Seòmar agus comataidhean

It has been fascinating to listen to the evidence. It has been educational for me to recognise that the petition represents an assertion of the triumph of civilisation over barbarism. We are trying to come to an agreement about how best to express that in our society. I increasingly realise the importance of what you seek to achieve and why it is being advocated for, so the evidence has been powerful.

Do you intend to encourage the member in charge of the proposed bill to cover all three elements of what you are trying to achieve? As I understand it, the proposed bill would legislate primarily for a pardon, but could it also stipulate terms for a national memorial? Could that be incorporated into such a bill?

Would an apology highlight themes of victimisation, bullying and ostracism in our current society? Would it have a meaningful effect on any relevant live debates?

You have talked about the symbolism of international women’s day. Is there a specific figure in the Government whom you would wish to issue the apology, or would it be satisfactory for the Government in general to do so?

I note the submission from the petitioner and the personal experience that she has had. I also note that she has engaged with ministers and parliamentarians on the issue. If she has not been satisfied with that, there is a valid basis for inviting further submissions. Perhaps we could write to the relevant charities that deal with diabetes and the Scottish diabetes group, which is the national advisory group, to ask whether they are satisfied with the measures that the Scottish Government has taken and establish whether there is a wider impetus for improvement.

The Scottish Government has indicated that it has relevant strategies in place for women’s health and diabetic health. We can ask whether those have been peer reviewed and whether there are further concerns. It is worth establishing whether that is the case.

Would you prefer a verbal apology in the parliamentary chamber rather than something written, or would you rather have both?

I have a general point about SSI 2022/26, which makes speed limit adjustments on the central Scotland motorway network. Although this particular instrument relates to slip roads, there is a wider practice whereby speed limit changes to the trunk road network are not generally consulted on publicly. Such changes would benefit from wider public consultation, particularly given recent reports of the significant effects of noise pollution in the centre of Glasgow because of the motorway network. For example, it has been reported that the noise pollution at Charing Cross is equivalent to the noise pollution experienced when standing on the runway at Glasgow airport.

There are significant environmental effects on the general public. The practice should be to have a public consultation on any adjustments to speed limits, rather than there simply being a closed shop involving councils and the emergency services. Perhaps the lead committee could take that into consideration.

That has not been explicitly discussed thus far, but that is a helpful suggestion. I can envisage that potentially being a measure. There would be efforts to engage with stakeholders and perhaps directly with ministers, non-governmental organisations and various other organisations, to pool understanding and share common practice.

Quite a wide range of organisations, which I have listed, support the CPG. They are the Maryhill Integration Network, the voices network, Safe in Scotland, the British Red Cross, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Scottish Detainee Visitors—particularly in relation to Dungavel—JustRight Scotland, Positive Action in Housing, Migration Policy Scotland, Refugees for Justice and the Govan Community Project. There is quite a rich ecosystem out there, but people often operate in silos and are disjointed. Part of the function of the CPG will be to act as a sounding board so that people can share experiences, rally round common themes such as housing, transport, income, deprivation and poverty, and, I hope, pull together actions that they can share objectives on, pushing them to the Government and asking whether they can get improvements or measures to address them.

That is an important point. We deliberately used a broad definition because a lot of the issues have important interfaces. For example, there is the matter of access to student opportunities, and there is a wider issue about European Union migration and the future status of EU citizens in Scotland and the UK. Scotland faces broader demographic challenges, caused by an ageing population and a narrowing tax base. It is important for a sustainable economy to have a larger working-age population; therefore, we need a greater influx of working-age people. That will all be part of the discussion.

We are trying to frame the issue of migration in a less confrontational, more sensible and rational way. That is the broader idea. Having Maryhill Integration Network, which is highly engaged with asylum seekers, as the secretariat colours the initial objectives of the CPG, but it can evolve. That is why we have left the definition loose.

The key measure of success is effectively expediting policy ideas that key stakeholder groups, particularly in Glasgow, have been advocating. Almost all asylum seekers in Scotland are resident in the Glasgow City Council area, because it is the only council area in Scotland that participates in the dispersal programme. However, there are refugee communities around Scotland and resettlement programmes in the refugee programme that disperse people around Scotland. A number of concerns have been raised by key stakeholder groups, particularly Maryhill Integration Network, which has been especially instrumental in helping to establish the cross-party group. There are issues to do with exclusion from housing, transport and social exclusion. Obviously, there was the tragedy with the Park Inn disaster in Glasgow in the summer of 2020.

Bearing in mind all those issues, it is important to bring together the forum to allow us to channel frustrations and issues so that the Scottish Government can potentially ameliorate some of the concerns that people are experiencing. That would be largely in a humanitarian sense; it would not necessarily interfere with immigration policy or even with the no recourse to public funds condition, which is a potential condition on social security support.

One suggestion has been the extension of concessionary travel to asylum seekers. That would be within the gift of the Scottish Government. The cross-party group could promote such ideas.

Thank you very much for inviting me to address the committee, convener.

The proposed cross-party group on migration would be quite a wide-ranging forum in which stakeholders, policy makers and those with lived experience would discuss any matters arising in relation to migrants, refugees or people seeking asylum in Scotland. Although immigration policy is a reserved matter for the House of Commons, the cross-party group would engage on, consider and raise awareness of ways in which we can make an impact on issues to do with immigration and migration, asylum and refugees in Scotland, because there are a number of important interfaces with the Scottish Parliament’s competencies as well as with local government colleagues. Having an integrated approach is vital to improving the quality of life for people who are affected by current policy.

The area is definitely well established as a public interest area. Currently, there is no CPG that focuses on it at Holyrood, despite thousands of people in Scotland being impacted by the issues.

The creation of the cross-party group would be particularly beneficial given recent significant and relevant events such as the passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill in the UK Parliament and the on-going humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan.