The next item of business is a debate on motion 11803, in the name of Emma Roddick, on the impact of UK Government asylum policy and legislation in Scotland. I invite members wishing to participate, to press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call on Emma Roddick to speak to and move the motion. Minister, around 13 minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the motion in my name. We recognise that unfortunately asylum policy is currently reserved to the UK Parliament under the Scotland Act. The Scottish Government has been clear through our building a new Scotland migration paper that in an independent Scotland we would take a very different approach to asylum and migration, building a new system based on treating people with dignity and respect and upholding our international and moral obligations. The purpose of holding this debate today is to discuss and highlight the impact that UK Government asylum decisions have had here in Scotland and on national and local government, as well as third sector ability to support asylum seekers who live here. As the Scottish Refugee Council is fond of saying, powers are reserved, people are not. In Scotland we are determined to support everyone who lives here to integrate into and contribute to our communities. We want to respect and protect the human rights of everyone and provide opportunity and equality, regardless of anyone's background. Supporting asylum seekers and treating them fairly when they engage with devolved services is our responsibility and we have made it our business. It is undeniable that UK Government decisions, and I will come on to speak to a few recent ones in particular, impact on our ability to do that successfully and to the best of our ability. Earlier today I spoke, as I regularly do, with representatives from the Scottish Refugee Council and COSLA about exactly this issue. I want to lay out some of the most concerning impacts that they have shared of UK Government decisions on their ability to do the work that they do. We discussed how seriously councils take their responsibilities to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and how lack of adequate funding to support this work is impacting how well it can be done. I have also heard how lack of funding to support councils to work with newly recognised refugees is forcing people into destitution and putting councils in the difficult position of dealing with sudden spikes in homelessness presentations. The UK Government claimed on the 2 January that the legacy asylum backlog had been cleared, and it published data suggesting that in the four weeks from 10 November to 17 December last year there were 20,481 initial asylum decisions made. That is more than in the whole year of 2021, and we know that thousands of cases remain unresolved. I have heard through the women's integration network in Glasgow from people who have been seeking asylum for over a decade, women who have not left Scotland since before Facebook launched, holding babies who were born here but who have no idea when they might be able to be allowed to stay and work to support those babies or what they might do if that application is refused. We have long called for improved speed and quality of decisions, but the approach to doing this without support or co-ordination with local councils has left people destitute and homeless. It means that receiving a positive decision can be as stressful as receiving a negative one. Suddenly, the very little support that you have disappears, with a very short move on period, and for many, the only option is to present as homeless to the local authority. Without communication and financial support from the UK Government, councils are struggling to do right by those who have been given positive decisions but have nowhere to turn and nowhere to live. The new minister of state for legal migration and the border confirmed to me on 3 January that the UK Government will not provide any additional funding as a result of the increase in asylum support cessations. In this incredibly difficult situation, local authorities across Scotland are engaging with asylum dispersal, with now nearly half of local authorities in Scotland taking part. Of course, there are housing pressures in many of those council areas, however that does not prevent Scotland from doing its part in continuing to support refugees and people seeking asylum. What it does do is increase the importance of genuine engagement from the UK Government with local authorities on asylum dispersal and related matters to give them a fighting chance of supporting people to avoid homelessness and destitution, genuine engagement that is sadly still missing. Similar difficulties arise in third sector support and I want to acknowledge, as always, the vital work that the third sector does in Scotland to support asylum seekers. It is one of the privileges of this role to be able to work so closely with the Scottish Refugee Council, who are of course one of our partners along with COSLA in New Scots. Our New Scots approach has now been in place for a decade and it's in the process of being refreshed with the new strategy expected to be published at the end of March and to be followed by a delivery plan in the summer. Throughout its life, it's always held the core principle of supporting integration from day 1 of arrival in Scotland, but it cannot directly address issues that are outwith the scope of the Scottish Government, Scottish local authorities and other Scottish organisations. UK Government decisions therefore have a significant impact on what can be done to support people seeking asylum and communities in Scotland, even in devolved areas, and we are limited in that aim of supporting integration from day 1. In a debate last year, I highlighted a comment from the Global Refugee Forum, where I'd been told that there are asylum seekers living in Scotland who have never heard of Scotland and are unaware which country they are in. If someone is unaware that they are in Scotland, it becomes near impossible for us and for the third sector to communicate to them their rights and Scotland-specific services that are available to them. All the while, the UK Government is seeking to restrict the right of people to seek asylum in the UK at all through the illegal migration act, and the third sector, like the Scottish Government, is keen to mitigate wherever possible the worst impacts of the act. However, UK Government plans to implement it remain unclear, making it very challenging for all of us to consider the best way to do that. That, of course, follows the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, to clauses in the bill that triggered a need for legislative consent, which the Scottish Parliament voted to withhold. The UK Government then made