Chamber and committees

Being mindful of an earlier comment about what the reform that we are scrutinising seeks to do and what it does not do, your remarks are well made.

Good morning, and thank you both for being with us this morning and for the evidence that you have provided in your opening statements and in writing.

I have a couple of questions to ask, and I will start with Alice Sullivan. I know that other members are going to come on to talk more about data, so I am going to ask questions about the need or the case for change. Alice, in your view, is there a requirement for this reform in the first place? You talked a lot about the implications for data, so do you see there being a need for change if we can get some of the data stuff right? I appreciate that other members will ask about the data in a moment.

Like some others in the chamber today, I came to Scotland by choice. I found welcome, community, potential and purpose. In making my home here, I had the privilege of agency and choice, and the power of personal decision.

I know what it means to travel far from family and friends, and from a life left behind. I know what it means to retain a strong tie to another part of the world and to miss and yearn for that different life. However, I do not know from personal experience what it means to have to do that: to put my fate in the hands of strangers and to trust, without option, in the systems and bureaucracies of another state to save me from the persecution of my own. Yet, if we are to speak of that—indeed, if we are to be fully human—we must try to imagine how it feels for the past to be a place of pain, the future a blank void of uncertainty and the present, far too often, for far too long, a limbo of empty stasis where one is waiting for a decision.

As public representatives, we need to see the big global picture and to pay attention to the details: the granularity of daily life for those who do us the privilege of seeking asylum here. We need to acknowledge the web of geopolitical connections, the ways in which we and people like us have benefited from global injustices, and the communal responsibility that we unwittingly share.

When, as now, actions are taken in our name that exacerbate the suffering of refugees, punish them for no fault and increase the numbers of those who are forced to flee their homes, we must speak out and go on speaking out. We have a voice and a platform. We have that privilege—and that duty.

The shabby, cynical attempt of the UK Government to buy its way out of its moral and legal responsibilities is a new low even by Boris Johnson’s standards. A tiny proportion of the world’s refugees make the difficult and dangerous voyage to the shores of Britain. The UK Government has deliberately failed to provide safe routes for them. Now, those forced to use unsafe routes are to be punished further: they will be flown thousands of miles from the support networks that they struggled so hard to reach to Rwanda, a country whose human rights violations the UK itself has recently condemned. The Government is further endangering vulnerable lives and undermining, for the whole world, international law and principles.

The Rwanda scheme—I am sorry, Presiding Officer, but my Surface has just crashed.

The Rwanda scheme is no mere one-off populist stunt. In November, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration published his report into Home Office asylum casework. That report reveals in stark detail the true refugee crisis: a scandal of chronic delays, incompetence, insensitivity and extortionate spending on completely inappropriate and inhumane private sector accommodation. What was the UK’s reaction to that revelation? It chose to double down on its cruelty and stupidity with the passing of the shameful Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

In a few short months, Boris Johnson’s Government tore up our relationship with the refugee convention, threw away some of the genuinely proudest moments of British history, and flung the pieces into the faces of those most in need of our care, our compassion and basic minimum justice—those in need of our word. Instead of a place of safety, what the UK now offers to those fleeing persecution, including Afghan people escaping the Taliban, is what the Scottish Refugee Council has accurately described as a “refugee punishment regime”.

Meanwhile, Boris Johnson’s trade policy helps to drive millions more from their homes. The UK supplies more than half of the combat aircraft used by Saudi Arabia for bombing raids on Yemen, with UK bombs, missiles, and even cluster munitions on board. The results are heartbreaking atrocities, evidenced war crimes, famine and disease.

This year, the UN Refugee Agency called the situation in Yemen

“one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises”,

with 4.3 million people displaced internally. That is the reality of global Britain under the Tories—it is a legacy of hunger, loss and pain that is consciously and deliberately continued.

I ask those who support the UK Government to reflect on the distinctions between those refugees and asylum seekers fleeing British-made bombs and the consequences of UK foreign policy decisions, and those refugees and asylum seekers fleeing Russian-made bombs and the consequences of Russian foreign policy decisions.

We have heard this afternoon about the importance of the dedicated schemes that are in place and the work that is being done to support those who are fleeing Putin’s war in Ukraine. Indeed, those schemes are vital. However, I ask—as Paul Sweeney and others might do—where the dedicated schemes are for those fleeing the violence, war and famine in Yemen. Where are the dedicated schemes for those who are seeking safety and a new life because of the illegal occupation of Palestine? Where are the dedicated schemes for those who are fleeing persecution because of their sexuality or gender identity, or because of other conflict or climate catastrophe? What makes those refugees and asylum seekers less worthy of our compassion, love and support?

The xenophobia of the UK’s immigration system should shame us all. Britain has a proud history of offering support; Britain had a proud history of providing love and compassion for those who were most in need. Scotland still has the desire to do that. Collectively, we should work to ensure that we fulfil the aim of showing love, compassion and support to those who are most in need. Scotland welcomes refugees—and so do I.

That is an interesting idea that we should consider—especially given our net zero ambitions. That is something that the corporate body and Parliament as a whole can certainly consider. We currently base reimbursement on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs rates that are set out in legislation, so we would need to see what is possible and what changes, if any, could be made to our scheme.

I undertake, however, to raise the matter at forthcoming corporate body meetings and to consider whether we can incentivise members to shift away from using carbon-emitting vehicles, including those that would be charged under the LEZ scheme.

The catering services at the Scottish Parliament are provided through our contract with Sodexo. We monitor the percentage of fresh Scottish produce that is used in our services, and last year approximately 60 per cent of fresh produce that was used by our services was produced in Scotland.

We invite many of our suppliers in to showcase their produce on site and to speak to members and staff directly. That is perhaps most notable during Scottish food and drink fortnight, which we participate in annually. We regularly support and organise events on site that promote Scottish produce. Last month, we held our Scotland in spring dining evening in the Holyrood room, which showcased seasonal produce such as accredited Scottish lamb and locally grown berries and asparagus.

We are more than open to input from members and others as we start to consider exactly what information members need to carry out their business and what information should be available, and in what forms, to members of the public.

Traditionally, we have produced apps that can run on any device, rather than specific apps for Apple and Android devices. There are significant cost-saving reasons for that. Being able to run applications off a web-based platform means that we do not need to maintain relationships with individual app providers, and tendering of those individual apps can be expensive—it is much more costly than tendering for a web-based version. However, we will take on board the member’s comments and include them in our conversations about how we further develop the support that we provide.

In March of this year, the SPCB agreed to procure a new provider to re-establish and run the on-site crèche facility here at Holyrood. The decision was taken in order to maintain our commitment to accessibility by continuing to provide childcare for visitors and passholders to the building who have young children. Officials have completed all the procurement requirements and they are ready to go out to market later this month. The SPCB expects to award the contract in October 2022. In line with Care Inspectorate guidance, we have allowed for a six-month mobilisation period and intend the new service to open in spring 2023.

The SPCB has had detailed conversations about this issue. One of the challenges that we had was that the crèche service was ceased because of lockdown and the closure of Parliament at the start of the pandemic. Changes to Care Inspectorate guidance mean that we have had to change how the crèche operates, which is why we have needed to retender. I understand and appreciate the difficulties that the situation has caused for the member and perhaps other members in the past year.

We hope to have a contract approved in October this year and the crèche up and running by spring next year.

We have carbon auditing and monitoring as part of all our Scottish Parliament operations. I undertake to write to the member with more details about the specific processes for our food and drink.

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s analysis is of the potential risks to Scotland’s economy of the United Kingdom Government’s proposed legislation to override the Northern Ireland protocol. (S6F-01224)