Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that the Court of Session ruling was a demonstration of the fundamental flaws of devolution.

Of equal note is that last Friday will have been disappointing and traumatic for many. Will the Scottish Government give an unequivocal commitment to continue to do all that it can to support the community? What assurances can the cabinet secretary give today that any decision in relation to the ruling will be treated with the utmost sensitivity?

First and foremost, I express my profound regret at the sad news from this morning about the loss of life aboard the Bibby Stockholm. I offer my condolences to the family and friends of the asylum seeker whose life was lost.

As a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, I often witness the tireless work of organisations and individuals to embed humanity into policy, and I am consistently reminded of the profound responsibility that we hold. The stories of asylum seekers in Scotland, as detailed in the recent human rights report, are not just abstract accounts; they are vivid realities that demand our attention and action. The work that we undertook to gather people’s real-life experiences on a personal level will stay with me forever.

I have been thinking about how easy it is to take it for granted that we live in a country free from conflict, and about what would happen if that ever changed. How would the world react to us if we ever needed to flee and seek refuge? Perhaps that thought is more profound at this time of year, coming up to Christmas, knowing that, across the country, many children will be re-enacting a very familiar story of a family and their unborn child seeking refuge.

The lived experiences of asylum seekers, as highlighted in the committee’s report, must guide our policies. Each individual brings a story—a narrative of loss, resilience and hope. Those are not mere tales; they are a reflection of our shared humanity.

The UK Government’s approach to immigration not only lacks compassion; it denies the rights of, and dehumanises, those seeking refuge, as they are entitled to do under article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On Sunday, we celebrated the 75th anniversary of that declaration, and next year will mark 70 years since the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees came into force.

A Conservative minister recently made the assertion that asylum seekers risking their lives crossing the Channel had “no excuse” and were “breaking into our country”. That is not just insensitive—it is a stark dismissal of human rights. That is dog-whistle politics at its worst, and it serves only to marginalise further those vulnerable individuals who are seeking safety and refuge. It ignores the complex and often harrowing reasons that compel people to undertake such perilous journeys.

Our response should be inclusive and supportive, not merely tolerant. For example, the need for mental health services is critical, as is underscored in the committee’s report. Many asylum seekers carry the scars of trauma and require culturally sensitive and accessible mental health care. Similarly, the importance of language assistance cannot be overstated. As has been noted, many asylum seekers struggle with language barriers, which hinder their ability to integrate and to access vital services.

We should consider the potential of concessionary travel for all asylum seekers, a policy that embodies dignity and freedom, allowing them to explore and to integrate into our communities. That is not just about policy; it is about sending a clear message: “You are a part of our society, and you are welcome.”

It was plain to see that the core need for the provision of accurate information was essential. Asylum seekers must be aware of their rights, particularly in healthcare and legal services. That is not just a policy imperative; it is a moral one. It ensures that everyone who arrives in Scotland is treated with the respect and care that they deserve. Our approach must be rooted in kindness, empathy and a commitment to human rights. Every policy and every number represents a human story that deserves to be heard and acted upon.

We can lead by example and show the power of compassion in asylum and immigration policies. We must not be swayed by political pressures or bureaucratic convenience. Instead, let our actions be guided by the warmth of our humanity and the strength of our convictions. We need a distinctly Scottish path—one that is marked by understanding and by respect for human dignity. For example, that path could take the form of a new humanitarian strategy, as proposed by the Scottish Refugee Council, emphasising a “protect not penalise” approach, with anti-poverty and mental health initiatives to address the threats posed by serious and organised crime.

Although immigration and asylum remain reserved matters, there is much that we can do within our devolved powers. We can find innovative accommodation solutions, extend support to third sector organisations and ensure access to essential services such as ESOL and healthcare.

As I conclude, I ask for our response to asylum seekers to be more than only a policy one: it must reflect our values as a society. It is about building a future in which compassion and human dignity are the foundations of our approach to those who seek sanctuary on our shores. As we move forward, we must remember that our policies and words have the power both to uplift and to harm. Let us choose kindness and respect and let us reaffirm our commitment to being a society that welcomes, supports and values every human life, regardless of where they come from or where the journey that they endured to reach us began.

I would like to hear views on the rural support plan. I note from some of the written statements in evidence that people have commented on the detail that might be in that plan and what they think ministers should have regard to. Ross Paton mentioned land reform, for example. I would like to kick off with those views.

Could you give a specific timeframe? How long do you think is long enough for that planning?

That is helpful. Thank you, minister.

Minister, is there any risk in amending the bill to give the Lord President additional powers? For example, the proposal to amend section 29 would give the Lord President the sole right to consider

“applications by bodies wishing to enter the legal services sector as new regulators”.

Is there a risk that the Lord President might be either too conservative or too slow in deciding which bodies could become new regulators?