no changes in response to the views of and the lack of consent from the Scottish Parliament. Then we got the Rwanda Bill, the second piece of asylum legislation introduced last year that the Home Secretary could not guarantee would be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, leading to flippant comments from some politicians down south about whether we should get rid of ECHR responsibilities altogether. The Scottish Government has opposed plans to relocate people to Rwanda to have protection claims considered there since those plans were announced in April 2022, because it undermines the 1951 refugee convention. The decision of the Supreme Court in November to reject the Government appeal was very important, but we have been disappointed with the UK Government's reaction since in doubling down and introducing emergency legislation to try and force it through anyway. The UK is, of course, a founding signatory of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, which is hard to picture now in comparison to this UK Government and its constant attacks on the rights of people to seek safety and sanctuary here. We have a duty to uphold that convention, not constantly try to find ways out of it, but it does not look like we are anywhere near having a UK Government that will accept those facts. Files recently released by the National Archives in London outlined consideration by the former Labour Government to accommodate asylum seekers in Mal. The First Minister was absolutely right to note—certainly, yes. The minister will want to, I am sure, note that suggestion that came from several servants was not taken forward by the UK Labour Government and, in fact, was dismissed. I think that, for the actress of the debate, she will want to acknowledge that. I would certainly be pleasantly surprised if the next Labour Government comes in and makes big changes compared with the UK Government that we have right now. I have to say that, based on the rhetoric coming out from the current Labour and Conservative campaign, it seems to me that the First Minister was right to describe an apparent race to the bottom on immigration policies. No UK Government in recent memory has attempted to move towards a humane and dignified asylum system that promotes integration and welcomes people. The broader rights and freedoms of asylum seekers is also a concern. People seeking asylum who would be otherwise destitute can apply to the Home Office for accommodation and financial support while they wait for a decision. Asylum accommodation is provided on a no-choice basis, and, as of two days ago, we understand that asylum support rates have been reduced to £8.86 per week for people in catered accommodation. That is around £1.25 a day. New maximisation policies also increase risk and misery by requiring unrelated adults to share hotel rooms in contingency asylum accommodation. Not only that, but there is a complete lack of engagement with Scottish local authorities prior to procurement of hotels for this use within their areas, or later for the decision to bring in the new maximisation policy. People seeking asylum are also, of course, restricted from working in less-granted permission by the Home Office, and we are prevented in most cases from supporting asylum seekers due to the application of no recourse to public funds. We owe those people better. Their human rights are not being realised on £1.25 a day of financial support, but inability to go out to work to earn for themselves and that terrifying uncertainty over their future casting gloom on every single thought that they have. Every person living in Scotland who does not have the right to work or enough money to support themselves is also a huge wasted potential. Those are all people who could be making positive change for others, could be running popular businesses, could be supporting our public services and contributing to our local economies. That is why we are developing a proposal for an asylum right to work pilot in Scotland, which, analysis has told us, could add an estimated £30 million a year to the Scottish economy and help fill vital but currently vacant roles. I also discussed with the Scottish Refugee Council the impact of divisive rhetoric and in human language and the importance of showing political leadership in promoting the positive impact that a fair and sensible approach to asylum and migration would have on Scotland. Together with refugees recently commissioned research that showed 80 per cent of people in the UK want to see that approach, one that is fair, compassionate and well managed. The current mess does not work for anyone, whether it is asylum seekers, employers, business or government, anyone. People want to see others treated with fairness and they want those living in Scotland to be able to engage with their local communities and employment opportunities. That is exactly what the Fair Begins Here campaign is calling for, so I would like to take the opportunity to welcome that campaign and direct all those with an interest towards it. I know that many of my constituents and probably constituents of colleagues across the chamber want to do their bit to make positive change for asylum seekers in Scotland and I hope that others will join in sharing the spirit of that campaign and calling on the UK Government to deliver. I also know, having met a few myself, that there are incredible success stories of where integration has worked in Scotland and that MSPs across the country will be aware of these two, so please talk about that and please highlight the benefits of migration and supporting others. Let's shift the rhetoric to a more positive place because Scotland should be a good neighbour, a contributor to global priorities. We should be encouraging migration to Scotland and enthusiastically welcoming those who want to live here and contribute. We cannot do that if we are seen as a country which sees incomeers as worth less than others. Pieces of legislation like the illegal migration act, as well as commentary that suggests that human rights are optional or even unwanted, do no favours to the UK's international reputation and Scotland is at real risk of being dragged right down with them. I am committed to continuing to raise issues with reserved asylum decisions and pushing the UK Government to make sensible changes such as allowing the right to work and continuing partnership working with COSLA and the Scottish Refugee Council. However, I want to be clear that this job, whoever tries to carry it out, will continue to be extremely difficult and our future is uncertain while we remain in the United Kingdom and beholden to UK Governments with increasingly concerning ideas about how to treat asylum seekers and refugees. The only way to make sure that we meet our moral and legal