Chamber and committees

The closure of Edinburgh College’s stonemasonry programme has raised serious concerns about the future of stonemasonry in the capital and across Scotland. A recent stonemasonry survey report found that more than 200,000 buildings in Scotland were built before 1919, and it stated that we will

“need a healthy supply of stonemasons to adapt”

them

“to ensure our buildings are fit for purpose ... for decades to come”.

What work is the Scottish Government doing to provide for future generations of stonemasons? What work is being undertaken to develop new models to deliver national courses and apprenticeship schemes?

The United Kingdom has a proud history of supporting refugees. Since 2015, as a country, we have offered a home to more than half a million men, women and children who have sought safety, including those from Hong Kong, Syria and Afghanistan, as well as, most recently, those fleeing President Putin’s illegal attack on Ukraine. To put that in context, it is equivalent to the population of Edinburgh being resettled in the UK. We all agree that it is right that we respond appropriately to the plight of individuals and families who are escaping violent, authoritarian and dictatorial regimes that systematically persecute and even execute their own people.

Recently, as a member of the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on Bangladesh, I visited the Rohingya refugee camp in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I think that I speak for all MSPs who were on the trip when I say that it was a deeply humbling experience. It demonstrated not only the vulnerable humanitarian situation but the unstable situation that the Rohingya people continue to face. The on-going civil war in Myanmar is deeply concerning, and an estimated 1.4 million Rohingya people have fled into neighbouring Bangladesh since 2017.

I pay tribute to the Bangladesh Government’s response to the crisis and, indeed, to the global response, including the support that has been provided. I very much welcome the UK Government’s leading role in that regard. Since 2017, the UK Government has provided £370 million to support Rohingya refugees and host communities in Bangladesh, and it has provided nearly £30 million to support Rohingya and other Muslim minorities in Myanmar’s Rakhine state.

The UK Government is a force for good in the world and a global leader in supporting refugees. Although Scottish National Party and Green ministers do not wish to acknowledge that and have tried to make the debate about independence, the UK has a record that we should be proud of.

I agree with the minister that the backlog and the time that is taken to decide whether a person can remain in the UK are not acceptable. It is vital that agencies process asylum claims quickly and efficiently for the good of all concerned. It is welcome that the UK Government has taken steps in recent months to address that situation.

I want to make some progress. I have taken two interventions and I am not sure that the Deputy Presiding Officer would give me that much time back.

Uncontrolled immigration and unchecked illegal immigration can have very serious consequences. We have seen that with the unacceptable loss of life in the English Channel. That is why it is right to find solutions to stop people putting their lives at risk by crossing the English Channel in small boats and coming to this country illegally. We must ensure that those who come to this country to seek asylum do so through legal routes.

The significant increase in dangerous journeys across the Channel is something that we in Scotland do not directly witness. However, working to stop people traffickers and those who put people’s lives in such great danger should be a priority for us in this place, too. Those who are in need of protection should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach, rather than risking their lives and paying people smugglers to take them on illegal and dangerous journeys.

We all want to see an effective asylum system, and it is wrong to suggest that the UK Government does not take the welfare of people in the asylum system extremely seriously. At every stage of the process, the UK Government seeks to ensure that the needs and vulnerabilities of asylum seekers are identified and shared with local authorities and health partners. That is why the UK Government has spent £3.7 billion in the current fiscal year alone to support refugees in the UK. The minister should maybe also reflect on the decisions that the Scottish Government has taken to cut council budgets and the impact of those on housing in Scotland. Both of our main cities have already declared a housing emergency.

There has always been a need to review policies and look at how support can be provided, working closely with the national health service, local authorities and non-governmental organisations to ensure that people can access healthcare and the vital support that they need. In my casework since I was elected, I have come across the need for mental health support in particular. We know about the challenges with regard to mental health services not just for those who are seeking asylum, but for all of us in this country.

Asylum seekers have access to health and social care services from the point of their arrival in the UK. All asylum seekers, regardless of the type of accommodation that they are in, have the same access to free NHS services as British citizens and other permanent residents. Getting access to those services is often the problem. The Home Office also operates safeguarding hubs to support vulnerable individuals in quickly accessing healthcare services and information.

