Chamber and committees

I will do, if the member can be brief.

It was not brief, but it is true. I was just about to mention section 35. The real effect of section 35 being exercised is the chilling effect that it will have on this Parliament and the Scottish Government when it considers what future legislation it wants to take forward for the people of Scotland. That would apply to any party in the Scottish Parliament.

Despite all the warm words about how powerful the Parliament is, the Tories in this Parliament have cheered the UK Government every step of the way. They do not see themselves as representatives of this devolved institution; they see themselves as agents of the Tory party and the Tory Government in Westminster. I am sure that that is a fundamental betrayal of the electorate that sent them here in the first place. They have cheered every step of the way of the UK Government riding roughshod over the democratically expressed views of the Scottish people.

In the meantime, I support the report. I echo the concerns that it expresses, and I commend its recommendations to the Parliament.

I joined the committee in September 2023, which was after the evidence-taking sessions had taken place but before the publication of the report. However, I have been a member of the Parliament since 2007, and I think that it is fair to say that the impact of Brexit on the Parliament is clear for all to see. I offer a little corrective to what Alex Rowley and Alex Cole-Hamilton are trying to portray—I do not know why they want to excuse what the Tory Government does, but they do. They may remember that when the Labour Party was in control of the Scottish Parliament along with the Liberal Democrats, Jack McConnell commissioned a report that showed that there was widespread ignorance of and indifference to our institution across the whole of Whitehall. That was under a Labour Government in the UK during the time that Labour was in power in Scotland.

It has often been said that power devolved is power retained. Although that has always been true, it is also true that, when the UK was a member of the EU, there was a degree of protection for the rights of Parliaments, such as ours, situated in larger EU states. That provided a framework of intergovernmental relationships that more or less worked as intended—although, of course, my preference has always been for Scotland to be an EU member state in its own right. When I say that I am an internationalist to my bones, I do not mean, as Alex Cole-Hamilton does, that I was an internationalist until Brexit happened and then I gave up on opposing Brexit; I opposed Brexit, and I oppose Brexit now.

As expressed in the conclusions of part 2 of the committee’s report, it is clear that devolution looks very different outside the EU compared with when the UK was a member state. The committee notes that there was considerable clarity, consistency and consensus in how the regulatory environment was managed within the UK prior to EU exit, whereas, after EU exit, there has been significant disagreement between the devolved institutions and the UK Government regarding how the regulatory environment should be managed within the UK. Jamie Greene is utterly deluded if he thinks that the UK Parliament would provide proper scrutiny of EU legislation. There is probably no academic whom he could cite who would back up that point of view. The UK Government has not provided that scrutiny in the past and it has done as much as it can to undermine Scotland’s ability to carry out such scrutiny.

As well as a change in the legislative framework, there has been a change in the attitude of the UK Government, which has already been mentioned. Muscular unionism is now the norm. That is very redolent—for those who can remember that time—of the mid-1990s, before the Tory Government, which was one of the most strident and least tolerant, was thrown out. As well as that change in attitude, many members have mentioned the UK Government’s willingness to override the Sewel convention. I remember the vow that we would have the strongest devolved Parliament in the world. Gordon Brown and David Cameron told us that. Part of that was to have the Sewel convention enshrined in law. Within a very short period of time, the Tory Westminster Government had moved on to saying before the Supreme Court that the Sewel convention was merely a self-denying ordinance—something that it could decide whether it wanted to observe. That is how quickly devolution has changed under this Conservative Government.

Much of the problem comes down to the ad hoc nature of the British constitution, whereby conventions and general principles apply until, of course, they do not apply. There is nothing hard and fast about how the UK operates. Although we are used to that by now, we should not put up with it. We should not normalise the idea that the holder of one of the most important offices of state in the UK—the Foreign Secretary—is just somebody plucked from elsewhere without being elected. There is also the proroguing of Parliament and the various other rules, which are not really rules.

The UK used to say that it was a model democracy—the mother of all Parliaments—and that it supported the separation of powers, but at the same time, we had the Lord Chancellor, who was in the Executive, the judiciary and the legislature. There has never been a separation of powers in the UK Parliament. Since the independence referendum, we have been repeatedly told that we are the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world. However, we have heard from the cabinet secretary of 11 times that the UK Government has run roughshod over the Sewel convention.

In 2016, David Cameron claimed that the Scotland Bill, once enacted, would deliver a very powerful devolved Parliament. Speaking to the House of Commons Liaison Committee last July, Rishi Sunak said:

“actually, the Scottish Government, as far as I recall from when I last looked at this, is probably the most powerful devolved Assembly anywhere in the world”.

It is as if, if they say it often enough and loud enough, people will eventually believe them, but that quote from Rishi Sunak gives the game away. In saying

“as far as I can recall”,

“when I last looked at this”,

and “probably”, I do not know whether he could have caveated it any heavier. The reality is that it is simply not true—this Parliament can be overruled and is being overruled by Westminster. The use of section 35 powers has had—

Just so that we are clear about the acme of good practice in making appointments, what does the member think of the appointment of people such as Michelle Mone to the House of Lords?

In the interests of a more rounded debate, will the member acknowledge that some of the issues with housing came about because the UK took so long to open its borders that it withdrew the local government resettlement fund tariff, which is available to help local authorities resettle people, and that Scotland has taken nearly 20 per cent of all Ukrainians who have come to the UK? Would that not add some pressure to the housing situation in Scotland?

It is two years since the invasion began, and much of the talk about the invasion in the media now, particularly in the light of other world events, is about war fatigue—the idea that public willingness to support Ukraine in the west is somehow beginning to slow down. I hope that that is not the case, and today’s debate is a chance for us to show that it is not the case here in Scotland. We need to show that we are reiterating our commitment as a nation to supporting the independence of Ukraine, first on its own merits, but also in order to protect human life. It is absolutely right that the motion states that clearly.