obligations to the people seeking sanctuary here, the only way to direct resources and spending to where it is needed and the only way that Scotland will have an asylum and migration system that actually works for our needs is independence. I gently remind those who have not yet pressed their request and speak buttons and are looking to participate in the debate to do so now or as soon as possible and I call on Miles Briggs to speak to a move amendment 11803.1. Mr Briggs, around nine minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The United Kingdom has a proud history of supporting refugees. Since 2015 as a country, we've offered a home to over half a million men, women and children seeking safety, including those from Hong Kong, Syria, Afghanistan and most recently those fleeing President Putin's illegal attack on Ukraine. To put that in context, that is the equivalent to the population of Edinburgh being resettled in the UK. All of us agree that it is right that we respond appropriately to the plight of individuals and families, escaping violent authoritarian dictatorial regimes that systematically persecute and even execute their own people. I recently, as part of the Scottish Parliament's cross-party group on Bangladesh, visited the Rohingya refugee camp at Cox's Bazaar in Bangladesh and I refer members to my register of interest. I think I speak for all MSPs who are on that trip when I say that it was deeply humbling experience and demonstrated not only the vulnerable humanitarian situation but also the unstable situation that continues to face the Rohingya people and the ongoing civil war in Myanmar, which is deeply concerning and since 2017 has seen an estimated 1.4 million Rohingya flea into the neighbouring Bangladesh and I would pay tribute to the Government of Bangladesh's response to that crisis and indeed the global response and support that has been provided and I also very much welcome the UK Government's role, leading role in that. Since 2017 the UK Government has provided £370 million to support Rohingya refugees and host communities in Bangladesh and nearly £30 million to support Rohingya and other Muslim minorities in the Myanmar's Rakhine state. Deputy Presiding Officer, I believe that the UK Government is a force of good in the world and a global leader in supporting and helping refugees. Although SNP and Green Ministers do not wish to acknowledge this and have tried to make this debate about independence, it is in fact one we should be proud of and I agree with the Minister that the backlog and the time taken to decide if a person can remain in the UK is not acceptable and it's vital that agencies process asylum claims quickly and efficiently for the good of all concerned. It is indeed welcome that steps in recent months have been taken by the UK Government to help to address this situation and resolve back yes I will minister particularly because I know that the member has a keen interest in housing and homelessness issues. Will he back our calls to the UK Government to extend the move on period for positive decisions to 56 days rather than the current 14? I'm coming on to that later in my speech and certainly the briefings which have been provided for this debate make a very important case for that and I think it's something colleagues across the UK should look at how we can improve that situation and create more safeguards is something I'm more than happy to assist to try to see resolutions and with regards to the minister's comments with the 4500 complex cases which have been highlighted and these need additional checks and investigations we know that and these are hard cases often with asylum seekers presenting as children where age verification has to take place with those with serious medical issues or those with suspected past convictions needing to be checked so I think there is more complex complexity to this situation as well.  I'm very grateful to Miles Briggs for taking my intervention. Would he recognise that the values employed by UK borders agency and things like age verification wouldn't necessarily subscribe to the values we hold in this chamber and that it is often coming from an atmosphere of disbelief that people are often required to evidence past trauma and even evidence of torture before the asylum claims are assessed? Miles Briggs. I think some of the changing nature of how verification can take place is also seen reforms recently by UK government that should be welcome. Documentation is always one of the key aspects of this. If you arrive in a country without a passport then verifying who you are, what age you are takes time and I think even the member would accept that our systems have to be able to verify people especially around past criminal convictions where criminality would bar asylum in this country. I think I haven't heard any members say that that shouldn't be the case in this debate so far but the UK government has been directly helping people who are from regions of conflict and instability. The best way to help the most vulnerable people is for them to come to this country through safe and legal routes. That will stop what can only be described and this hasn't been touched upon by the Minister that evil criminal gangs, which are preying on vulnerable people including children, that's where we need policy solutions. I have never heard SNP ministers say what they would be doing to stop those who are bringing criminal gangs and preying on this. I want to make some progress because I've already taken two and I'm not sure the Deputy Presiding Officer will give me that much time back. Uncontrolled immigration and unchecked illegal immigration can have very serious consequences. We've seen that in the English Channel and the Unacceptable Loss of Life. That is why it's right to find solutions to stop people putting their lives at risk by crossing the English Channel in small boats and coming to this country illegally. We must ensure that those coming to this country seeking asylum do through legal routes. This significant increase in dangerous journeys across the channel is something we in Scotland do not directly witness. But working to stop people traffickers and those who are putting people's lives in such great danger should be a priority for us too in this place. Those in need of protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach rather than risking their life and paying people smugglers to take them on illegal and dangerous journeys. We all want to see an effective asylum system and it's also wrong to suggest, I believe, that UK Government does not take the welfare of those in our asylum system extremely seriously. At every stage of the process the UK Government seeks to ensure that the needs and vulnerabilities of asylum seekers are identified and shared with local