Seòmar agus comataidhean

Just following on from my colleague’s line of questioning, I note that, in the earlier evidence session—you might have heard some of it—there was a wee bit of discussion about interpreters and access to interpreters for asylum seekers. Can panellists tell the committee about the provision and use of language interpreters across Scotland? I am trying to think who on the panel is best placed to answer. I will start with Gayle Findlay, for the COSLA perspective, and see where we go from there.

Thanks very much for that, Susanne, and I thank the other witnesses. We have heard in both evidence sessions this morning, and previously, that this is an issue that the committee can certainly take forward.

I want to ask about asylum seekers and refugees who need mental health support. How readily available is that support for asylum seekers? Do they know and understand that they can access it? I am looking at you, Dr Nina Koruth. Perhaps you can come in on that.

How can local authorities and government more widely be ahead of the game and know which interpreters are needed? How could that information be shared so that a local authority, such as North Lanarkshire Council, which covers the area that I represent, could say what interpreters might be required. Who would be able to provide information in response to that? Would it be the Government? Would it be the third sector?

It strikes me that that could be a really difficult and complicated issue. I recently held an event for a large number of Ukrainian refugees who have settled in Coatbridge. We got all the folk in place, but, unfortunately, the interpreter who was due to come could not make it on the day. The Member of Parliament and I were about to address the refugees who came, and it just so happened that a lady who was there was able to interpret. It is a massive issue.

Claire Dobson and Elaine Tomlinson, in your dealings with people, do you recognise Bronagh Andrew’s comments about interpreters? Is that an issue, or do you always have access to interpreters?

I think that it should be Paul O’Kane next.

Russell Findlay has asked exactly the question that I was going to ask about the game on Sunday. However, rather than withdraw my question as I would usually do, given that it is your first appearance at the committee, I will take the opportunity to formally welcome you to your new role, minister, and I will try to ask my question slightly differently.

We have spoken about the old firm match on Sunday, which was disrupted by flares, right on cue for your appearance at the committee today, minister. You have already had an exchange with Russell Findlay on that, and I do not expect additional answers, but has the Government had discussions with any of the authorities about possible harms that were caused on the day? Has any initial analysis been done of how the provisions in the act that come into force in June might have prevented or alleviated what happened on Sunday?

I realise that you have almost answered that question, but I have tried to put a slightly different angle on it.

Good morning. I thank members of the panel for what has been—like last week’s session—another powerful session. Thank you all for coming here to advocate for the most vulnerable in our society and doing so in such an impassioned way.

By this stage, a lot of the issues have already been discussed. We have already touched on the Illegal Migration Bill; most of you will be aware that there was a debate about it in the chamber last week, in which many of us took part. It is an abhorrent piece of legislation, as I think our witnesses all recognise. As a committee, it has been put to us that a broader humanitarian strategy that incorporated strategies that are already in place might be a better way to address and mitigate any consequences of the Illegal Migration Bill.

I wonder whether anyone would like to comment on that. Given the number of people on the panel, I am happy to pass back to the convener to see who wants to come in.

Pinar Aksu and María José Pavez covered my next and final question, which is to ask what the panel thinks the Scottish Government and local authorities could do more of, within their powers. Could the Scottish Government and local authorities do more to mitigate the bill and the situation generally?

I do not disagree with a lot of what has been said, but at one of the round-table evidence sessions it came out that these situations are often very complex and pressures at work or work-related issues might be having an impact on the person. I might be wrong on this, but from what is in front of us, I am surprised that Police Scotland is not open to making some sort of analysis of that.

I know that we would need to be careful about how that analysis was carried out, but maybe work pressures are more of a leading factor. Jamie Greene was talking about various situations that police officers can find themselves in—especially in these times, when they have additional pressures. That could be used to try to find out if there is any pattern, perhaps of officers who attended specific types of incidents or have been involved in specific types of investigations against them. It might not always lead to the tragic situation described today, but might have other impacts on mental and emotional health.

I would like to see that analysis. The committee is taking a lot on and talking about what more the committee can do, but I think that Police Scotland has a bit of work to do here. I know that the committee asked Police Scotland to do that before and the response to that is under paragraph 10 in our papers. I do not think that it said yea or nay to that; it certainly did not say that it was going to do it. There is a bit of work to be done by the police to try to analyse those situations.

Perhaps they are doing that. They might write to the committee to say that they are in the process of doing it or have done it and what they have found.

That is the only way that we can find out what impact the work pressures are having on people’s health because such situations, as everybody round the table knows, are very complicated. Numerous factors are likely to be involved in a person’s wellbeing. The question is what role the job is having and whether a pattern is emerging over case after case of people who are experiencing poor mental or emotional health.

I second that.

Kaukab Stewart was chosen as convener.