Seòmar agus comataidhean

Elspeth Macdonald, do you want to react to my comment? I should say that, a number of years ago, I spoke to a scallop dredger who was interested in making a transition, but to what I would not want to suggest.

I thank the committee for its comprehensive report on the human rights of asylum seekers in Scotland. The findings are truly shocking. I challenge anyone to read it and not to feel compelled to act, because it is painfully clear that the Westminster Government has chosen to inflict unimaginable cruelty on people who are seeking refugee protection. We have seen the Prime Minister threatening to break international law and offshore refugees to Rwanda. We have seen refugees forced into wildly inappropriate accommodation, from army barracks to floating prisons.

This morning, we heard the news of the death of a person on the Bibby Stockholm, which is a huge tragedy for that person and for all the people who loved them. That is somebody who will never see the freedom that they dreamed of in coming to this country.

People have been stuck in hotels in Scotland as well, sharing rooms with people they do not know for months on end and unable to access the support that they desperately need. They are fragile and traumatised, and they need mental health support.

I was struck by the minister’s comment at the beginning of the debate, when she recalled that there are some people who do not even know that they are in Scotland. I find that so sad. That has to change, and we have to welcome these people to our hearts.

There is a huge increase in the number of people who are forced into homelessness after being granted refugee status. The Home Office is evicting some people with barely a week’s notice to find somewhere new to live. We should remember, however, that such hostility to people who are seeking refugee protection did not start with Suella Braverman or Rishi Sunak, and it is unlikely to end with a change of guard at Westminster.

With powers over immigration, Scotland could do so much better than that. We could do far more to protect the rights of refugees, people seeking asylum and all those who choose to make Scotland their home. We could choose to build a system that is based on compassion, empathy and solidarity—not on cruelty, hostility and inhumanity.

Although we might want to dismantle the hostile environment in its entirety and start again, we cannot legislate to do that in the Scottish Parliament—not yet, at least. Right now, we remain limited to mitigating some of the worst impacts of the Tory Government’s assault on the right to asylum. That is our serious responsibility, as a country that is committed to human rights, and which is proud to protect refugees.

The Scottish Government has shown leadership in protecting people who are seeking asylum through the limited powers that are available to us, and the committee’s report outlines where we have already taken steps in that regard. However, the report and the evidence from witnesses make it clear that the assault on asylum is so stark that we need to use all the powers that we have within our devolved competence to protect everyone who comes to Scotland in search of safety.

With the stakes so high, we must do more, go further and be braver, because people who are seeking refugee protection are facing unimaginable hardships right now, in our communities. They are banned from working and from accessing mainstream social security benefits, and they are forced to live on just over £6 a day for all essential living needs. That includes clothing, travel, staying connected with loved ones, toiletries, school supplies for their kids, food and so much more. The amount that they get is barely 60 per cent of what I, or other members, would receive in universal credit. Those who are living in hotels receive only around £1.40 a day.

A recent survey by Asylum Matters of 300 people seeking asylum found that 91 per cent did not have enough money to buy food; three quarters could not afford the medicines that they need; and 95 per cent were not able to travel where they needed to by public transport. That is exactly what Just Right Scotland has described as “state-enforced destitution”.

The committee also heard from witnesses about the impact of that enforced poverty on people seeking asylum, and it heard calls from within the refugee community that Scotland could do more to alleviate that hardship.

For the past two years, campaigners at Maryhill Integration Network and the Voices Network have been calling for the expansion of concessionary bus travel to people who are seeking asylum. Alongside colleagues on all sides of the chamber, in particular Paul Sweeney and Bob Doris, I have supported those inspiring campaigners, so I was delighted to see the committee’s report echo our call for change.

Since then, we have managed to secure a £2 million commitment from the Scottish Government to finally grant concessionary bus travel to people who are seeking asylum—a measure that Patrick Harvie announced last month. I look forward to working closely with colleagues and the two ministers, and with campaigners, to get that delivered within the next year. That is just one example of how we can use the powers that we have within our devolved competence to protect everyone who comes to Scotland in search of safety.

That will make an enormous difference to the lives of people who are rebuilding their lives in Scotland, and go some way towards mitigating those hardships that are inflicted by the Home Office. The committee’s report must be a wake-up call. We are witnessing an all-out assault on the rights of refugees in the UK, and our actions here must match the scale of that threat. We must stand up for our friends and neighbours, and make sure that Scotland does everything that it can to be the welcoming nation that we strive to be.

Can you forecast the capital requirement for the digital strategy or can you give us an indication of the scale of that for beyond 2024-25?

Yes, and if at some point over that six to nine months there is more clarity, we will be interested in having the details shared with us, too.

I want to move on and ask about pay and pay negotiations. Obviously, you are not able to discuss in any detail where you are at this point or any likely or potential pay award for the next year, but perhaps I can frame the question by asking you about last year. As I think that you said in your initial comments, you budgeted for a 3 per cent pay increase, but you landed with 6 per cent. Obviously, that will have been extremely welcome for your staff, and you already explained the bottom loading that took place for staff on lower salaries. What have you learned from last year’s pay negotiation process? How does it feed into your assessment of a potential pay award for this year? Critically, what are you budgeting for at this point and, as a result, what are you asking the SCPA to support you with?

Thank you, chair, and good morning to the panel. Can I ask you about the capital budget? The whole of the capital budget is going on the digital strategy in the next year. I take it that there will no other capital requirements for the next year beyond the digital strategy. Is that right?

Those are useful and full answers. I will hand back to you, chair.

On a point of order, my app would not connect. I would have voted no.

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact of introducing ticket levy schemes at large music venues in Scotland. (S6O-02832)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that positive response. The Music Venue Trust estimates that a £1 levy on tickets for shows at two big arenas in Scotland would generate £1 million a year. Of course, the cabinet secretary will also be aware that A G Entertainment has now announced plans for a new megavenue at Edinburgh Park, where a £1 levy could raise £8,500 at each sold-out show.

Does the Government agree that that could be a significant funding stream, through which the profits of big culture could be reinvested in grass-roots music, arts and cultural venues? Will ministers agree to meet me and the Music Venue Trust in the new year to discuss a way forward on the back of the conversations that are, I understand, now taking place?

We have a motion to recommend that the Parliament annul the instrument. This might seem an obvious question, but what would be the impact if the motion were agreed to? Would it just mean that fines would stay at £200 and would not go up, or are there wider implications?