Chamber and committees

I suppose that the fine line that you mentioned is about where cases go. Currently, they go to either the High Court or the sheriff court. You said that, in the case of the High Court, an advocate depute has a single case and you talked about the cost of that. Will that fine line disappear with the specialist court? In other words, who will you instruct to take on those cases? Will ADs take them on? How will you decide on that, if there is no distinction between cases, as there is at the moment, which means that you decide to send them either to the High Court or to the sheriff court, if you see what I mean?

I am looking for some clarity from you, Danielle. The proposals that we have to scrutinise are huge, so it is really important to understand what the measures would look like if they were passed into law. I am sure that you will tell me if you are the wrong person to respond to this.

Something is confusing me about an answer that you gave to a question from Russell Findlay about a murder case. At the moment, murder can be tried only in the High Court, because it is the most serious crime and it attracts the highest sentence. If there is a sexual element, it will attract an even higher sentence. That is where I need clarity. Surely there could be no change to that. I am concerned about there being some grey area, such that murder cases could go to a court that is designed for sexual offences. I do not understand why there is any grey area for cases where the victim is dead. Will you explain?

That is clear. Will that change?

Asylum is normally granted in the UK if a person is unable to live safely in any part of their own country because of potential persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or anything else that puts them at risk due to the social, cultural, religious or political situation in their home country. At least, that was the policy that we had for many years. As the minister said in her opening speech, the UK signed up to treaties that reflected those principles.

Priti Patel is long gone, but the UK Government’s current immigration plans could not be more against such treaty principles. It is disastrous, callous and completely inefficient into the bargain, and it is becoming an international joke on the back of the recent court decision on the Rwanda policy. We are paying millions of pounds to the French to get their co-operation in preventing migrants from coming here, but even the French are saying that the UK is failing. I echo the Scottish Refugee Council’s principle that we are a strong and resilient nation and that we can, and should, do far better.

There is a correlation between geopolitical matters, including conflict, and the extent of migration. That is a highly sensitive political issue that requires all politicians to understand that world affairs, including climate change and war, have implications for migration.

We know that, after 40 years of conflict, and the recent return of a Taliban Government, Afghan refugees have become the third largest displaced population in the world. More than 1.6 million such refugees, for whom Britain had some responsibility, fled the country in 2021. We did not serve the Afghans well and many were not allowed to flee to the UK.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, 38,000 Ukrainians have taken advantage of the UK Government sponsorship programme, so there have been some very welcome programmes that show that we can support people fleeing persecution in other countries.

We are now witnessing the longest and deepest offensive that has ever been seen in the Gaza strip. There will be geopolitical consequences of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population. Although we must robustly resist any forced evacuation of the occupied territory of Gaza, which faces obliteration, a percentage of that population will inevitably seek refuge in the rest of the world, so we must live up to our responsibilities.

There are 5,500 people in asylum-supported accommodation in Glasgow and 1,800 people living in 21 institutional hotels across 13 local authorities in Scotland. On average, people live in those environments for at least nine months and are often stuck in state-imposed severe poverty and forced unemployment because, as we have heard, very few people are permitted to access any work.

There is a backlog in Home Office decision making on asylum cases, which never seems to be under control. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of months that people spend waiting for their claims to be processed. The Home Office has also begun its hotel maximisation policy. One of the aspects of the policy that makes me most uncomfortable is compulsory room sharing for hotel and hostel residents in Scotland. That is totally unacceptable. It does not fit the principles of any treaty that the UK has signed up to and can be extremely traumatising for individuals. Those hotels are often in isolated areas, making it more difficult for the people living in them to access the community support services that they need.

We have seen tragedies unfold as a result of such conditions: back in 2020, the asylum seeker Badreddin Abdalla Adam made 72 calls for help to the Home Office and the charity Migrant Help before he killed six people in the Glasgow Park Inn—an absolute tragedy.

During the pandemic, leading up to the tragedy, Glasgow asylum seekers were removed from their residences to be placed in hotels, simultaneously being stripped of their £35 weekly support allowance. Three years later, that figure is down to £9 a week. I do not regard that as being a dignified existence. In that particular accommodation, residents were unable to socially distance or to buy things such as mobile phone top-ups in order to stay in touch with their families back home or, indeed, their lawyers.

Sixteen other people have died in asylum-seeker accommodation in Scotland since 2016, some of whom took their own lives. Such events should never happen, which is why it is important that local authorities are funded adequately to play the role that they want to play. I am proud of my city of Glasgow, which has historically played an important role in relation to asylum seekers.

On the Rwanda policy, which many members have talked about, it is important to understand the Supreme Court’s decision. One of the reasons that the Supreme Court came to the view that it did is because it did not believe that Rwandan authorities would make fair decisions in relation to claimants. It is important to note that, even in cases in which the person had a successful application, they would never see the United Kingdom. It is a bizarre, strange and completely callous policy.

Across Europe, many countries are facing similar challenges, and immigration is often talked about in a negative way. However, I think that many members of this Parliament—I think that there is some common ground here—see immigration as a positive thing. Scotland should play its role, and we can play a role as a devolved Parliament. I look forward to hearing the other speeches in the debate, because I think that Scotland can do more and play a more strategic and positive role in relation to immigration and asylum seekers.

The Scottish SPCA has said:

“There is no need for a caring owner in England or Wales to move a dog to Scotland, as they have until January 31 to register their dogs and comply with the conditions for exemption.”

Any owner moving a dog after 31 December will be committing an offence.

Jamie Greene said that there is evidence that XL bully dogs are being brought to Scotland. How will we prevent that if Scotland appears to be a safe haven? Does the answer not lie in Scotland being more aligned with England and Wales to ensure not just that we prevent such movements, but that we protect the welfare of dogs, some of which are being destroyed on the back of the policy?

Women across the country are being alerted to an increase in spiking. In 2021, worryingly, we started seeing cases of spiking by injection. The most commonly used drugs are gamma hydroxybutyrate—GHB—Rohypnol and ketamine. Spiking constitutes the crime of drugging under the common law in Scotland and can be a statutory crime under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. As the First Minister has identified, it is mainly women who are targeted, but not exclusively. The key characteristics of those drugs are that they are odourless, tasteless and colourless. They can affect the memory, which can make it difficult to report spiking crimes.

As the First Minister has outlined, there are great campaigns relating to those who have been spiked, but I believe that prevention must be central to the strategy. Does the First Minister agree that it is vital to continue to have discussions with the night-time industry, which is already alert to the issue? Spiking is currently not recorded as a category of crime under the Scottish Government’s statistics. Does the First Minister think that it should be? Does he agree with Dawn Fyfe of Glasgow-based Wise Women, who asks that women remain vigilant, especially over the Christmas period?

We are not.

To ask the First Minister whether, and how, the Scottish Government plans to increase awareness of spiking ahead of Christmas and New Year. (S6F-02679)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it has reviewed the general practitioner services model, including in relation to whether patients are getting appointments when they need them. (S6O-02908)

A rapidly increasing number of patients are seeking GP appointments, but that demand, combined with cuts to the primary care development fund, is placing immense pressure on GP services and leaving many patients to face long delays or simply unable to get an appointment when they need one. GPs are often taking double, if not triple, the recommended limit of 25 consultations a day, and Audit Scotland has said that the Government is “unlikely” to deliver its promise of 800 new GPs by 2027.

I ask the cabinet secretary to address a specific point about the design of the appointment system. Some patients report that they use one system and can get an appointment, and other patients report that their GP uses a completely different system and that they have to wait longer for an appointment. Does the cabinet secretary agree that every patient across Scotland should expect the same service design—