devolved Government for the compressed timescale. From what I can tell, the UK Government has set the timelines. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport will write to the UK Government to remind it of the Parliament’s standing orders, expressing her concern that the timescales that were given for consent were not realistic. The Parliament and its members have a clear role to play in creating laws, and we should not be sidetracked by any Government, regardless of its colour. That is why we will not support the motion.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Stephen Kerr is right. Whether we like to talk about it or not, these are the real concerns of people outside. We are here as a Parliament, and we have to represent the views of all those people.

There is no real deterrent in this country. The Rwanda scheme was perhaps not perfect and not liked by everyone, but it would have been a start. Instead, we have Labour and the SNP sending out all the wrong signals. We should not be encouraging illegal immigrants to cross the Channel in dinghies, allegedly fleeing persecution, conflict or danger in war-torn France. We simply cannot cope.

The Government needs to understand the strain that communities are under due to high levels of illegal migration. Scots struggle to get appointments at dentists and GPs, and NHS waiting lists have spiralled out of control. We have a housing emergency and people cannot get into social housing. The list of pressures goes on. Jamie Greene is right that those pressures existed before. However, if members think that illegal immigration is not playing a part in all of this, they are deluded. Hard-working families who have paid into the state for their whole lives are being forgotten about. That is the view of people out there.

People see that our public services are under strain. Local councils that already face a funding crisis due to years of SNP austerity are left to pick up the tab for the SNP’s open-door policy. The SNP Government needs to listen to our communities and to our hard-working Scots, who are angry because they are paying more and getting less.

Climate change is obviously a global issue that needs a global response. How might the impacts of climate change globally affect life in Scotland? Will we still get our tea from India and our oranges from Spain, for example? How will it affect everyday life in Scotland? Andrew Russell, do you want to come in first? We are just trying to understand what climate change might mean in the future for people here.

Does anybody else want to comment?

Yes, a little bit.

I will also go back to the point that Kevin Stewart made about the trust that people have in the whole process. We spoke about the potential benefits of moving to net zero, but do people understand the potential costs when it comes to insulating their home or changing their heating or vehicle? Are people aware, and do they accept, that that will have to come at a cost? Is there enough detail in the carbon budgets on the costs going forward?

Will the energy strategy be introduced at the same time as the plan?