Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is that group of people and there are other groups, including people with disabilities, of whom we are very mindful. That is an issue that our colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy raised with me in the chamber last week. We are very seized of the spectrum of needs that people will arrive with.

On the technical question about Ukrainian medical records, I will have to come back to Dr Allan. Ukraine is a developed country that has computerised data management systems. Notwithstanding the fact that it is in a war situation, it has a functioning medical system, and the largest part of the country is not occupied. There must be ways in which information can still be accessed, but that very much depends on the capacity of the Ukrainian health system, which, as we can all understand, is under huge strain because of the injured—civilians in particular but also military personnel—who will be treated right across the country.

I will take that question away, but I know that our health service and everybody who assists in areas such as disability will be very seized of the need to ensure that we are able to do everything that we can to help.

In concert with the situation in all other European countries, there has been a reaction from both the Government and the private sector in Scotland. Some—I would say most—of our leading brands in most of our economic sectors that have had interests in Russia have already announced that they are divesting from Russia, or are no longer continuing to operate there. Committee members will be aware that the First Minister has written to ask that companies or entities that fall into that category consider their positions and divest from Russia.

We all know that the UK, and London in particular, has become a preferred location for oligarchs to park often ill-gotten, massive funds in different legal entities, including some with the name “Scottish” in them but which are Scottish only in name. They have been buying expensive property in London—some have bought expensive property and estates in Scotland. I very much hope that the new legislation will finally—finally—begin to get to grips with what until now has, at best, been tolerating ill-gotten gains being whitewashed in the UK’s headquartered financial systems, using overseas territories, and, at worst, has been understanding that that is happening at scale and allowing it to continue. It cannot continue. It is totally and utterly unacceptable.

Part of the problem for us in our national Parliament, speaking on behalf of our national Government, is that we do not have many of the levers to deal with this. We are dependent on legislation being passed in Westminster. The legislation has catch-all exemptions, which allow people to be exempted from the process on the ground of national security and any other number of reasons.

I am here to talk about the things that we have the power to make decisions on, but I was asked specifically about what we can do in an economic response. I think it is good that the UK Government is finally making some progress on this front, but there is still much, much more that can be done, and we should never go back. It should not be a temporary response to the circumstances in which we find ourselves now. Our company systems should be transparent. Landholding should be transparent. People who have ill-gotten gains should forfeit them, and we should use unexplained wealth orders as much as is necessary. If we are beginning to do that properly on a UK basis, that is to be welcomed.

Forgive me, but I did not get to Mr Ruskell’s question about language skills and assisting people who might not have English as a second language. The Scottish Government has been identifying a number of colleagues who are speakers of Ukrainian and/or Russian. The Ukrainian community in Scotland is, as you might imagine, seized of doing absolutely everything and anything that it can do to help people who are arriving, which is why we are working so closely with them to mobilise as many resources as we possibly can.

I should perhaps clarify that what we are learning about the significant change in the UK Government’s approach is that it is not moving from a position of waiving visa requirements for entry into the UK to the same position as the European Union countries are taking. The system it is changing to is making it possible for people to apply online and to receive a reply to that request online. We do not yet know how long applications might take. We are still at the early stages of understanding how things might work. Given the constraints on human resources, I imagine it would be easier administratively to deal with any application online, compared to using a smaller number of outlying visa offices where there are now long queues.

Our preference is for the UK to emulate the approach of Ireland and other EU member states and waive visa requirements entirely. That is not, apparently, what it is planning to do. It is changing the system in a way that should make application and the processing of such applications a lot speedier, with the anticipation that that would allow a lot more refugees to arrive here much more quickly than would otherwise have been the case.

Yes. This relates in part to the community scheme that the UK Government has talked about under which individuals, organisations or companies might be able to sponsor applicants so that they might secure a visa. We have been talking with the Home Office about those areas, and this is a very good example of where we would want to impress on the Home Office that families should be able to be together.