I also pay tribute to the third sector, which is doing much good work in the policy area. A number of organisations made important points in the briefings that they provided ahead of the debate, including the British Red Cross’s call for the Scottish Government to better monitor, inspect and regulate the use of housing in Scotland by empowering local authorities and regulatory agencies such as the Scottish Housing Regulator. We should look at that. Conservative members would be open to considering it actively as part of the housing bill, which the Government is still to introduce.

Delivering a modern and responsive immigration system for people who are seeking asylum is not easy but, in an ever-changing world and with growing pressure from the global movement of people, such a system must be based on people coming through safe and legal routes. We understand the pressures that our asylum system faces, but I hope that the Scottish Government and the UK Government will commit to working together this year to put solutions in place.

I move amendment S6M-11803.1, to leave out from “the impact” to end and insert:

“that the topics of immigration and asylum are reserved to the UK Parliament and that it is therefore not within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on these issues; further recognises that the UK Government spent £3.7 billion in the fiscal year 2022-23 to support refugees, that it continues to provide asylum seekers with financial support to cover essential living needs and that it is committed to delivering an asylum system that protects individuals from persecution based on their protected characteristics; agrees that the Scottish Government must engage positively with the UK Government, local authorities and public services across asylum matters to reduce negative impacts on people, communities and services; expresses concern over both the pause of the Scottish Government’s Super Sponsor Scheme for displaced Ukrainians and the Scottish Government’s inability to renew the £10 million in funding initially granted to local authorities to support resettlement for displaced Ukrainians, and calls on the Scottish Government to declare a housing emergency, given the increase in homelessness applications by 9% and the record number of children placed in temporary accommodation for the fiscal year 2022-23, which is likely to be exacerbated given the recent cuts to the housing budget.”

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I think that Mr Doris needs to get a life and understand that we are in Parliament to represent people.

I will come to that point later in my speech. The briefings that were provided for the debate make a very important case for that extension and it is something that colleagues across the UK should look at. I am more than happy to assist in trying to find resolutions to improve that situation and create more safeguards.

With regard to the minister’s comments about the 4,500 complex cases that have been highlighted, we know that those need additional checks and investigations. They are hard cases that often involve asylum seekers who present as children, where age verification must take place; with serious medical issues; or with suspected past convictions that need to be checked. There is therefore more complexity to those cases.

How verification can take place has changed. That process has seen reforms from the UK Government recently, which should be welcomed. Documentation is a key aspect of that. If someone arrives in a country without a passport, it takes time to verify who they are and their age. I think that even the member would accept that our systems must be able to verify people, particularly with regard to past criminal convictions that would bar a person from asylum in this country. So far in this debate, I have not heard any member say that that should not be the case.

However, the UK Government has been directly helping people from regions of conflict and instability. The best help for the most vulnerable people is for them to come to this country through safe and legal routes. That will stop what can only be described as the evil criminal gangs—the minister did not touch on this—that are preying on vulnerable people, including children. That is where we need policy solutions. I have never heard SNP ministers say what they would do to stop criminal gangs preying on those people.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I think that the minister needs to revisit her language. We are not representatives of the UK Government; we are Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party members.

Does anyone else want to touch on that?

Since the budget was announced, I have had a number of emails from community groups in the third sector that are concerned about the situation. In previous meetings and inquiries, we have heard about, for example, their amazing response in providing support during the pandemic. Where does the third sector sit in your planning so that those partnerships can be protected as far as possible? Councils inevitably start by protecting their organisation and taking in-house the funding that is handed down to such organisations.

That is helpful, and it links to my next question. Argyll and Bute Council and Glasgow City Council have declared housing emergencies. As it stands, the Fraser of Allander Institute suggests about a 37 per cent cut over the past two years to the housing budget. What decision making is taking place around the housing and homelessness emergency, and where will that be prioritised, given that both councils have declared a housing emergency?