authorities and health partners. That is why, as a country, the UK Government has spent £3.7 billion in this fiscal year alone to support refugees. The minister should also maybe reflect on the decisions taken by the Scottish Government to cut council budgets and what impact this will have on housing in Scotland as well. We know both our main cities declaring housing emergencies already. There has always been a need to review policies and look at how support can be provided, working closely with the NHS, local authorities and non-governmental organisations, to ensure that people can access healthcare and the vital support that they need, and especially around mental health support. That's something I've had in my own case work since I was elected and we know just the challenge of mental health services for all of us in this country, not least those who are seeking asylum. Asylum seekers have access to health and social care services from the point of their arrival in the UK and all asylum seekers, regardless of the type of accommodation they are in, have the same access to free NHS services as any British citizen and other permanent resident. It is just getting access and getting those services, which is often the problem. The Home Office also operates safeguarding hubs to support vulnerable individuals into quickly accessing healthcare services and information. I'd also like to pay tribute to the third sector, who are doing so much good work in this area. A number of organisations have made important points in their briefings ahead of today's debate, including the British Red Cross, in the call for the Scottish Government to better monitor, inspect and regulate the use of housing in Scotland by empowering local authorities and regulatory agencies, such as the Scottish Housing Regulator. That's something that we should look at and we'd be open on those benches to considering that actively as part of the new housing bill, which the Government are still to bring forward. To conclude, delivering a modern and responsive asylum immigration system for people seeking asylum is not easy, but in an ever-changing world and with growing pressures of the global movement of people, it must be based on people coming through safe and legal routes. We understand the pressures faced on our asylum system, but I hope that the Scottish Government and UK Government will commit to work together this year to put in place solutions. I move the amendment in my name. I just advised the chamber that there is a bit of time in hand across the course of this afternoon, so members taking into benches will certainly get that time back. I now call on Paul O'Kane to speak to and move amendment 11803.2, Mr O'Kane, around about seven minutes. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. We gather in a new year but, in many ways, I don't think much has changed in terms of the issues we are debating and the approaches being taken to asylum policy and legislation. We have had no less than five debates prior to Christmas on the subject, looking at issues ranging from the illegal migration bill, now the act to the provision of free bus travel for asylum seekers, the important work of the equality human rights and civil justice inquiry into the experience of asylum seekers and refugees to the Scottish Government's latest independence paper on migration. I have to say that I believe that those debates have been most beneficial when we have found consensus in terms of our approach but also discussed how we can use the powers of this Parliament to make a real difference to the lives of refugees and asylum seekers here in Scotland and to continue to support them. I would of course point to the important recommendations of the committee report in that regard. Of course, on each of those occasions and in many other debates last year, we on these benches have condemned the shambolic and uncaring asylum system operated by the UK Conservative Government. On each of those occasions, we on these benches have reiterated the need for a more humane approach to asylum processing and migration and to reiterate that migrants, refugees and asylum seekers should feel safe and welcome when fleeing persecution, war and violence. Also each time we have come to the chamber to debate those issues, we on these benches have asked the Scottish Government what more it can do to support asylum seekers, address the issues outlined in the equalities report that I referenced and respond indeed to the challenges posed by the illegal migration act, which I have already referenced. I spoke in opening that it may be a new year but we have not seen a new approach from the UK Government. They continue to press ahead with the Rwanda scheme despite it being ruled illegal as we have heard already and next week we will see it again being rushed through the House of Commons in its new form. The braverman may have gone as Home Secretary but still the pernicious approach persists, with Tory MPs battling it out to see how the plan can be made even more deplorable. We have a Prime Minister who now privately thinks that it does not actually work but clearly sees culture wars as his last throw of the dice this year. To quote Yvette Cooper in the House of Commons yesterday, in the end the only deterrence that appears that the Prime Minister actually believes in is deterring his backbenchers from getting rid of them. It is weak and yet the taxpayer is paying the price. It is a totally farcical situation—a Prime Minister who does not think that it is a deterrent, a Home Secretary who thinks that it is batshit, a former Home Secretary who says that it does not work, an immigration minister who says that it does not do the job and everyone else who thinks that it is a complete sham. Labour has been clear that we would scrap the Rwanda scheme. It is unethical, unworkable and extortionate. We need real policy changes to deal with the challenges that we face, not the gimmicks that the Conservatives continue to pursue. That is why Labour has set out a five-point plan to fix the asylum system, to form cross-border policing units, to crack down on the smuggler gangs who are trafficking people and putting people into unthinkable situations, to clear the backlogs that we have already heard about this afternoon, to end the long waits, the expensive use of hotels, to reform legal routes for refugees coming to this country, to negotiate new returns and family reunion agreement with France and other European countries, and to tackle humanitarian crises at source and better support refugees in their own regions. It is simply disingenuous—I will just finish this point on that. It is simply disingenuous to say that there would be no change with the Labour Government and I will give way. Can I just ask—would a future Labour Government in the hypothetical situation that arises—process applications abroad? Paul O'Kane, can I also advise members that, even if they are quoting other members, that there are still requirements in terms of the language used in this chamber? I am very sorry, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I will blame a bit Cooper rather than myself, but I take the point well made and I apologise to any colleagues who may have found that offensive. To answer Donald Cameron's point directly, because I think that there was some commentary on this over the Christmas period, what is quite clear is that the processing of asylum claims in third countries can happen and already happens in a number of scenarios. For example, Ukraine and Hong Kong, people can have their case considered while they are in those countries. We can look at, certainly, where we can process people's asylum claims when they are in a safe country. Again, for example, someone has arrived in France and has their asylum claim considered there, then I think that that is certainly something worth looking at. What the Labour Party is absolutely clear about is not offshoring asylum claims to third countries like Rwanda and standing against that proposal that comes still from this Conservative Government. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, I want to also focus on the approach that we should take in this Parliament. I have raised, over several debates, my concerns that we have to do more in order to ensure that our local councils and communities can support asylum seekers when they live in those communities. Indeed, I think also to ensure that we are taking the action that we can against the Conservatives' illegal migration act and policies. Indeed, I have raised with the Minister a number of times the importance of a mitigation plan and the work that is being called for by the Scottish Refugee Council in that regard. I know that, in our last exchange, the minister did commit to on-going work with the Scottish Refugee Council. I think that they are now quite clear that commencement is definitely upon us in terms of 2024, so I would be keen just to hear again more from the minister if she can or Christina McKelvie in summing up. Certainly, I will take an intervention at this stage. I would absolutely love to give more information but, as the member will know, we are still in the position where we are desperately asking the UK Government to give us more information. As soon as we know the plans for implementation, we will know what we can do to mitigate the worst impacts. That said, there are a number of issues where the Scottish Refugee Council have highlighted what action could be prepared for and could be planned for. I do think that it is incumbent upon us and upon the Government to ensure that those preparations are well advanced, because we do know where some of the most serious impacts are going to come from. Time, of course, is limited in the chamber, so, as I said, I think that it is productive that we try to focus on some of the work that we can do. We have heard from the minister about the new Scots and Ending Distitution strategies and the refreshment of that in March. I think that it is important that we continue to scrutinise that work and ensure that the voices of lived experience and, indeed, of those third sector organisations that are so crucially important are heard in the formulation of those strategies and that we push them forward to ensure that we are well supporting asylum seekers and migrants here in Scotland. Our amendment has outlined, I think, the challenges that do exist in terms of local authority budgets and the provision that local authority can make, not at least in terms of the challenges that exist in housing. The promise of 110,000 affordable houses by 2031 is unlikely to ever be met by the Government after they cut the affordable housing supply budgets by 30 per cent in real terms this year. It is crucial that the decisions that are taken in that regard are going to have a knock-on impact on all of our communities, including those who are new Scots and those who are seeking refuge and asylum. It is not only that, but when you speak to people in local authorities, they are really struggling in terms of keeping services on the road, ensuring that populations are being well looked after. It is crucial that we get to the nub of sustainable local authority funding, ensuring that local authorities have the resources that they need to support all of their citizens. I think that it is important that we ensure that we continue to call out this UK Conservative Government for its failed policies and for its callous approach. It is clear that change will come with the UK Labour Government in terms of a different approach to our asylum system and ensuring that we treat people with dignity. However, for our part here in Scotland, we need to ensure that we are using all the powers of this place in order to support asylum seekers and to support our local communities. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I am grateful for the Government bringing to this motion to Parliament's attention this afternoon. As Paul O'Kane says, here we are again. I think that it is vitally important that this chamber comes together as often as possible to reassert our collective view on the moves by the UK Conservative Government in terms of policy on this area. As I have done so many times in debates like this, I have lent into the words of another. I will do so again in the words of the author, Dina Nyari, who was just a child when she was forced to flee from Iran. She said that it is the obligation of every person born in a safer room to open the door when someone in danger knocks—the obligation, her words. I last spoke about our obligation to those seeking safe harbour on our shores when the chamber debated the Equalities and Human Rights Committee report on asylum seekers in Scotland. That has been referenced several times this afternoon. I was heartened by the debate that we had on that occasion. It did foster a largely consensual tone. Sadly, quite the opposite was true last month in the House of Commons, when the ruling Conservative Party, among them all six Scottish Conservative MPs, including Douglas Ross, voted to pass the second reading of the Government's Rwanda plan. A plan, Presiding Officer, which would see plain loads of vulnerable people who have sought refuge and asylum here to see them deported 4,000 miles away to a country that the UK Supreme Court has deemed to be unsafe for them. We hear a lot about moral panic in our society, Presiding Officer, but I want to see a moral panic about that. Instead of backing down and seeing the error of his ways, Rishi Sunak is pressing on with ill-fated attempts to pass a bill that states that Rwanda is a safe