Chamber and committees

On Monday this week, the Scottish Government withdrew critical protection against rent rises. For the first time in years, landlords will now have the power to instantly set rents back to uncontrolled free-market levels. Tenants will not be able to stop that, and they will not be able to afford it.

Let us be clear about the scale of the Scottish National Party’s rent hikes. Data from Generation Rent and Living Rent shows that, even when the recent protections were in place, some landlords still tried to break the rules. In Glasgow, one landlord tried to double the rent from £700 to £1,400 per month. However, until this week, thanks to the temporary rent protections that I was proud to introduce, people such as that could be stopped. That unbelievable increase was capped by the regulator, with the rent at £784 instead of £1,400. Does the First Minister now understand why tenants across Scotland are so fearful about what he has done?

I am grateful not only for having known Christina McKelvie but for the opportunity to offer the Scottish Greens’ deep condolences to Christina’s family and friends for their very personal loss. It is a loss that will also be felt very deeply by everyone who worked with Christina—most acutely by SNP colleagues.

As we have already heard, Christina was held in great affection right across the political spectrum. I hope that the whole family and, of course, our colleague Keith Brown, know that they have been in our thoughts and will remain so.

Over the past week, there have been some common themes in the conversations that I have had with colleagues from different political parties about Christina. I have heard people reflecting on her friendship, her warmth and the way in which her passionate belief in her values and, at times, her very real anger at injustice never took away from her sense of fun and her positivity.

I have heard from so many members who recall Christina’s kind words when they were first elected. That is something that means a lot to new members. Coming here for the first time can be a daunting experience, and I know that many in the chamber today who arrived here in recent elections will value those memories of Christina’s friendship and warmth. In offering our condolences to those who knew and loved Christina, I hope that all of us in the Parliament can return some of that friendship and warmth.

As has been said, Christina’s work in the Parliament and her first ministerial role covered equalities, and there could hardly have been a better fit. I express my gratitude particularly for her strong track record on LGBT+ rights, equality and human rights, as she often faced down some of the divisive and nasty forms of prejudice—both old and new. I lost count of the number of times that I heard her speak with passion about the need to treat asylum seekers in our society as human beings and about the pride that Scotland should take in offering safety and a welcome to those who need it.

I will mention a final theme that has come up in the conversations that I have had over the past week. It is something that has been on my mind, but I have heard many others make the same observation. We all know that politics is not always a nice business. It does not always bring out the best in us. People sometimes worry that the job will change us for the worse, and sometimes that happens. In my experience, Christina McKelvie defied that fear. She never gave in to cynicism, entitlement or cruelty. She remained a person who instinctively expressed compassion and kindness, so I hope that her life will be celebrated, of course, just as a lovely human being, but also as an example that politics and politicians can stay human and humane. [Applause.]

The minister seems to acknowledge that, fundamentally, the crisis is driven by volatile fossil fuel prices, yet his statement comes just two days before the Government is widely expected to dilute, downgrade, delay or ditch the only serious policy measure that it had among its proposals—to get Scotland off the gas grid and, instead, to use cheap, clean, renewable electricity for our heating. There seems to be no chance of reaching the £1.8 billion investment target that the Government previously committed to. With fuel poverty rising and climate targets being missed, most rational people would say, “Let’s speed up.” Why is the SNP slowing down?

It will always be the case that governments and populations can make democratic decisions that create uncertainty. Brexit is the supreme example of that. In the run-up to that decision, nobody knew which way it would go and the result fell on a knife edge. There were then several years of profound chaos and uncertainty as a result, and we are still living with a lot of the damage of that. However, that does not take away from the fact that there was a democratic process and that decisions can be made. There will always be scope for some uncertainty and unintended consequences. The critical thing is that, when such decisions are being made, you listen to those who warn about the consequences and you make an informed decision about whether those consequences are acceptable.

That was easy. Anyone else?

Yes.

David, do you want to add anything on the types of concrete, practical changes that could be made regarding exemption criteria, burden of proof or anything else that you want to throw into the mix about specific changes that we ought to advocate in our report on this inquiry?

I make no secret of the fact that I am a critic of the internal market act. It strikes fundamentally at respect for the devolution settlement and the ability of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to make the decisions that the Scottish people have given those bodies the authority to make. In reality, however, we know that it is not about to be abolished. The UK Government is not going to make such a sweeping change. It might not even perform major surgery on the act, but there is some scope for specific tweaks, and I want to ask you about some of the specific proposals that have come from other witnesses in the inquiry.

