Chamber and committees

Good morning, minister and officials—thank you for being here.

You say that 2030 is the backstop, but that does not mean that 2030 is when people will start doing the work and making the changes that are needed for all the different schemes, including those that you have discussed. It is not just about LFASS; there are other issues around suckler calves and so on. A lot of schemes need to be developed, and my understanding is that resources are already driving those changes forward.

In the past fortnight, the committee has received a lot of evidence from different people that shows that there is a level of concern. One response says that you

“gave assurances that this does not necessarily mean that schemes ... will go to 2030”.

Can you reassure the committee that, should we approve the SSI today, although 2030 will be the backstop date, that does not mean that nothing else will happen before then?

I quickly put on record that my understanding is that this is a technical statutory instrument. I hear what Rachael Hamilton is saying about the wider issue and the number of people who submitted responses to this statutory instrument. It shows that, as the co-design of the policy moves forward, work needs to be done to promote trust and to engage with the rural and agricultural sector, new farmers, new entrants and all of that. This is a technical instrument, but it highlights and uncovers wider work that we need to be sensitive to when engaging with stakeholders.

Thanks.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I appreciate what Maggie Chapman outlined in her opening speech and her examples of what people face, including in relation to GP or health appointments.

Scotland is pursuing its ambition to be a good global citizen by hosting vulnerable people who have fled war and persecution in adherence to the United Nations refugee convention and the European convention on human rights.

All levels of government need to work together and provide tangible improvements for refugees and people seeking asylum in the UK. The Scottish Government, unlike the UK Government, has demonstrated that. We need to build consensus. Faced with renewed austerity and brutal Westminster cuts to public services, the Scottish Government is having to make very difficult decisions to deliver a balanced and sustainable spending plan for the 2024-25 financial year.

As a result of being forced to make £500 million of direct cuts, Scottish ministers found that it would be unaffordable to progress piloting free bus travel for asylum seekers in Scotland at this time. That doesnae mean that they do not want to do it; it is just that, at the moment, it is not possible.

The cabinet secretary mentioned that many people seeking asylum in Scotland, including those under 22 and over 60 years of age, as well as those with disabilities, are already eligible.

I do not think that there is time; I am sorry.

People are therefore already eligible for and in receipt of free bus travel through national concessionary travel schemes. I encourage any person in Scotland who is seeking asylum to ensure that they submit their claim.

In addition, the Scottish Government is supporting people seeking asylum through the new Scots refugee integration strategy. The Scottish Government is working collaboratively with partners, including local government and the Scottish Refugee Council. The new Scots strategy delivery plan outlines specific actions that partners will take, and when they will be undertaken, with the aim of ensuring that new Scots live in safe, welcoming and inclusive communities, are able to access well-co-ordinated services, and understand their rights, responsibilities and entitlements in Scotland.

Guided by the strategy’s principles, communities across Scotland are already providing support to refugees and asylum seekers so that they can rebuild their lives and actively participate in society. That is happening well in Dumfries and Galloway, where the local authority has co-ordinated a refugee support network that comprises local people who have stepped up to offer support, clothing and help to refugees in the area.

As migration and refugee policy is reserved to Westminster, it is important to point out the Westminster Government’s failings when it comes to its legal obligations in relation to refugees. Asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants are being shamefully demonised to mask Westminster’s failings. Causing division between different vulnerable people is absolutely deplorable and should be called out. It is time for the UK Government to step up, get rid of the legacy of the Tories’ hostile environment and hostile immigration policies, and support those who will come to Scotland and contribute to our society.

One practical way that that could happen is by allowing asylum seekers to work and contribute to society, so that they have meaningful activity. The Scottish Government will always do its best with the powers that it has, but they are simply not a substitute for independence and determining our own policy in relation to migration and asylum.

With the powers of independence, Scotland can finally deliver a fairer asylum and migration system that meets our values and needs as a progressive, forward-thinking nation. Having independent, progressive policies in this place is what we need to do for all our vulnerable people.

Good morning. I am interested to hear whether youse are still in support of a national care service.

Last week, the example of delayed discharges in East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire was raised in evidence. There is one health board but three local authorities. One local authority is doing really well in addressing delayed discharges. Is the support of care boards not part of the reform of creating a national care service, so that we can identify why something works really well in one area but not in the other two? That is only one example, but other local authorities struggle with delayed discharges. Is it not part of the reform to look at what is working in one area but not in others?

Good morning. My initial question is, what are your thoughts on the proposed amendments to the bill?

I have a wee supplementary question. Sweden has a senior alert programme, which includes an assessment for risk and prevention of falls, malnutrition and pressure ulcers. That is done before people even get to the point at which they need care. It is co-ordinated through a national programme that the Swedish Government introduced in 2010—14 years ago. It works; it has been shown to keep people out of hospital. We talk about preventing admission to hospital, but we also want to care for people when they come out of hospital.

In Scotland, we might be seen as a nanny state if we assess people when they turn 65. However, should the national care service aspire to have a programme that supports people to be at their healthiest in their home—or in a care home, which would become their home—for as long as possible, so that prevention runs alongside care?

You talked about direct funding, children and the removal of members from IJBs. In your negotiations with the Scottish Government—in the tripartite agreement that came to be the way to move forward—what additional reform would you like? What fundamental changes need to happen now?