country, a policy that it now appears he actually disagreed with when he was UK Chancellor. It's a bill that prevents judges from ruling otherwise and that lays aside key aspects of our human rights legislation. That, in turn, would bypass the Human Rights Act 1998 entirely, undermine the independence of our courts and indeed damage our reputation internationally if there is much of a reputation left. They have yet to reach the amendment phase where extreme factions of the Conservative Party will undoubtedly attempt to make the bill even more odious. We've badly forgotten the obligation that Dina Neyari writes of. Douglas Ross and his colleagues have forgotten that this country is made up of those who came here from our shores and that our very proudest moments in our nation's history have been defined by offering shelter to those in need, such as the kinder transport that was brought during the Second World War by Afra. Instead, we have asylum seekers living on barges that look more like prisons. The conditions there foster a feeling of such hopelessness that a 27-year-old even took his own life the very week that we debated this policy last, at the end of last year. A fellow asylum seeker and his roommate on the barge, Yusafdin Gargobu, spoke just today of how those living there, quote, and I quote, don't have any hope for their lives. That place is just not good for them. He says in every day that their stress is increasing and getting worse. Presiding Officer, in 2021, asylum applications in the United Kingdom reached over 81,000 largely due to war and to conflict.  They are not allowed to work and have no access to public funds in the form of benefits and social security. Those rights are only granted if they become refugees, recognised as refugees, which, due to horrendous backlogs, can still take months or even years. Those who are not granted asylum often find themselves in destitution and at risk of exploitation, which are only charities to rely on for support. Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that we have a human duty to offer protection and safe legal routes to people who are fleeing torment. We need the next UK Government to create a dedicated arms-length unit to make asylum decisions quickly and more fairly. We are the new right to work for those who are seeking asylum if they have to wait longer than three months for a decision on their case in order both to treat them more humanely and to give them the chance to integrate in their communities. Save the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds, Presiding Officer. These are people who are hungry to contribute back to the society that is giving them refuge. We also welcome the recommendations of the recent report of the human rights asylum seekers in Scotland. Those seeking safe harbour should always be treated with our utmost respect, always. Our approach should be guided by compassion and rooted in human rights and respect for international law. Seekers should be entitled to education and information about their rights, particularly in relation to health and mental health. They should not be asked to travel the length and breadth of the British Isles for an assessment interview. Scottish local authorities should be given the resources that they need to provide the language and interpreter services, which are vital in helping people to settle here. We should also offer support to those third sector organisations who often provide the safety net for those applications who are denied. Liberal Democrats will always stand up for those who are marginalised and demonised. We care passionately about those on the other side of the planet that we may never meet, but some of whom are making their way here with a hope and a promise of home. We stand against the dangerous rhetoric that we have heard from the Conservative benches in London. That is our obligation. Before we move into the open debate, I remind members that, participating in the debate, they should remain both for the opening and closing speeches unless they have the permission of the chair. We now move to the open debate. I call 1st Karen Adam to be followed by Donald Cameron around six minutes. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. So reads article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration which the United Kingdom played its part in drafting. The declaration which today the UK Government sadly undermines at each and every turn. It is important to remind ourselves often and without apology of the context in which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted.  As we look on now from Scotland at the conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, it is hard enough to ponder the solemn reality. It could be us. Our children, our friends are as the case with the First Minister, our own relatives. History tells us that these conflicts do not occur in a vacuum and we must play a part as a responsible member of the global community. It is heartbreaking to witness that despite what we see happening in the world right now, that the UK Government continues its vindictive campaign against those who need our help most. I want to take some time today to dispel some of the myths peddled by the UK Government and their Conservative defenders here in Scotland. They say that we don't have enough room. Let's look at that a little bit more closely. Many of Scotland's communities, particularly in rural Scotland, are already experiencing acute depopulation and labour market challenges, in part because of Brexit and the end of the freedom of movement. Scotland is far from full and, as a country ready to take our share of those seeking refuge, we are unable to do so due to the fact that this is a reserved matter. The UK Government must cease its culture wars, fulfil its international obligations and invest in tackling the asylum backlog. Providing additional staff and ensuring more humane and efficient processes means that we could see a system fit for purpose. Instead, they have spent hundreds of millions of pounds already on their inhumane and illegal Rwanda policy, which has resulted in what precisely? Not a single thing. An abhorrent and immoral waste of taxpayer money. They tell us that we are being overrun and often in the most inhumane ways. Former Prime Minister and now Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, once referred to a swarm of people coming across the Mediterranean. Sadly, he is not alone. Former Home Secretaries have referred to migrants as a hurricane and as an invasion. The Conservatives are trying to normalise such dehumanising language. Othering, the most vulnerable in society, is one of the oldest and, in my view, the most despicable tricks in the Tory handbook. That will not wash here in Scotland and we will see that reflected