It has been very interesting being able to read the tracker and to see the work that you have been doing.

I want to pick up on lessons learned from other neighbours of the EU. The European Free Trade Association has been going on for decades. What are the lessons that the UK can learn about being a neighbour of Europe but not now being in the EU? Are there any lessons from the other non-EU neighbours of the EU on the economy, divergence and trade deals?

That is very useful insight. Joël Reland, do you have any perspective on that?

Today, Parliament has demonstrated democracy in action. All our leaders have expressed solidarity with the people of Ukraine and have called for action to stop the military invasion. Colleagues from all across the chamber have highlighted the peril that the world now faces.

For days, I have, like others, been watching analysis and late-night “Newsnight” interviews, following the coverage of Putin’s statements and of the build-up of troops on the border, and listening to the ramping up of aggression. We, our European neighbours, the US and the UN have spoken out on the need for respect for nation states, and have called for dialogue in order to de-escalate the tensions that are being promoted. We are members of NATO, and we have links across the UK, the EU and the US, which are vital. We need to warn of the cost and consequences of military intervention. Relations across democracies will never be perfect, but we are allies and we should treat one other with respect and co-operate, and we should work between our Parliaments and Governments to deliver solidarity.

As a student of 20th century history, I have—filled with dread—watched what has happened in the past few weeks. We are now in the last place that we want to be in. It is a dangerous place for the people of Ukraine and, as colleagues have suggested, for the world as a whole. We need to send a firm and unambiguous message about our commitment to the security of our allies and the sovereignty of Ukraine.

In recent weeks in our Parliament, there have been excellent debates on Holocaust memorial day and on the Nationality and Borders Bill. The lessons on the immediate and long-term costs of people suffering and having to flee from military aggression are stark.

While expressing solidarity with the people of Ukraine, we must do everything that we can to support them in their time of need. That means action. It means humanitarian support for people who might have to flee from Ukraine, with safe routes and good futures. We debated that on Tuesday, this week. As Anas Sarwar made clear, we have a moral responsibility to deliver humanitarian support.

As many members across the chamber have said, sanctions are crucial, so that there is a cost to the Russian regime for its aggressive actions and to make it clear to Putin that there will be massive costs for his actions. However, there is much more that the UK Government can do. Our Labour colleagues in the UK Parliament have been holding the UK Government to account on the cost of the lack of action on the Russia report. As Keir Starmer has highlighted this week, oligarchs and millionaires have had free deals to come to the UK, buy property and make profits with no tax accountability or transparency. That has to end now.

As others have said—Fiona Hyslop said this powerfully—we need to crack down on money laundering and shell companies. As an article in The Guardian yesterday observed, we need a crackdown on donations to the Conservative Party. The debate is not about whether that happened, but about how much was donated.

We also need to work together to challenge false messaging. In recent weeks, we have debated the benefits of the BBC and the public broadcasting and news standards that we have in our regulated media. We have observed that our Governments are not always happy with the media, but we have standards of accuracy, which are vital. It is time to challenge RT, which does not apply such standards of rigour and accuracy. It is shocking to think that a former First Minister of Scotland is still spearheading that channel in the UK. We all need to reflect on that. The Russian Government has used false messaging in relation to Donbas and Luhansk in recent days, so urgent action is required now.

Crucially, we need to stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people and to support those who need to flee to safety. We need to condemn the deliberate escalation and the misinformation in the lead up to the invasion of Ukraine, and we need to work together to tackle Russian money laundering. We need to support every effort to de-escalate the crisis that the world now faces and we need to call for an end to the military aggression and intimidation.

This afternoon, I attended a peaceful solidarity demonstration outside the Russian consulate. People in Ukraine who have relatives living in Scotland are worried about and fearful for their families and the future of their country. They say that they have been calling for years for stronger action on and sanctions against the influence of corrupt Russian money.

We must act and reflect. We must remove Russia from financial mechanisms such as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. We must come together now to do everything that we can do.

I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture will say in his closing speech what more we can do to stand resolutely with our allies to send a clear message and to protect Scotland from cyberattacks. I hope that he will tell us what the Scottish Government is doing to reach out and support people in the event of devastating humanitarian consequences of what is happening in Ukraine.