In relation to unity and consensus, I regret that there are comments in the amendments that are critical of the situation, noting the points that I have made about how slow the UK was to open its borders, the fact that support has been taken away from local authorities and that Scotland has managed to accommodate around 20 per cent of all Ukrainians who have come to the UK. If we are going to make wider points, that undermines the ability to adopt a consensual approach.

Although we may feel powerless in the face of these huge events, there is of course action that we can take as individuals, as Alex Cole-Hamilton mentioned. For my part, I took in a Ukrainian family. I thought that I would end up with an older gentleman—someone too old to serve in the war—but I in fact ended up with a family, including two children and a dog. I had them in my home for a number of months this year and we managed, over that time, to find new accommodation and employment for them, which is very commendable. The children of the family received one-to-one English lessons at school, which was necessary, and the adults undertook language lessons, too. It was interesting to have them come back and ask me about the meanings of words like “drookit” and “dreich”—both of which they seemed to master, although they could not quite get the meaning of “nae bother” until we explained it. Anyway, they were given some Scots language teaching, too.

In October last year, Ukrainian refugees in my constituency organised a fair as part of their celebrations of Ukrainian Cossack day. I cannot speak for every Ukrainian refugee in Scotland, but it is my view that most of them have received a very warm Scottish welcome, with Scotland taking in 26,200 displaced Ukrainians, the most per head of any UK nation. I think that that is worthy of comment and commendation. For those who choose to continue to make Scotland their home, we must turn that into a warm Scottish future. The policy position paper recognises the need to work across the different layers of government.

Many members have mentioned Edinburgh. In my area, Clackmannanshire Council, a small council, won an award last year for its refugee integration scheme, so that is the right approach to take. The same approach now needs to be taken by the UK Government, and it needs to provide clarity on what happens when the three-year visa period that is available to Ukrainian refugees comes to an end. Paul O’Kane spoke about that, and I will mention a text that I got from a constituent of mine. They have now been rehoused, and they have the opportunity to move into social housing. Paul O’Kane rightly said that we should hear the voices of Ukrainians. My constituent says that, last week, they went to view social housing that had been offered to them, which was half the price of the accommodation that they were currently in. They had to accept it within a day, however. It is a three-bedroom house for a monthly fee of half of what they currently pay, but it requires complete renovation, painting and carpeting. All that work must be done before they can get the 15 months before the rent freeze starts. They also have to buy a freezer, washing machine, cooking stove and so on.

That is difficult in any event, but to do that work without knowing whether they will still have the right to stay in the country in a year’s time is virtually impossible. The same inhibition affects the Scottish Government. How can it be asked to make long-term plans if it does not have the security of knowing that those who are currently here have the right to stay? There needs to be reassurance and an understanding of the trauma that refugees have been through in the first place. That trauma is compounded by not letting them know that they will be safe to stay here if that is what they require and want to do.

The uncertainty that I know is causing distress for Ukrainians also prevents local authorities and third sector organisations such as Forth Valley Welcome in my constituency from adequately planning services, as they do not know how long people will be able to stay in Scotland, or if there is a risk of displaced people being made destitute under UK rules.

I urge the UK Government to step up to support Ukrainian refugees, as the people of Scotland have done. I say to colleagues that, by supporting the motion, we can show that Scotland, and all the political parties in it, remain committed to Ukrainian independence and supporting Ukrainian lives, whether they are here in Scotland or in Ukraine. I urge members to support the motion in the cabinet secretary’s name.

On a personal note, I hosted a Ukrainian family for six months and was able to get them both permanent accommodation and a job—in fact, two jobs. We have stayed in contact—they are now in the minister’s region—and their real worry is about what happens now. They see the 18-month deadline looming. Their home in Nikolaev was destroyed, and they have no idea where they would go back to. Having taken the opportunity to get a quite specialist job and having settled, after moving from Killin to me to where they are now, they are still really worried. Is the UK Government giving any reason why it will not confirm what its intentions are?

Secondly, given the possibility—I will put it no higher than that—that there could be a change in Government next year, and I know that you will have Government-to-Government relations, is there any indication of where the Labour Party stands in relation to the three-year visa?

It was not the ideal way for people to come, but it was necessary at the time and, like the convener, I have to say that Clackmannanshire Council did a superb job, as did Stirling Council in Killin. Is any work being done to look at how that might be kept as an infrastructure, almost like a resilience facility? The committee has talked about whether people coming from Gaza could be accommodated in a similar way. Are we keeping that infrastructure? I have not heard a word about the scheme since the family left and I wonder whether we are thinking about how we might use it for the future.

I have one small point to make, which is that we should always take refugees because they are refugees; we should need no other reason. However, although this may sound a little cynical, I wonder whether any part of the argument that you are making to the UK Government to move on with the visa extension—if that is what happens—is informed by the skills needs that we have in Scotland and the skills that the refugees who have come here have. Are you making the case that those skills are very important to Scotland?

Ms Forbes said earlier that she did not want to comment on political events, but you work in a political environment. Things have changed since I first came into Government and this is probably the most difficult time for external affairs and SDI that I can remember. I can support that by citing the letters from Alister Jack and David Cameron, which are a cross between a juvenile huff and some control freakery and really set the context for the environment in which we have to work.

My memory is that, despite that, civil servants in the Scottish and UK Governments managed to work together pretty effectively. I am interested in whether that is still the case, whether the relationship is constructive and whether there is a difference between the locations where the Scottish office is located within a UK embassy and those where it is not. There may not be, but I am interested in whether that makes a difference. I would like to hear comments on how the civil services of different Administrations work together.