in the upcoming general election. We will see an end to the Scottish Conservatives. They ask us how we are going to pay for them all, while those fleeing conflict and persecution and seeking asylum on our shores have much to offer our communities, culturally and economically. It is a shame, therefore, that the UK Government continues to deny the right of those seeking asylum to work and to contribute to our country. As noted in the building in new Scotland papers specifically looking at migration, we know that leaving the EU has cut off a valuable and ready supply of workers to fill key posts. There have been fewer births than deaths registered in Scotland since 2011, so it is clear that we need migration to ensure that our communities are vibrant, diverse and thriving, and also to support local economies and the public sector. Last month, I met fisheries stakeholders to discuss the detrimental impact that the proposed UK Government immigration rules would have on the seafood processing sector. During that meeting, numerous examples of seafood processing businesses, some of which are based on my constituency of Banffshire and Muckin Coast, comprise of workforces of up to 90 per cent migrant workers. The one-size-fits-all Britain bursting at the seams narrative simply does not ring true here in Scotland. With both a hostile governing party and an indifferent opposition, it is clear that the only way for Scotland to have the levers to reverse projected population decline is in an independent country. While the Conservatives scream to stop the boats and I quote, dream and obsess of front pages of planes taken off to Rwanda, let me say this, Scotland has a different dream and our dream would be for an asylum system founded on equality, opportunity and community, three words which have been a bedrock for our Scottish Government and all it does. I want to conclude, Presiding Officer, by reminding the chamber, it could be us. If it were, would we not want those from whom we were seeking asylum to treat us with the fairness, dignity and respect that we deserve, to be treated as we would wish to be treated ourselves? I am glad to take part in this debate. Not because of the Scottish Government's position in their motion, predictable as their attack on UK Government migration policy is, predictable as the minister's conclusion, with its jarring and inappropriate reference to independence was. To Karen Adam, I should just point out that the SNP Government's 2013 independence white paper said that an independent Scotland would have a, quote, robust asylum policy that included the need for, quote, forced removal of failed asylum seekers. It is quite ironic to be lectured about dignity, equality and opportunity when those words are found in the prospectus for independence that the SNP put forward to this country. However, the debate does allow me perhaps, as an individual, to shed a little light on the asylum system from a personal perspective as a result of professional experiences gained as a lawyer representing asylum seekers here in Scotland. I refer to my register of interests as an advocate in that regard. That experience was gained in the asylum and immigration tribunal, as it was then called, in Botwll Street in Glasgow. Interestingly, at a time at my age here, when the Labour Party was in government at Westminster, it is important to remember that the Labour Party ran this system for many, many years. In the late 2000s, representing asylum seekers was a challenge for any lawyer. I never won a case arguing for asylum to be granted. It was almost impossible to consult with clients beforehand or even meet them face to face. Asylum seekers were kept in that tribunal in what most people would view as prison cells and would be brought out for their cases before being returned. Cases would be dealt with very swiftly, too swiftly, in my opinion. The Home Office presenting officer, or Hopo, as they were known colloquially, would present the case as to why asylum should be refused. The immigration judge would respectfully listen to people like me, but it was hard to make submissions about the facts on the grounds in countries in the developing world and argue that asylum should be granted in the UK in light of dangerous or risky conditions in the applicants' home country that were directly applicable to that particular individual in terms of fear or of prosecution and to do so with any credibility and confidence. So, what to draw from this experience? I can only speak from that point in time, that in the late 2000s. It was a system that did not appear to be working for those seeking asylum. It was a system that was also not answering the legitimate concerns that many people had and still have more widely about migration. It was a system that even looked at impartially and independently as a professional trying simply to work in the system that did not appear effective. It was undeniably a challenging experience trying to act in the best interests of your client. And I wonder if much has changed in the last 15 years or so since I was in that tribunal. But there have been some changes. There has been an administrative overhaul of the tribunal system and in defence of the UK government, as our amendment states, it should be recognised that the UK government spent £3.7 billion in the fiscal year 2022-23 to support refugees, just as it should also be recognised that the same UK government continues to provide asylum seekers with financial support to cover essential living needs and is committed to delivering an asylum system that protects individuals from persecution based on their protected characteristics. In terms of the other points raised in this debate, I have very little to add to the skillful and measured opening speech of Miles Briggs and his fundamental point that he closed with, that both the Scottish government and the UK government should work together. It is just a shame that we are yet again debating a reserve matter and not a policy that falls within the Scottish government's own remit. Yes, I would. I thank Donald Cameron for giving away in terms of that partnership working. Glasgow could be facing hundreds of families who have a positive decision to be welcome and their asylum claims all entering the homeless system in Glasgow at the same time, without one single penny coming from the UK government to support them and Glasgow for that. Do you not think that partnership working means to be a funding model that means that the UK government contributes towards that, Mr Cameron? Donald Cameron. My response to that is to point him to the comments of Susan Aitken, his party colleague, who said that she would fight plans to relocate more asylum seekers in Glasgow. I would like to develop one thing that has not been— Point of order, Bob Doris. I apologise