My view is that we should take in everybody who needs to be taken in. If the UK Government is going to continue to use what are effectively administrative immigration systems to deal with a humanitarian crisis, we have to do our best to make sure that it has the fewest restrictions possible. What Fiona Hyslop raises is a particular by-product of the existing approach, and it is exactly the type of thing that we have been bringing up.

One of the problems that we have had in the Scottish Government—and this will be the same for our colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland—is that when one seeks to speak with UK Government departments about the intended workings of schemes, nothing comes back on how they are intended to work. We have made major suggestions about what we would prefer, and I described to the committee earlier our approach involving local government at its heart. We say that to the Home Office and ask whether it agrees that it would be workable and advisable regardless of what one concludes is the best way of doing it elsewhere in the UK. We are very clear about what we want to do here. We think that it is the best way of delivering for people. In addition to that, it would appear that those specific administrative restrictions might still apply with after today’s update to visa applications that the UK Government is in the process of deciding and announcing, and we might still have to press to make sure that we do not see the circumstances that Ms Hyslop has raised.

I totally agree with Sarah Boyack. Such considerations need to be at the forefront of people’s minds. We will probably all have seen the same reports of the children with cancer who were unable to continue to receive medicine in Ukraine, who have now left and are receiving treatment in Poland. We can only imagine the challenge that it poses to the Polish health system to have to deal with a million refugees, including people with existing health conditions and other challenges.

That underlines why we all need to do our share so that the burden does not fall entirely on the immediately neighbouring countries. We have an excellent health service in Scotland, which is there for everybody at the point of need, and it will be there for Ukrainians who arrive here, too. They are entitled to free healthcare, as they should be, and the medicines that go with it.

Yes, in principle. I agree that there is a fine line in all of this. There are very principled Russians, often exiles, whether in the cultural sphere, journalism or political activism, who are opponents of the Putin regime, who have spoken out against the approach that the Russian Government has taken in pursuing its aims through violent means. As we know, this is not the first time that it has done that. It has done so in Georgia, twice; it has done so in Moldova; it has done so within its own borders, in Chechnya. This is not a new phenomenon. We have now got to the stage where the international community is saying, “We need everybody in Russia to understand that this cannot go on.” There is a general approach of divesting from Russia. There is a general approach of ending the participation of official Russian delegations, teams and so on.

At the heart of what you asked is an appreciation of the nuances of a situation in which the honorary president of the Edinburgh International Festival, who has not spoken out against the Putin regime, has been asked to give up his position—and quite rightly so—and a conductor of the Scottish Chamber Orchestra has taken a principled position in condemnation of the Russian Government. There is and must be nuance in the approach that we are taking to Russia, which recognises that there are a great many people who should be applauded for their principled stand, whether those in exile—who might be here—or the thousands of people who have been protesting on the streets of Russia itself. We need to make sure that, while taking a very strong and principled stand that is aimed at having a significant impact on Russian public opinion and the Russian regime, our approach is nuanced enough to encompass those Russians who are opponents of the regime. I am sure that nobody would wish an unintended consequence to be that we cause them difficulties.

Before I answer that, convener, I draw your attention to the fact that I am joined by Joanna Keating and Alison Byrne of the Scottish Government. They are the experts in the field, and I will ask them to follow on from my own answers if there are any pertinent aspects that I have not been able to share with you or if they have any insights from the constant meetings that are being had at the moment.

We have been communicating with the Home Office on our preferred scheme, but thus far we have not had a response on whether, from its perspective, it is workable or preferable. However, in Scotland, we want to work with local authorities, given the experience of the Syrian refugee scheme in particular, to ensure that there is, de minimis, an understanding of who is seeking resettlement and where. That will allow a local authority to know what people who are arriving in a new country require by way of help and support, whether it be housing—which obviously will be a primary consideration—or other wraparound care and support.

