Seòmar agus comataidhean

We move on to a question from Evelyn Tweed.

Our next agenda item is consideration of a type 1 consent notification for the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020. I refer members to paper 3. The Minister for Victims and Community Safety wrote to the committee on 27 May to give notice of the Scottish Government’s proposal to consent to the UK statutory instrument. The UK Government intends to lay the instrument on 1 September 2025.

Do members wish to make any comments on the Scottish Government’s notification?

Thank you. Before I bring this session to a close, I ask the witnesses whether they have been able to express everything that they wished to. Would you like to add anything else?

That is great. Thank you all once again very much for joining us. That brings our evidence session to a close. We will suspend briefly for a changeover of witnesses.

Under our second agenda item, we have the final evidence sessions of our inquiry into the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015. In the inquiry, the committee is exploring whether the BSL act, the current BSL plan and the listed authority plans are improving the lives of BSL users, and what changes could be made in the shorter and longer term to further improve things. I refer members to papers 1 and 2, and I welcome the first of two panels of witnesses.

We are joined in the room by Professor Annelies Kusters, professor of sociolinguistics, and Dr Robert Adam, associate professor in languages and intercultural studies, who are both from Heriot-Watt University. Joining us online from NHS Forth Valley are Stacey Gourlay, who is the disability liaison officer, and Rachel Tardito, who is the equality, diversity and wellbeing lead. Good morning—you are all very welcome to the committee.

We have just under an hour and a half for the discussion. We have not scheduled any breaks, but please indicate to me or the clerks if a break would be helpful. We move straight to questions and I will start us off. What are the positive impacts of the BSL act, and what are the main challenges in meeting its aims?

Are members content to take on board Maggie Chapman’s suggestion and ask for more detail?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. We will write to the Scottish Government and we will take on board Maggie Chapman’s suggestion.

That concludes our business in public. We will move into private session to discuss the remaining items on our agenda. Thank you.

This week marks carers week. This afternoon, I will host a round table in Parliament to discuss the Family Fund’s new report “The Cost of Caring 2025” and the urgent challenges that it highlights for families who are raising disabled and seriously ill children. With that in mind, what action is the First Minister’s Government taking to better support carers across Scotland?

A lot has been said about immigration in recent days, particularly from podiums in Downing Street, but very little has been said from places where decisions about immigration land the hardest, such as places in my Banffshire and Buchan Coast constituency. There, immigration is not just an abstract debate; it is a practical necessity. Immigration is necessary to ensure that there are enough workers to staff our care homes, to keep seafood processing lines running and to support our public services and the local economy. We are talking about real jobs, real communities and real people, and what the UK Government is proposing will make their lives and livelihoods much harder.

The UK Government’s immigration white paper is not about supporting growth or meeting need, and it is certainly not about fairness. It is a political manoeuvre, dressed up as policy, that is aimed at placating Reform UK. It is not about helping Scotland, and it is certainly not about helping rural Scotland. It proposes raising visa thresholds to degree level, extending English language requirements to dependents, increasing the qualifying period for settlement from five years to 10 and—crucially for us—closing the overseas care worker route. In areas such as mine, that change alone could devastate care provision. Services are already stretched, vacancy rates in social care are at their highest, and now a key recruitment route is to be cut off. There is no plan to replace it—all that we have had are vague promises of training and home-grown staff. We have heard that before.

It is not only care that will be affected. Our essential seafood industry, which feeds the country and exports globally, is again being treated as expendable. Processing facilities in my constituency rely heavily on migrant workers. They are already dealing with the legacy of Brexit, from lost labour to increased bureaucracy, and we are now being told that the very workforce that has kept them going is no longer welcome. Those are not hypothetical concerns; they are genuine concerns that have been expressed directly to me in conversations that I have had with employers.

We are constantly told that migration should be controlled, but what is being proposed is not control; it is restriction for the sake of restriction. It ignores Scotland’s demographic reality. Our working-age population is shrinking, our birth rate is falling and our population is ageing. National Records of Scotland and the Fraser of Allander Institute have both been crystal clear in saying that inward migration is essential if we are to sustain our economy and our public services.

The argument that we need to motivate more people into work falls flat when the evidence—especially in my constituency—shows that the working-age population numbers are simply not there. We need a migration system that reflects Scotland’s needs, not Westminster’s polling priorities and a culture war that sows division. We must reject hateful messaging and work together to ensure peace in our communities.

That is why I support the Scottish National Party Government’s motion, because it not only rejects the damage that the white paper would cause but recognises the positive, vital contribution that migrants already make to our communities, our services and our economy. Their contribution deserves recognising, not scapegoating. I underline the need for urgent and meaningful engagement between the UK and Scottish Governments. We cannot afford to be sidelined. If the proposed rules go ahead without adaptation, it will be Scotland’s businesses, care providers and families who will pay the price.

I plead that we look to the future, including that of our young people, many of whom want the freedom to work, study and travel across Europe. A new youth mobility scheme must be broad, inclusive and shaped by young people themselves. They have lost so much to Brexit, and it is time to give them something back. Scotland’s needs are distinct, and our values are even clearer. Rather than lying down to UK populism, we must use our voice in the immigration debate to stand up for Scotland.

This week, Labour chancellor Rachel Reeves indicated that, although some more pensioners could receive winter fuel payments this winter as a result of the United Kingdom Government’s U-turn, not all will. Although Labour is determined to take away winter fuel payments from pensioners, can the First Minister provide an update on the Scottish National Party Government’s work to reinstate a universal winter fuel payment to all pensioners in Scotland?