There is recognition of the desire for certainty but, as Marc Strathie said, it is about striking a balance. There will never be 100 per cent certainty and there will be circumstances in which divergence is justified. That is a political decision and one that is subject to democratic accountability.

One of the arguments for change is that the broad, undefined discretion that the UK Government has on the exemptions process should be replaced with a specific and defined set of criteria for exemptions. It seems to me that that would give some greater clarity and certainty to Governments and stakeholders about how the act operates and how decisions would be made. Another proposal is to set a threshold for the burden of proof, if you like, in relation to what the UK Government would have to demonstrate as a justification for denying an exemption.

I put the case that those kinds of changes would strike a better balance between giving clarity to Governments and stakeholders and respecting the democratic legitimacy of the different levels of Government. Would you be comfortable with that kind of change?

This Parliament has lost one of our very best today. I offer my deepest sympathies and those of my party to everyone who knew and loved Christina McKelvie.

Today is a moment of pain and sadness, but Christina’s life and her extraordinary spirit deserve to be celebrated, as well. In her first speech, she said that she

“would rather be a citizen of a nation that looks to persuade and co-operate than bully and cajole”.—[Official Report, 14 June 2007; c 718.]

She might have been talking about Scotland as a nation, but I think that those words also captured the kind of person she was and the kind of politician she was.

Lots of people in politics start out with those kinds of values and ideals. Christina was someone who held fast to them. Compassion and kindness were at her core. As Christina’s partner and our colleague Keith Brown said today, she

“lit up every room she was in”.

That was certainly true of this room—our Parliament. She brightened it in every sense.

The only question that I would like to ask the First Minister today is how he thinks that we can all bring kindness and compassion into our work, as Christina did. [Applause.]

I join other members in thanking Maggie Chapman not just for bringing the debate to the chamber but for opening it with the words of some of the people who are most directly affected—voices that are so often unheard in the debate. I also express my appreciation to Professor Jen Ang and to everyone who has contributed in any way, either to the report or in other attempts to address the issue of ending destitution in Scotland.

I pause for just a moment, at my first use of the word “destitution”. We have all been talking about destitution in Scotland. It is 2025, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and we are debating whether to end destitution. That in itself should shock and shame us all. It is worse still because that destitution is not merely the result of reckless or complacent economic policies. There is a false but prevalent idea in much of our politics that poverty is a shame but that we cannot really do anything to end it. This is worse—this is destitution that has been deliberately created as a tool of policy makers who want this country to be a hostile environment for asylum seekers.

That has been the case for as long as I have been in this place. When I was first elected, the dawn raids that were being inflicted on asylum seekers in Glasgow were a national controversy. Even then, there were those who argued that we needed a robust asylum system. What we need is an asylum system that is designed to give asylum—to give refuge—to everyone who needs it. Instead, we have an asylum system that is designed to turn away the maximum number possible, and to make the experience so humiliating, degrading and frightening that it acts as a deterrent. That is the asylum system that we have, and it has continued to work in that way under successive Governments.

I contrast that, however, with the response that we so often see from members of the public. Even after decades of anti-migrant propaganda coming from so much of the political and media landscape in this country, we find groups of people, in every community, banding together and reaching out to one another to find ways of helping and supporting asylum seekers in their communities. In the days of those dawn raids that I mentioned, local communities would gather outside an asylum seeker’s flat to protect them and keep them in when the Home Office officials came to take them out. More recently, we have seen the astonishing display of solidarity at Kenmure Street in Glasgow.

The human instinct to help and to recognise another human being’s desperation is still strong—it is innate within us. It is so strong that it has not been demolished by those decades of anti-migrant propaganda. Most people understand that, although the right likes to portray hosting asylum seekers as a burden for the nation, that is not what bearing a burden is. To be asked for asylum, and to be in a position to be able to help—that is what it is to have privilege in this world. The person who has to flee, and who has to act out of desperation and ask strangers for help—that is what it is to bear a burden.

The UK Government must be put under pressure to change direction, but the Scottish Government can and must do more as well. I hope that the minister, in responding to the debate, will lay out an expansive and ambitious approach to implementing, to the maximum degree possible, everything that we possibly can do to end destitution in Scotland. Migration will always be part of the human story, and it should be seen as something that enriches us and makes us proud, instead of the shame that the issue brings us.

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the regulatory approach to AI and any impact that differences between regulations in the United Kingdom and the European Union could have on Scotland’s economy. (S6O-04485)