As we are talking largely about women and children, there will, in addition to housing, be questions of access to health service and health visitor support to deal with, and people will need to have an understanding of how nursery and school provision works. Of course, the focus in that respect is on the refugees who require that help and support, but it is also mission critical for our local government partners, in particular, to have an understanding of what they need to be doing, given the very rapidly increasing numbers of people who might well be arriving in different parts of the country. Local authorities will need to know how many additional places will be required in nurseries, schools and so on. That is why we have been sceptical of what appears to have been the UK Government’s preferred approach, which is that people just receive a visa and arrive. There seems to have been no thinking in the Home Office or in other UK Government departments about the primary role that local government needs to play in the process.

Up to now, therefore, the Scottish Government has been trying to impress on the UK Government its view that we have established practices in place, and we have been making it clear that we want to ensure that, as people arrive from Ukraine, we have learned from best practice from the Syrian refugee scheme and all the lessons about what works. My expectation is that the refugee numbers that we are talking about will be multiple times the 3,300 who arrived as part of the Syrian refugee scheme. Indeed, Ireland, which is pretty much the same size as Scotland, has seen more than 1,000 arrive in the first week alone. As I have no particular insight that suggests to me that we would be looking at any significant difference between Scotland and Ireland in that regard, it is quite helpful for us to understand what the Irish are already going through. If the updated UK scheme expedites the ability of Ukrainians to arrive here, we are going to have to stand these systems up very quickly and at scale. As you will appreciate, after this evidence session, I and my cabinet secretary colleague Shona Robison, who has the primary responsibility for the domestic side of this challenge, will be very actively having meetings to understand how things are likely to work and what the impact will be.

Thank you very much, convener. I will read out the first half of my statement and then, because of the very fast-changing situation that no doubt members will wish to ask me about, update the committee on my understanding of a very significant change in UK Government policy towards Ukrainian refugees.

I begin by reiterating that the Scottish Government has condemned Russia’s unprovoked invasion of a peaceful, democratic neighbour in the strongest possible terms several times over the past weeks. Scotland offers its unqualified support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Russia’s illegal act of aggression has no conceivable justification, and we reject whole-heartedly the premise of the invasion that is being peddled by President Putin and the Russian Government.

I deplore, as I know colleagues right across the Scottish Parliament do, the heartbreaking loss of life, including that of civilians, which is the direct responsibility of the Russian regime. I wrote to the Russian ambassador on 25 February in those terms, and I have spent time with the acting consul general of Ukraine to assure him of the Scottish Government’s steadfast support.

The Scottish Government has so far committed £4 million in humanitarian aid as part of global humanitarian efforts, with £2 million of that allocated to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Ukraine, which launched last Thursday. I thank everybody in Scotland who has also contributed so generously on a personal basis. The DEC appeal has now raised more than £10 million in Scotland alone.

The Scottish Government has allocated £1 million of our humanitarian aid to UNICEF to support its work in providing life-saving services and supporting families, while a further £1 million has been allocated to the British Red Cross and to the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund. Our financial aid contribution will help provide basic humanitarian assistance, including in health, water and sanitation and shelter to those fleeing Putin’s bombs.

On top of the £4 million in humanitarian aid, we have committed to providing around £2.9 million-worth of urgently needed medical equipment for Ukraine. Our first donation of medical supplies arrived in Poland on Thursday 3 March and is destined for the Ministry of Healthcare of Ukraine in Lviv. A second donation worth £1.2 million left Scotland on 4 March containing more than 130,000 items of medical supplies, including bandages and syringe pumps, and a further 32 pallets of bandages, intravenous sets and syringes left Scotland on Tuesday morning. I would like to place on record my thanks to NHS Scotland for responding to the specified needs of the Ukrainian Government with such lightning speed and fulfilling the request for urgently needed medical equipment, supplies and pharmaceuticals.

