Chamber and committees

There is a responsibility on all Governments to act in the face of so much violence and destruction, and I welcome the fact that the First Minister has repeated his calls for a ceasefire and de-escalation and for statehood for Palestine, and I hope that he continues to oppose the sale of arms to Israel.

However, the Greens have repeatedly raised the Scottish Government’s track record in giving grants to the companies that are producing those weapons and are profiting from the killings. Tens of thousands of people have been killed, yet companies that are arming Israel have received hundreds of thousands of pounds from Scottish Enterprise. The First Minister has repeatedly defended that by saying that his Government does not fund the manufacture of munitions, but that is not the point. The Government is funding the companies that profit from those atrocities. Will the First Minister finally send a clear signal today by immediately banning those companies from receiving grants and support from the Scottish Government?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking in response to reported concerns that the licensing scheme introduced by the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023 is acting as a loophole in the fox hunting ban. (S6O-03787)

Parliament has voted repeatedly, over many years, in favour of ending fox hunting in Scotland. In the most recent legislation, which was intended to close the loopholes that have been used by those who continue to perpetrate that cruel practice, a licensing regime was introduced that was intended to be for exceptional purposes. The Scottish Government’s position was that fox hunting should have no place in a modern Scotland. With 41 licences having been issued in the first hunting season since the 2023 act came into force, is it not clear that we simply do not have the rigorous enforcement of the legislation that we need? Will the Scottish Government ensure that, in the future, a great deal more rigour is applied?

Some are commercial, some are funded and some are not. A levy would be a really powerful measure to support venues that are integral to the culture of our towns and cities.

I want to reflect again on the political unity that has been expressed across the chamber on a number of fronts. In particular, quite a number of members have spoken about the lives of Ukrainian refugees in their communities the length and breadth of Scotland. The cabinet secretary was the first, but by no means the only, member to reflect on that.

That is a reminder, as I said earlier, of why the opportunity to offer refuge is always a privilege. Far too much of the UK’s political discussion about asylum seekers and refugees is about portraying them as a burden—portraying as a burden the idea that we offer asylum or refuge to those who need it. To be the one who has to flee violence, as those from Ukraine have done, to take a risk to get out and try to find safety, and to ask another country for refuge—that is what it is to bear a burden. To be the one who is asked is a privilege, and we should always remember that.

The images that were most clear to me on our television screens and in our newspapers in the immediate aftermath of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine related to discussions about how to offer safe routes for Ukrainian asylum seekers, how to gear ourselves up to prepare to support and provide safe and secure accommodation for children who had been separated from their families and refugees who had disabilities, who were traumatised by their experiences or who had other specific needs when they arrived. If only those concerns characterised our entire debate on refugees and asylum seekers across Scotland and the UK, and indeed the rest of the world.

Scotland’s and the UK’s unity in our support for Ukrainian sovereignty and the principle of its national self-determination within internationally recognised borders—and condemnation of any country using invasion, occupation or a war of aggression to pursue self-interest, as Russia has done—is important. As several members, including Nicola Sturgeon in particular, towards the end of the debate, reflected, anything that allows the possibility that Russia ends up being rewarded by an imposed unjust peace is not only a threat to Ukraine and Ukrainians but a threat to all countries. I say again that we must follow that principle through—yes, by supporting Ukraine but also by applying it elsewhere.

It is very clear that Russia is in flagrant breach of international law. In fact, it is showing utter disregard for international law. The Geneva conventions require parties to a conflict to distinguish between civilian and military targets. Although they allow civilian-owned infrastructure to be military objectives in some circumstances, that discretion is severely limited. The daily images that we have seen from Ukraine bear out clearly that those basic principles are being ignored by Russia without a shred of concern. There are other international instruments, such as the Rome statute, that prohibit the attacking of civilian targets. The fact that Russia is consistently targeting energy sources in Ukraine, destroying civilian infrastructure and indiscriminately targeting civilian housing demonstrates once again its flagrant disregard.

That reminds us that the framework of international law and security is fundamentally broken. The UN Security Council has among its permanent members the world’s biggest arms dealers, including the Russian Federation. I think that, technically, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—the USSR—still holds that seat, but in practice it is held by the Russian Federation. In fact, it rose to the presidency of that institution at the time of the full-scale invasion. The UN Security Council is the institution that is charged with the preservation and maintenance of world peace. How on earth are we to accept that it is a valid approach to preserving world peace when those perpetrating war are given permanent and privileged status in it?

If peace is a global objective, we have to recognise that justice is a prerequisite for peace, and far too much of the world’s power is wielded by those who profit from war. One member suggested today that, if we want to keep the peace, it means arming for war. I do not believe that peace is achieved on the basis of the fear of consequences. All that that achieves is the cessation of hostilities until one side or the other detects an opportunity or a chance to act. Pouring ever more of the world’s resources into the arms trade will not make the world safer; it will only give ever more power to those who profit from war.