As others have said, there is a growing crisis in Ukraine, but we also need to send a message to leaders across the world that aggression and lack of respect for sovereignty are not acceptable. We must stand up for democracy across the globe.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its plans for enabling local authorities to bring in a transient visitor levy. (S6O-00767)

I thank the minister for that answer, but it does not tell me when legislation on a visitor levy is likely to be brought to the Parliament. Will he tell us a bit about the legislation? Will it enable local authorities to decide whether to use the powers, and how to use them, without needing approval from the Scottish Government? Will the minister confirm that there will not be any impact on the local government settlement for any council that chooses to use the levy?

I, too, welcome Neil Gray to his new role.

I make it clear that the Scottish Labour Party does not support the Nationality and Borders Bill. My UK Labour colleagues have opposed the bill; we do, too. The bill will not solve the problem of dangerous boat crossings that are putting lives at risk. It proposes unworkable solutions that will cost the taxpayer about £2.7 billion and it undermines international humanitarian conventions at a time when co-operation is needed more than ever.

In its excellent briefing, Amnesty International got straight to the point. It said:

“The draconian measures in the ... Bill will largely shut down the UK’s asylum system as it fails to provide any safe and legal routes for those attempting to seek asylum in the UK.”

It also noted that the bill will have far-reaching consequences for people who are living in Scotland under immigration control.

In their amendment, the Scottish Conservatives wash their hands of responsibility for the bill—they simply say that is outwith legislative competence. However, the Scottish Refugee Council and JustRight Scotland commissioned a legal opinion that highlights that the bill reaches into devolved competence, particularly around differential treatment based on route of arrival, age assessment, and human trafficking and exploitation. Therefore, legislative consent is required.

At the end of the day, LCMs are about respect: respect for devolution, respect for this Parliament and respect for our constituents. Avoiding scrutiny of a bill that will impact on Scotland’s distinct criminal justice system and on our specific procedures relating to safeguarding, by avoiding debate, would be wrong.

I was disappointed by Donald Cameron’s speech, because he did not acknowledge the fundamental problems with and the inequalities in the bill. He dodged around its impact on devolved responsibilities and on the need for cross-government work, whether that is between the UK and Scottish Governments or between the Scottish Government and local government.

Earlier today, the Scottish Refugee Council contacted me and urged me to ask the Conservatives some questions. It wants to know whether they have considered

“the real-life and imminent implications of what they are saying? Are they comfortable with Scottish police and prosecutors picking up an Afghan woman arriving irregularly fleeing the Taliban? Or a Ukrainian family fleeing a Russian invasion arriving without papers? Both will be criminalised as a direct result of this legislation, inhumane in itself, and a gross waste of public monies. That is what the Conservatives are supporting. They are also disagreeing with ex-Prime Minister John Major, who described, rightly, this specific ‘unlawful arrival’ offence as ‘punishment without compassion.’”

The UK Tory Government is promising that the bill will stop boats arriving and that it will return people who travel in them, despite the number of boats arriving having increased tenfold in the past two years. Border Force officials have privately said that a push-back policy for boat crossings is dangerous, unworkable and could put more lives at risk. France has refused to agree to receiving boats safely back, so such push backs cannot even happen in practice. Labour has said from the start that that is a dangerous and wrong approach. The UK Government should be doing everything that it can to stop more lives being lost; it should not be making those perilous journeys even more dangerous.

The reality is that nothing in the bill will deliver safety. It shifts the cost of UK Government incompetence on to people who are fleeing their homes for a safer life, and it undermines the international system that we have been operating under for more than 70 years.

Article 31 of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees basically says that no one should treat a person who is looking for safety as though they are acting illegally. The principle understands that a person’s decision to leave their home and their life is not taken lightly. When someone arrives without authorisation, they should not be penalised, provided that they

“present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.

The Tories think that it is acceptable to give up on that foundational principle, but we have the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the continuing situation in Syria and, of course, the advance of Russian troops into Ukraine that is happening right now. How can the UK Government and its party counterparts here keep a straight face while defending the bill? The Labour Party signed the UK up to the refugee convention in 1951 and will not abandon it today.

The UK Government claims that the bill will stop trafficking gangs, but the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner has explicitly said that the bill

“will severely limit our ability to convict perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups.”

It will remove key protections for victims of human trafficking and modern slavery by rowing back on the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and it will make identification and protection of modern slavery victims more difficult. We in Scotland have to be concerned about that.

Under the bill, if the Home Office wants to remove a person’s citizenship, it will no longer need even to warn them or tell them, which is a massive worry for people across the country. Citizenship is the right to live in a country. Without it, people cannot vote and might struggle to work, access education and healthcare and look after their children.

There is a risk that ethnic minority people and refugees will be treated unfairly and become second-class citizens. That is why Labour in Scotland, Wales and England opposes the attack on refugees, ethnic minorities and international law. I call on the Conservatives to think again, to look at the impact of the bill, including its impact on us in Scotland and on our devolved competence, and to withdraw their amendment.

I want to follow up on the issue, given the potential impact of the bill on the Scottish Parliament’s competences. Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on whether he has been able to have a conversation with the UK Government on the issue? Given that those new intergovernmental relations are now theoretically in place, has he asked for a meeting? It would certainly be useful for Parliament to get some feedback on progress, so that we can have transparency, and for us to be able to look at the bill when it comes forward.

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

We have a housing crisis, with Zoopla reporting on its site today that the average rent in Edinburgh has risen to £974 a month. Only 14 per cent of Edinburgh’s homes are available for social rent, compared to the national average of 23 per cent, and Scottish Government grant funding for homes covers only a fraction of the build costs. Will the Scottish Government commit to investing in Edinburgh, to bring the number of social rented homes here closer to the national average?

7.

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to ensure that children living in temporary accommodation have access to permanent homes. (S6O-00738)

I, too, thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for securing the debate, which is timely. The BBC ensures that we all have access to high-quality broadcasting, whether through our TVs, on our radios or, increasingly, on our phones or online. In response to Donald Cameron, I say: yes, the world is changing, but that makes the BBC more important than ever.

The BBC ensures that we have fantastic opportunities to access top-quality programming and diverse TV, film, news and web content, and it represents the best of what we in this country can create. It also provides the World Service, which is about not just the international soft power of the BBC, with its reputation for reliability and impartiality, but what we all can access around the globe.

The BBC is important to each and every part of the UK, particularly for us, with BBC Scotland, Radio Scotland, Radio nan Gàidheal and BBC Alba. It goes further into our communities, however, with regional news and programming and local radio stations for Orkney and Shetland and opt-out local news bulletins for the north-east, the Highlands and Islands, the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway.

There is targeted programming for people across the UK, wherever they live, on TV and radio, in Welsh and in Gaelic, and through the BBC Asian Network, which gives people access and accessibility that they did not previously have. There has also been innovation with podcasts, sports and weather coverage, and even free recipes written by experts. That is all available at our fingertips for 44p a day.

I want to reiterate some of the points that were made by Alex Cole-Hamilton. We have about 1,300 specialist jobs in media and production, developing Scottish talent with comedies such as “Scot Squad”, soaps such as “River City”, and dramas such as “Shetland” and, most recently, “Vigil”. There has also been a fantastic range of documentaries.

I hope that colleagues will agree that we need to do everything that we can to support the current model of the BBC. I am not saying that it is perfect—no organisation is—but let us not put at risk the quality and range of productions and programmes to score cheap points in tabloid papers. That is not acceptable. Access to public broadcasting is part of who we are, and knowing that we can rely on the news for accuracy and fairness is a critical part of our democracy. Whoever is in government will have moments of unhappiness. It is the nature of the work of a public broadcaster to ask difficult questions of ministers and Governments.

The Tory proposals are not about the public interest; they are about pandering to right-wing Tory MPs, who regard the BBC as being too liberal. To respond to the points that Donald Cameron made, I say that that is not where Nadine Dorries is coming from, with her real-terms cut of £3.2 billion to the BBC and her suggestion that the universal licence fee could be abolished by 2027, with no clarity on what it would be replaced by. Who would pay for the World Service, for example? It is a critical part of us.

I hope that we can work across the chamber. I know that SNP colleagues have critiques to make, and the BBC is not perfect, but let us keep the BBC and think about how it can be improved and how it can be better. Labour supports impartial public broadcasting, even when it is critical of us, because we live in a democracy. Politicians and political parties should not be above criticism, not just here but in countries across the world, which rely on the BBC for impartial journalism. That is why the World Service is so important.

I reiterate that we are not against change or innovation. We have a system of accountability in the UK, and let us consider how to improve it, but we get rid of the BBC at our peril. The proposed privatisation of Channel 4 also undermines broadcasting. I agree with Jenni Minto on what she said in her speech about “cultural vandalism”.

The BBC is incredible value for money—£159 for a licence fee that lasts a year. We should think about the different subscriptions that we would have to pay to get what we currently get from the BBC: that would cost a lot more, we would lose out on investment in our music and in our creative sectors, and we would lose out on jobs and innovation. Just this year, the award-winning BBC Three is back—something that young people want. Let us not put all of that at risk. The BBC needs universal funding.