Like many across Scotland and the world, I have watched with distress the most significant displacement of humanity since the second world war. It is estimated that around 2 million Ukrainians—although that figure is soon to be overtaken—have been forced to leave their country because of Putin’s invasion, and I am sad to say that many more will follow. If I can take any heart from this tragedy, it has been the amazing generosity shown by people here in Scotland who have rallied to provide support for their fellow humans on the other side of Europe. The stories of families, communities, churches, mosques, shops, schools and workplaces across Scotland raising funds and collecting provisions and clothing for Ukrainians show the humanitarian support that has long been a feature of our country.

As is mentioned in the supporting documents for this evidence session, the Polish embassy in London has welcomed our communities’ generosity but has asked those wanting to help to make financial support and contributions instead, given the scale of the logistical effort and to ensure the most effective use of resources. I would echo that: the best way now of supporting people in this crisis is to provide cash to allow agencies to respond quickly in Ukraine and surrounding countries. The Scottish Government has provided information on the Ready Scotland website, where people can make donations of humanitarian support safely and effectively.

I will now briefly update the committee on the resettlement issue. Scotland, as ever, stands ready to offer refuge and sanctuary for those fleeing Ukraine, as we did with the Syrian resettlement programme, in which all of Scotland’s 32 local authorities participated and as a result of which more than 3,300 refugees were welcomed into communities. In recent days, we have been working very closely with colleagues in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Refugee Council and Police Scotland to co-ordinate plans and address the practical challenges of resettling Ukrainians here.

However, people need to arrive in the UK for that support to be given, and up to now, the UK Government has not, in our eyes, been doing enough to enable refugees to seek refuge. The UK Government’s planned community sponsorship scheme does not go far enough in supporting all those who seek refuge in Scotland and, instead, places responsibility for resettlement on to the community rather than with the UK Government.

We must also ensure that we learn lessons from the Afghanistan resettlement schemes with regard to providing rapid and appropriate support for those who need it. We absolutely stand ready to offer refuge and sanctuary to those who might be displaced, and we have been appealing to the UK Government to work with us on developing the detail of the scheme to ensure that we in Scotland can build in appropriate support from local government and other partners. We are working on the detail of the Scottish approach to implementing the UK Government’s schemes, but for us to do so effectively, the UK Government must share its plans and the detail urgently. After all, the situation seems to be changing literally as we meet.

We must be clear that the route as foreseen is completely inappropriate in addressing what could become the biggest refugee crisis since the second world war. Reports are beginning to emanate from Westminster that there has been a major rethink of the UK Government’s resettlement and visa scheme, which, uniquely in Europe, requires Ukrainian refugees trying to reach these shores to seek a visa from a UK Government office and to provide biometric data in situ—that is, in the likes of Poland and other neighbouring countries and indeed in France, too. We have all watched the very distressing television pictures of largely women and children, distraught as they wait for hours to register their interest in getting a visa and then have to wait an indeterminate amount of time to learn whether they will receive one.

It has been widely reported that the UK Government is in the process of deciding and announcing a major policy shift on this front, but I do not have any confirmed final details of that announcement. There will be colleagues who, while I have been speaking, have been able to follow updates on social media and might well know more than me, but we have not yet been formally informed of the position. My understanding, though, is that the visa application process is set to change by being dramatically speeded up and by not requiring people to automatically present themselves at offices. The expectation is that that will dramatically increase—and in a much shorter time—the number of people who can reach these shores.

That raises questions for us, and, after this meeting, I and my colleagues from the civil service will no doubt be having very detailed discussions to learn what we can expect as a result of this change in UK Government policy. As somebody who has been very vocal in calling for the UK to change its system, I will welcome anything that makes it easier for people seeking sanctuary and refuge to get it. Yesterday and the day before, I was in Dublin, holding talks with the Irish Government about, among other things, its humanitarian and resettlement programme. I was hugely encouraged by how the Irish national and local authorities and public administrations, including the health service, have been mobilised and are on hand to give people arriving in Dublin airport on a plane from Poland the help, support and guidance that they require from the minute that they arrive in Ireland. We, too, will look at doing absolutely everything that we can to ensure that, when people arrive here, they receive all the help, support and guidance that they require.

