Seòmar agus comataidhean

The British Bill of Rights Bill has now been scrapped by the UK Government and there is also a bit of an on-going live debate about the European Convention on Human Rights. We are talking about the landscape: how does that atmosphere and the on-going debate affect possible human rights legislation in Scotland? Is that affecting your work in any way?

It is lovely to see the panel this morning. Apologies that I cannot be there in person.

You have touched on the new Scottish human rights legislation and I know that you have done quite a lot of work on it and that it is on-going. Can you reflect on that work so far? Do you see any strengths or weaknesses?

Research indicates that 10 per cent of children and young people have a clinically diagnosable mental health issue, which is about three children in every class. In particular, neurodivergent children and young people are struggling now, as Scotland faces a severe shortage of medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which affects approximately 26,000 people. What can the Scottish Government do to address the issue?

Article 14 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:

“Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”

The United Kingdom played its part in drafting that declaration, which, today, the UK Government sadly undermines at each and every turn. It is important to remind ourselves, often, and without apology, of the context in which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted—a world that was riven by violence and hatred, and full of displaced people and those fleeing persecution in the chaos that followed a war that we must, again and again, commit ourselves never to repeat.

As we look on from Scotland at the conflicts in Europe and the middle east, it is hard not to ponder the solemn reality that it could be us, our children and our friends, or, as is the case with the First Minister, our own relatives, who are affected. History tells us that these conflicts do not occur in a vacuum, and that we must play our part as a responsible member of the global community.

It is heartbreaking to witness the UK Government continuing its vindictive campaign against those who need our help most, despite what we see happening in the world right now. I want to take time today to dispel some of the myths that are peddled by the UK Government and its Conservative defenders here, in Scotland.

They say that we do not have enough room, but let us look at that a bit more closely. Many of Scotland’s communities, particularly in rural Scotland, already experience acute depopulation and labour market challenges, in part because of Brexit and the end of freedom of movement. Scotland is far from full, and we are ready to take our share of those seeking refuge, but we are unable to do so due to the fact that this is a reserved matter.

The UK Government must cease its culture wars, fulfil its international obligations and invest in tackling the asylum backlog. Providing additional staff and ensuring more humane and efficient processes could mean a system that is fit for purpose. Instead, it has spent hundreds of millions of pounds on its inhumane and illegal Rwanda policy, which has resulted in what, precisely? Not a single thing. It is an abhorrent and immoral waste of taxpayers’ money.

The Conservatives tell us that we are being overrun, often in the most inhumane ways. Former Prime Minister and now Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron once referred to

“a swarm of people coming across the Mediterranean.”

Sadly, he is not alone. A former Home Secretary has referred to migrants as a “hurricane” and an “invasion”.

The Conservatives are trying to normalise such dehumanising language. Othering the most vulnerable in society is one of the oldest and, in my view, most despicable tricks in the Tory handbook. That will not wash here, in Scotland, and we will see that reflected in the upcoming general election, when we will see an end to the Scottish Conservatives.

The Conservatives ask us how we will pay for all the migrants. People fleeing conflict and persecution and seeking asylum on our shores have much to offer our communities, culturally and economically. It is therefore a shame that the UK Government continues to deny those seeking asylum the right to work and to contribute to our country.

As is noted in the “Building a New Scotland” paper that looks specifically at migration, we know that leaving the European Union has cut off a valuable and ready supply of workers to fill key posts. There have been fewer births than deaths registered in Scotland since 2011, so it is clear that we need inward migration to ensure that our communities are vibrant, diverse and thriving and to support local economies and the public sector.

Last month, I met fisheries stakeholders to discuss the detrimental impact that the proposed UK Government immigration rules would have on the seafood processing sector. During that meeting, there were numerous examples of seafood processing businesses—some of which are based in my constituency—comprised of workforces of up to 90 per cent migrant workers. The one-size-fits-all, Britain-bursting-at-the-seams narrative simply does not ring true in Scotland. With a hostile governing party and an indifferent Opposition, it is clear that the only way for Scotland to have the levers to reverse projected population decline is in an independent country.

Although the Conservatives scream, “Stop the boats!”, and “dream” and “obsess” about front pages full of planes taking off to Rwanda, Scotland has a different dream; our dream is for an asylum system that is founded on equality, opportunity and community. Those three words are a bedrock for the Scottish Government in all that it does. I remind members that that could be us seeking asylum. If it were, would we not want those from whom we were seeking asylum to treat us with the fairness, dignity and respect that we deserve and to be treated as we would wish to be treated ourselves?

I have a follow-up question about what needs to be taken into consideration here. As we have heard, there are a few pieces of legislation that you feel should be considered as we are looking at this bill but, at the same time, we are being asked to put this in place as soon as possible. I seek your opinions on the specific acts that we should take into consideration. Are you willing to let time elapse as we do that?

First, I want to acknowledge the harm that the arduous process associated with the bill—particularly the UK Government veto and the court ruling—has had on trans people, their families and their friends.

Will the cabinet secretary update the chamber on the significant impact that the way in which the section 35 order has been used has had on devolution?

To ask the Scottish Government how it engaged with fishing industry stakeholders as part of the annual fisheries negotiations. (S6O-02901)

I agree with the cabinet secretary about the stakeholders and how they negotiate their business. I was delighted to read that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation had praised the work of the Scottish Government in that area and that North Sea haddock and North Sea whiting were among the quota increases that were reported for Scottish fishers.

However, labour shortages are an acute problem in the seafood sector, particularly in seafood processing. I ask the cabinet secretary to continue to represent the views of the north-east fishers to the UK Government, to ensure that the opportunities that are presented by the increased quotas are not undermined by Brexit-related workforce shortages and the Tory visa rules that were announced this month.

One of the interesting points for me concerns the food security aspect of the bill and how that fits in. Lately, there has been upset in the markets and in deliveries to people and to supermarkets, which is quite concerning. How can we ensure that that aspect is included in the bill? Does that require something specific? Should payments be tied to production?

I find that quite interesting. A lot of the feedback was about noting plans—in particular, the good food nation plan—but the proposed natural environment bill was also mentioned. A whole list of things came up, including land reform. My question is about how we tie all that in. Jennie Macdiarmid is saying that we need to look at how we fit good nutrition and a healthy nation into the bill. Would that not just tie into the good food nation plan? If the bill was overarching and encompasses all those things, that would be quite a full and fulfilling document in itself.