Chamber and committees

Gosh, there are so many things. There was a positive response, not just through our partnerships with local councils and third sector community groups but in the way that people came forward to support Ukrainians, whether organising collections of aid or money or helping them in other ways. Whenever people heard that a Ukrainian family was moving into an island community, they surrounded it and came together to make sure that those people felt safe and felt that they were a part of the community. In particular, the difference between the 3,000 people that we said that we would take in Scotland and the almost 25,000 that we have ended up with—an incredible number—shows that we can support people when we want to do so.

Absolutely. We have been doing that for the past few months. I have been clear with the UK Government—as has the First Minister—that Scotland stands ready now. If the UK Government makes moves to open a resettlement scheme for people who need to leave Gaza and seek safety, we have been clear that Scotland will do its part to take in refugees and support them in the way that we did Ukrainians. Likewise, we have also been clear that we would use the Scottish NHS to support injured and sick children in Gaza. It is very frustrating that those powers do not lie with us.

During the past few weeks, we have been clear about what an independent Scotland would do differently. We set out what our immigration system would look like, and have been clear that it would be based on treating other humans with dignity, fairness and respect. However, in the meantime, this is the system that we operate in. We have been very clear to the UK Government that, if those routes were opened up, we would be ready.

Labour’s position is not something that I can speak to, but we are certainly keeping an eye on the possibility of a change in Government. For my part, I am willing to work with anyone who might be in a position to give Ukrainians in Scotland that certainty, because it is by far the issue that is raised most often with me and officials when we are out speaking to the Ukrainian community in Scotland.

Members might be aware that I wrote to my Home Office counterpart yesterday, along with COSLA and the Scottish Refugee Council, pressing for that clarity to be provided. I think that the Home Office’s current position is that it has not decided on its preferred option, so it is not yet able to communicate it to us or to Ukrainians living in the UK, but we are in regular communication about it.

I and colleagues in the refugee space in Scotland have been pressing regularly for any kind of timescale or update that we can provide. I know that the uncertainty impacts family and travel plans and it causes people to be hesitant about committing to long-term employment and housing. Everything in their lives is up in the air, so we are very much alive to the issue.

I also know that officials have been working with UK officials to try to move things along. In partnership with the Ukrainian Government, we want to make sure that clarity is provided.

We are very alive to the fact that things can change. We have been reviewing the supersponsor scheme pause regularly—previously at three-month intervals and now at six-month intervals, with the next review happening this month. Within that, there are a number of tests—including escalation in the war, which would mean that more people were in immediate need of support—and if those were met, we would consider reopening the scheme.

However, as the member noted, given the number of visas that the Scottish Government has sponsored that have not resulted in Ukrainian arrivals, it is difficult to balance the numbers. We would be in the position of not knowing the scale of the numbers of people to whom we might need to provide immediate support; we have a responsibility to everyone who comes for support to provide the best that we can, and to provide suitable accommodation and not end up with people having to stay in temporary accommodation for too long. That is quite a difficult situation to manage, which is why we need to keep reviewing it and make sure that the tests are met before reopening the scheme.

Yes.

There are certainly difficulties, but I would point more to the successes in councils. Edinburgh has certainly been one where the wraparound support has been good and the partnership working with the third sector has been very visible, despite housing pressures.

We work to encourage other local authorities to raise their game and ensure that they are doing all that they can to support Ukrainians in their areas or to let Ukrainians who are currently in welcome accommodation know what the options are within their area if they have not considered them yet. There are really good examples from across the country, despite the housing pressures, of creative thinking and of good work with the third sector.

I am aware that more than half of local authorities now operate some form of scheme, and we looked into the feasibility of something wider. I do not have the report from the working group.

Yes, that is an argument that we make for migration overall, but also in the context of individual schemes. I am aware that there are Ukrainians who are contributing massively to different sectors that were previously really struggling to recruit.

At the time when I was on the MS Victoria, 85 per cent of the people staying there were in employment of some kind. That shows that we have a cohort of people who not only need our support, but are willing and able to work, and very often in sectors that are struggling to recruit domestically. We have made that point to the UK Government, in relation both to Ukraine and to wider migration needs.

I would be guessing at the details of the UK Government's position, but from our perspective, one of the difficulties is that, although people are displaced internally in Gaza they are not classed as refugees while they are still in that place. The struggle that many have had to cross any border has made it a lot harder for neighbouring countries to provide support of the kind that Poland was able to provide to Ukraine.

That is exactly what we are trying to do. Covid was not the only or the first example of a situation in which not having intersectional inequalities data led to poorer outcomes for various groups. However, it certainly brought together the anti-racism interim governance group, which eventually recommended the establishing of the anti-racism observatory. The impact of its work will therefore be far more wide ranging than simply addressing the inequalities that became clear through the pandemic.

As for connecting pieces of work, it is important to note that the observatory is not the answer to racial inequality; it is part of the solution. It will allow us to create stronger evidence-based policy. It is also not the only approach that we are taking to obtaining data as we recognise the requirement for intersectional information.

You will be aware that we are currently considering a review of the operation of the public sector equality duty. Recently, I wrote to stakeholders to outline the next steps on that, which we propose should include two key regulatory changes, including revising the current pay gap reporting duty to include information on ethnicity pay gaps. Pay gap reporting is an important means of driving action to spotlight and reduce pay inequalities that affect certain disadvantaged groups, and extending the requirement to report on pay gaps between men and women to include reporting on those relating to disability and ethnicity will encourage public bodies to take more effective action on equalities issues that affect their disabled and minoritised staff.