Chamber and committees

I am grateful for the opportunity to comment—and even more grateful that I am not the member speaking after Jackson Carlaw.

I congratulate sincerely all those who have been appointed and re-appointed to ministerial office. I also thank those who are leaving Government for their service. I even thank Fergus Ewing sincerely for his service—although, at a moment like this, perhaps the less I say about him the better.

The process of ministerial appointments generally achieves consent. After an election, when a Government is returned with a fresh mandate, political parties generally agree that it should get on with the job, and they recognise that it needs to appoint ministers to do so. In general, political parties have not voted against political appointments at such times; the Greens will support the appointments today.

However, on the specific criticism of the appointment of a constitution secretary, I know that there are political parties in the Scottish Parliament that oppose independence, as is their right, but are they really saying that under the current constitutional arrangements no one should do that job? I hope that Angus Robertson will advance the case for a referendum; the Greens will work towards that goal.

However, are the Liberal Democrats really saying that the new Government should simply disengage from the immediate constitutional challenges? Should we ignore the dysfunctional constitutional machinery, which in the previous session all political parties agreed needed to be overhauled?

I suspect that Angus Robertson will discover, just as Mike Russell did, that it is the United Kingdom Government that is the biggest barrier to successful operation of joint ministerial committees, for example. We have a UK Government that is unwilling even to consider a section 30 order, but which is now prepared to legislate routinely in what are clearly devolved areas, despite the refusal of consent by the Scottish Parliament.

Covid recovery is critical and Greens will take part in the cross-party steering group that is being set up, but we reject the idea that we must choose either independence or recovery. For us, the case that is to be made is for independence for recovery. Even opponents of independence surely cannot imagine that what passes for the constitutional machinery of the status quo is working as it should, so Mr Robertson will have a job on his hands—even aside from making the case for a referendum.

If I have concerns about the ministerial appointments, they are on other matters. Adding the words “Net Zero” to Michael Matheson’s new role as transport and energy secretary brings a welcome focus, as many people have said, but does that really mean that he will recognise the need for change, given that past Scottish Government transport policies have driven transport emissions up, not down? Only time will tell.

Will a change in responsibility for rural affairs mean that the influence of landowners and defenders of blood sports will decline in the Government’s agenda? Only time will tell.

There is no dedicated housing minister; housing has been added to the job title of a cabinet secretary. Is that elevation of the remit, or its sidelining, at a time when people, especially in the private rented sector, are suffering insecurity and exploitation?

There is no minister for immigration, despite, as we have seen in recent days, the clear need to challenge the authoritarian agenda of the UK Home Office and the hostile environment, and to support communities in which our neighbours are at risk because of their immigration or asylum status.

As I said, only time will tell how those challenges and many others will be addressed by the new Government. However, at a moment like this, at the beginning of a new session of Parliament, every political party should wish the new ministerial team success, as ministers approach their jobs. The Greens will certainly vote for the motions tonight.

To reinforce James Dornan’s point, I say that many thousands of fans are clearly unwilling to listen, or are incapable of listening, to encouragement and appeals for civilised behaviour. Is it not abundantly clear that we will see significant change only when every fan of every club knows that any hint of vandalism, violence, antisocial behaviour or bigotry will bring not only criminal sanctions for them as individuals but immediate and severe sanctions for the club that they follow, whether through the law or through the football authorities?

I agree that Police Scotland is not to blame for the timing or instigation of the incident, but if the cabinet secretary is right that Police Scotland’s priorities must always be to ensure the wellbeing of the people who are at the centre—the victims of enforcement actions—and to ensure the safety of the public and their right to protest, I hope that it will not take it as long in the future to decide that releasing people in such circumstances is the right call.

I want to ask about the community itself. Although I wish for the power to implement a humane and decent asylum system, unlike the one that operates in the UK at the moment, we do not currently have that power. We have the power to resource our communities to support people who are most vulnerable to being on the receiving end of such actions, and to ensure that our communities are empowered and organised to resist. Resistance such as we saw in Pollokshields, which was so inspiring, does not happen by magic— it happens through communities being resourced and organised. What role could the Scottish Government have in supporting such community resistance?

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for his response. The community response that we saw demonstrates the scale of anger at the UK Government’s brutality in relation to immigration and asylum—in particular, to people who are seeking asylum, who are among the most vulnerable citizens of Glasgow, which is the city that I represent. That action being taken on Eid added insult to injury, and there are hundreds of people who will be vulnerable to such action in the future. On whatever day such action takes place, Scotland, Glasgow and, in particular, Pollokshields will continue to stand against it.

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has been engaging actively with the United Kingdom Government and Police Scotland. I have heard mixed views about aspects of the policing yesterday. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in any such incident, Police Scotland’s priorities must be the wellbeing and welfare of the people who are at the centre—the victims of immigration enforcement actions—as well as protection of the right of the public to peacefully resist such actions?

To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with the United Kingdom Government, and with Police Scotland, regarding the community response to attempted immigration enforcement action in Kenmure Street in Glasgow, on 13 May.

On behalf of the Scottish Green Party, I would like to reassert that our allegiance lies with the people of Scotland, who elected this Parliament and who are sovereign, and that we look forward to the day when they can choose their own elected head of state.

The member then made a solemn affirmation.