Seòmar agus comataidhean

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:

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

The United Kingdom helped to draft that declaration and voted for it at the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, in the wake of the deadliest conflict the world had ever seen. Three years later, the 1951 refugee convention, which the United Kingdom once again helped to draft and voted for, clarified the status of refugees and set out the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum. Article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention is clear:

“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees”.

There should be no ambiguity on that matter.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said that if passed, the UK Government’s proposed Illegal Migration Bill

“would amount to an asylum ban—extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly”.

At this morning’s meeting of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, on which I sit, we heard powerful and compelling evidence from a number of third sector organisations that support refugees in Scotland. They called the proposed legislation an “anti-human being bill” and called on members of all parties to oppose it.

I echo that call on their behalf here in the chamber, but I cannot say that I am holding my breath. Only a few months ago, the Conservative Home Secretary referred to migrants who risk their lives to cross the ice-cold waters of the Channel in dinghies as an “invasion”. That should come as no surprise. After all, the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, often touted as a moderate Tory, referred to desperate asylum seekers at Calais as a “swarm”, and the former Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Fallon, said that towns and communities were being “swamped” by huge numbers of migrant workers. Only a few months ago, Lee Anderson MP called refugees “illegal immigrants” and said that giving sanctuary to asylum seekers left a “bitter taste” in his mouth. That is the true and ugly face of the hostile environment foisted on us by a Conservative Government that Scotland did not vote for.

I was deeply saddened last year to hear the Labour shadow chancellor calling for more deportations, but I am glad to see Scottish Labour’s rejection of the bill, and I align myself with the words of Pam Duncan-Glancy at this morning’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee meeting.

I do, and I am hopeful that our UK colleagues can still exert some pressure. This morning’s words by the member’s colleague, Pam Duncan-Glancy, were very powerful. She expressed her anger and disgust at the bill, and I align myself with her words.

The only response to the dehumanisation tactics that we have come to expect from the Conservatives is fierce opposition. I ask colleagues across the parties to ensure that pressure is put on them on the UK side of things and that we all reject the rhetoric that they spew.

Scotland has a long and proud history of welcoming people of all nationalities and faiths and we will always stand shoulder to shoulder with those who are seeking refuge from war and persecution. We want nothing to do with this vile bill, which seeks to punish some of the most vulnerable people in the world.

As the UK Government dehumanises and punishes vulnerable asylum seekers, I want members to hear at first hand from a young LGBT+ Afghan who, despite the odds, made it to these shores after Kabul fell. When he spoke to my office this morning, he said:

“It has been a year since I left my loved ones behind and have been living far away from the home where I was born and where I belonged. I did not leave Afghanistan willingly. I was forced to take the difficult decision to face the hardships—of financial difficulty, of separation from my family, of uncertain legal status, and of the many cultural differences here—ultimately for my own survival.

We found an impossible, but legal route. It took a great deal of time, favours, money—and months of terror, hiding and hard work. We did not expect it to work, and can’t make it work for anyone else. I have other friends who are stuck in Afghanistan. I don’t expect them to survive.”

That is very hard hitting and it takes a while for the reality of it to sink in.

There are people around the world whose lives are in peril, many of whom have social, cultural or linguistic ties to the United Kingdom, but who are unable to seek asylum here. Why? It is because there is no system for applying for asylum from abroad. To make an application for asylum, a person has to be on British soil. A person will be refused entry on to a plane or a ship without the appropriate visa. Safe and legal routes are limited at best.

I conclude by echoing again the poignant words of the LGBT Afghan who spoke to my office this morning:

“I have other friends who are stuck in Afghanistan. I don’t expect them to survive.”

We must heed the call of the charities that gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee this morning, which work on the front line with refugees in Scotland. I call on members to please put pressure on colleagues UK-wide and reject this anti-human bill.

I thought that we had moved on, but we have not skipped that question.

What adaptations have been put in place for climate change, biodiversity challenges and ecosystem issues? Do the witnesses have any particular examples? I ask Morgan Vaughan to start.

My apologies convener. Is this question 3d?

I find that really interesting. According to a publication that has come out today from the Rowett Institute, the 19 per cent inflation on food prices is going to have serious health implications for citizens in Scotland. I absolutely agree with you—I just wanted to reference that paper, too.

I also have a supplementary, convener, so I will try to be smart and blend the two questions together. Please bear with me.

I have found the evidence session really interesting. Picking up on what Pete Smith was talking about, I would just say that the climate here in the north-east, where I am, is fantastic, with perfect growing conditions for fruit, including soft fruits, and vegetables. However, one of the issues is that, even though we are growing all this fantastic food and we have the best soil possible and so on, there is no one to pick anything, and the fruit and vegetables are going rotten in the fields. It has been really interesting to hear how interdependent we are on so many factors when it comes to food stability, our ecosystems and so on. Everything is part of a chain, and, if we are to have the good food that we have been talking about, we must look at everything in the round.

Although it has been fantastic to hear what everyone has had to say, I am going to try to wrap things up by asking whether there is anything that you feel should be included in the agri bill that we might not have spoken about and that we might need to tie into it.

Yes, but what are the cost implications for those who are trying to mitigate the direct effects of climate change, in particular? We have had a lot of storms up here in the north-east, which has created challenges for our local agricultural sector that it has not faced before. How do such things affect the whole farming industry?

Following on from the previous question, the report says that the SAWC

“did not find any evidence that the industry was prepared to make the radical changes that would be required to achieve improved dog welfare.”

What conversations and what kind of engagement did you have to come to that conclusion?

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the UK Government regarding funding for carbon capture projects in Scotland. (S6O-02085)

For more than a decade, the Tory Government has promised carbon capture and storage to the people of the north-east, but we have been overlooked time and again. My constituency boasts great projects, including SSE’s plans for a new CCS station at Peterhead and the Acorn project. Today, The Times reported that the UK Government has, at the last minute, moved an announcement on further funding, which was due to take place tomorrow, from Aberdeenshire to England. Will the minister join me in calling on the UK Government to finally get behind the Scottish Cluster?