Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a very detailed description of some of the services and the way in which they are and can be delivered, and I thank you for that. Do you have any idea of how much asylum seekers and refugees know that they can access those services? Do you feel that they are accessed regularly and that there is a general understanding that they can be accessed? Whether asylum seekers and refugees want to access them is a different issue. Do you think that we can do more to ensure that people understand that they can access that support should they wish to?

Thank you, and I am happy to go to Louise Long, if that is all right. I have three areas of questioning. The convener will be glad to hear that I do not propose to ask all five panellists each question. Louise, will you pick up on the interpreter issue?

I have a final line of questioning, if that is all right?

I want to follow on from my colleague Paul O’Kane by asking about access to services and support.

I will start with Bronagh Andrew. What more can the Scottish Government and local authorities do to increase the consistency of support that asylum seekers receive? Would it be beneficial if a lot more was free at the point of access, such as, for example, bus passes? I know that that is quite a broad question, but I am trying to find another way to ask a question on a similar area to Paul’s.

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.

Would Graham O’Neill or Phil Arnold like to add anything? As the convener said in her line of questioning, you do not have to do so.