Deputy convener, I will stop there. Members will no doubt have many questions, especially in relation to the change in UK Government policy, but I am also happy to answer questions on any other aspect of the Scottish Government’s response to the crisis in Ukraine.

As we are all aware, the work of different charitable organisations will have a different focus and locus, and they have different logistical abilities with regard to delivering in different places. At the same time, we are also getting very strong guidance and requests from our Ukrainian Government partners, and there needs to be a mix-and-match process that takes into account our ambition to want to help as well as we can and the delivery mechanisms that are offered by the different charities.

Usually, when emergencies happen, UN agencies—perhaps those such as UNICEF that are focused on children, but other parts of the UN family, too—are despatched to react to such situations, and then there is also the likes of the Red Cross network. It is important to understand, as I know the committee will, that we are also assisting the countries neighbouring Ukraine, which have taken in the largest number of people. Those countries, which run in an arc from north to east and which include Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Moldova, have seen very significant numbers of people coming in. The number coming into Poland has been very large, but I think that Moldova, which I think that I am right in saying is still the poorest country in Europe, has had the largest per head uptake of refugees. We therefore have to ensure that we are being helpful and supportive to Ukrainians in country as well as those who have already left and to the different geographic areas that those people have fled to, and we will do that by working with the UN and, in particular, partners in the Disasters Emergency Committee sphere. We are also working beyond that, too. The Mercy Corps and Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund are two examples of aid organisations that are not currently within the DEC consortium but which we are also working with, because of their capability and their reach in Scotland, too.

Again, we are talking about a very fast-moving process. It is also an iterative process, because once one has despatched certain types of aid, the need changes. Members might want to follow this up in their questioning, but people have, as we know, been enormously generous here and, indeed, right across Europe in providing what they think will make the biggest difference to people. Baby food, nappies, clothing and toys are literally piling up in warehouses right across Europe. The question, now, is how we get those things to people in Ukraine and neighbouring countries. Indeed, given the numbers of people arriving, it might be best to offer that kind of charitable giving in the form of welcome or support packs for people who will be coming here. At the same time, we should recognise what the aid community and, indeed, Ukraine and its neighbouring countries have been saying about financial aid being the top priority now. The best thing that people who want to help and support Ukrainians in need can do is to give financial support primarily through the 12 or 13 charities in the DEC appeal consortium that are delivering in that area.

On the way here, I heard on the news headlines that the Home Secretary is expected to make an announcement that would see a change to the status of Ukrainians who are in the UK without leave to remain, and that their situation could be regularised because of course they cannot return to Ukraine. That was at 9 o’clock this morning. It is now being signalled that significant changes might be made on a number of fronts. Forgive me, but I have not been sighted on what those might be. Obviously, it would be a good thing for the UK Government to tell the Scottish Government what it intends to do about something that will have a big impact on things here, but I have still not been informed about that.

On no recourse to public funds, that is totally unsustainable. We have to make sure that people who are here, who have lost everything and have nothing, do not find themselves homeless or in penury. I will be looking closely at what the UK Government proposes. I have not seen it yet, but I hope that common sense has prevailed so that those who are here already can remain and will not need to go back, that all of those who wish to seek support and sanctuary here can do so, that they have recourse to public funds and, apart from anything else, that they can earn their keep if they want to work. Unfortunately, Scotland has been losing people and seeing people leave because of the impact that Brexit has had on our workforce.

Our first response is a humanitarian response, but people might stay here for some time. Notwithstanding the fact that most refugees would wish to go home as quickly as possible, looking at the damage that has been wrought on communities in Ukraine until now, we are talking about people going back to cities that do not stand any more. We have to be ready to support people for as long as it takes before they can go home. That will require public funds to be made available to ensure that people are properly supported, as they should be.