War is an atrocity that is committed by the powerful against the powerless. We need a recognition that western countries that are currently quite rightly rallying support for Ukraine have been complicit for a long time—over decades—in allowing kleptocrats, human rights abusers, fossil fuel profiteers and those involved in the arms trade to amass ever more power. If we want to break that cycle, we have to take power away from those who so clearly abuse it. Putin is the most obvious example of that on the world stage at the moment, but he is by no means the only one.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the culture secretary has had with the Music Venue Trust regarding the introduction of a ticket levy, on a voluntary or statutory basis, for stadium and arena shows, to support grass-roots culture venues. (S6O-03773)

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has met the Music Venue Trust. However, I am not quite clear whether he has expressed a view on the basic policy yet.

This summer, as the cabinet secretary will know, there have been huge stadium performances in Scotland by the likes of Taylor Swift, Foo Fighters and Pink. The Music Venue Trust has shown that the introduction of a levy, which has already been done in countries such as France, could raise well over £1 million a year to support the sector during a very difficult time.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary is well aware of the cultural importance of independent venues, which are not necessarily charitable—

I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate and to add to the recognition of consensus that other speakers, including the cabinet secretary, have already expressed. Paul O’Kane in particular spent a large part of his speech recognising the consensus that exists across political parties.

We are, I am pleased to say, united not only in the condemnation of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine but in the recognition that it did not begin in 2022 but, in fact, with the invasion and occupation of parts of Ukraine in 2014. We are united in our support for Ukrainian integrity and sovereignty and the desire for the people of Ukraine to live in peace, secure in their internationally recognised borders.

We are also united in recognition of our duty to Ukrainian refugees and, as the cabinet secretary articulately set out, in our gratitude for the contribution that they make to our society. For me, that is a recognition that being able to host refugees and give refuge to anyone who needs it is a position of privilege.

In acknowledging the humanitarian impact of what has unfolded over the past few years, it is important to recognise that, as with any live, on-going conflict, the precise scale of the human cost is hard to know. Most international sources seem confident that, already, it can be measured in the hundreds of thousands of deaths. We need to recognise that fact in the case of Ukrainians, which includes civilians as well as those who have joined the military to defend their country, but it is also worth acknowledging that many of those who have fought on Russia’s side are young soldiers who have been manipulated and lied to by propaganda from Putin’s regime about the reasons for the war, as well as those who are convicts and conscripts.

In relation to the support for Ukrainian refugees, we need to continue to put on record our thanks to the organisations that work with them and continue to provide support. Refugees need a huge range of practical support when they are here, whether that is in relation to immigration documents, housing, money, schools, access to public services, including education and healthcare, or the right to interpreters if refugees need them to enable them to live their lives. Scotland has a proud record of welcoming refugees, and we can—and I believe that we must—go further.

It is worth reflecting, and it is important to recognise, that the fact that Scotland and the UK have risen to the challenge in an open and welcoming way for Ukrainian refugees demonstrates to us that we are capable of doing a damn sight better for refugees from around the world, if we choose to do so. I warmly welcome the political unity that we have shown in welcoming Ukrainian refugees, but I only wish that we were able to rise to the same level and offer the same unity of welcome to those who need refuge from elsewhere in the world. We also need to recognise that a recent report published by the Scottish Government has shown that there are live homelessness cases for displaced Ukrainians in Scotland. There is support in place, but we need to continue to strive to do better.

I am proud of the position that my political family, the Greens across Europe, have taken. Certainly, the European Green Party has been part of the political unity that is in support for Ukraine and opposition to the invasion, but it has also done a great deal to draw the connection to the transition from fossil fuels. That transition away from fossil fuels is not only necessary in the face of climate change but necessary as a way of taking power away from those who abuse it. The geopolitical power of the fossil fuel industry is fundamentally part of Putin’s power and his motivation. The European Greens make the case that more renewables would mean more peace, which I think that we need to recognise.

Again, I repeat my call for the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government, if at all possible, to address those who are still seeking to circumvent the sanctions against Russia, including the company Seapeak Maritime, which is based in Glasgow—in fact, it may even be based in the minister’s constituency—and is still engaging in the trade in Russian fossil fuels. I know that it is not within the power of the Scottish Government to address that, but I would welcome anything that the Scottish Government can do to raise the UK Government’s awareness of that and ensure that such profiteering can be treated as falling within the sanctions so that we can shut that activity down.

I stress that we have to recognise the need for consistency. If we are politically united on the principle that invasion, a war of aggression, the illegal occupation of territory, the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure and the commission of war crimes are unacceptable and must be opposed, they must be opposed not only in Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, but elsewhere in the world.

We must also recognise the extraordinary gulf between the international response to the invasion and occupation of Ukraine and the international response to the on-going genocide in Gaza and the illegal occupation of Palestine. That comparison is one that should shame the world. We should stand with the people of Ukraine, and we should, equally, stand politically united with all peoples who are subjected to such occupation, invasion and war crimes.

Will the minister take an intervention?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My device was a little unclear as to whether it had refreshed on time. I would have voted for the amendment.