for doing this, Presiding Officer, because she will rightly probably tell me it's not a point of order. That was a really important comment that Mr Cameron made. I genuinely couldn't hear it, and I think it's quite important to the debate that I hear what Mr Cameron said, so I apologise. Could you please repeat that comment? Donald Cameron. It isn't a point of order just for the record, but Donald Cameron in it. I'll just continue. I'm running out of time, Presiding Officer. I'd like to develop one thing that hasn't been covered, and that concerns Ukraine and the super-sponsored scheme. When the minister gave evidence to the constitution committee last month, I asked her about this scheme. I asked her whether there was any intention to restart it. She said that the Government had been reviewing the pause with the next review happening this month. Perhaps she can answer now or in closing. Has that review happened? Are we any closer to reopening the scheme? I have to suggest to her that this has been a failure by the Scottish Government. It was announced with great fanfare, but it has been beset with problems. We know that, earlier last year, there were reports that some 7,500 Ukrainians, including almost 1,900 children, were stuck in temporary accommodation. We know that the Government slashed the resettlement budget by more than £25 million, and we know that the SNP Government will no longer renew the £10 million in funding that it initially granted to local councils to support Ukrainian resettlement, with Edinburgh City Council, I think, describing it as a betrayal. What was dressed up as a Warm Scots welcome and a Warm Scots future has in many cases ended up being neither. To conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, it is a shame that this debate has already descended into an attack on UK Government policy. There are important issues, especially around housing in Scotland, which are crucial. I am sorry that this debate has taken the course that it has already. We should instead be concentrating on what the Scottish Government can do, what local government can do, here and now in Scotland, to make life better for asylum seekers. Thank you very much, Mr Cameron. I now call Coghab Stewart to be followed by Pauline McNeill around six minutes. I am fortunate to represent one of the most diverse constituencies of Glasgow Kelvin and people from all corners of the globe pay Scotland the ultimate compliment by choosing to call our country their home. Whilst we set out our vision of an internationally responsible, welcoming and compassionate country, we do so under the blatant hostile narrative set by the UK Government that seeks to constantly undermine our vision. Those who come here do so at the mercy of an unimaginable, cruel Tory UK Government that is determined to vilify foreigners and to use them as a scapego for their own woeful mismanagement. It is a Government that, in the last year, has traded one Home Secretary who dreamed of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda to the current one who reportedly thinks that the policy is complete bad stuff but is pursuing it anyway. Rwanda, who knew it would be the hill that the current Prime Minister would choose to stake his reputation on? The flagship Tory policy that will do nothing to address the plight of the desperate being put in great danger at the hands of organised criminals in the English Channel. Members are aware that the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee last year published its report on the lived experience of asylum seekers in Scotland and the report made several recommendations, which I am encouraged that the Scottish Government is taking seriously, notably the commitment to provide concessionary bus travel, which I welcome. Donald Cameron, my colleague, mentioned having budgets that fund asylum seekers. I do not know anyone who thinks that £9 and £58 a week, which is what asylum seekers actually received if they are housed in accommodation, can actually provide any way of being able to get by. So, with no recourse to public funds, asylum seekers are expected to meet all their weekly costs that life brings on less than a tenor. That is simply not enough. Of course, asylum seekers are forbidden to work by UK law from taking up employment to support themselves and their families while their applications are processed. The process can last many months or even years, and that is after the Home Office has conducted what they call a substantive review. Asylum seekers ban on taking up employment is not the norm. The USA, Canada, Germany, Australia and many other nations do allow those applying for asylum the chance to get a job and earn a living. People should be able to earn a living and integrate into their new communities. The new Scots refugee integration strategy recognises strength skills, as well as committing to better access to essential services. I now go on to the Illegal Migration Act. In my view, that is one of the most callous pieces of legislation introduced by the UK Government in my living memory. In a country with no legal system of applying for asylum beyond a select few nation-specific schemes, the Illegal Migration Act now means that someone seeking asylum faces being detained indefinitely, left in a permanent state of uncertainty and under constant threat of deportation. For those who are victims of human trafficking, the new act simply wipes away the protections given in the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Scotland Act. Andy Cyril of Just Right Scotland told the committee that this is the situation in which victim centres support in a devolved area that has been provided for for the last eight years is working fairly well, will be extinguished with the stroke of a pen at Westminster. Those who will be most affected include women who are victims of sex trafficking and young men who are coerced into engaging in organised crime. Brona Andrew of Tara has stated that the Illegal Migration Act will supply the powers of the Scottish Government to create a national referral mechanism. It will limit their ability to link women with Police Scotland and have access to justice. In its 2017 report, Hidden Lives New Beginnings, the Equalities, Human Rights and Committee that was convened at that time by Minister Christina McKelvie, looked in detail at the many challenges faced by those going through the asylum system in Scotland. It included access to healthcare, looking at the links between destitution, exploitation and psychological trauma, and the protection and care of children of asylum seekers. I would be grateful if the minister could update the chamber on the work that the Scottish Government has done to address the recommendations from that report. It marks 14 years since the Tories came into power, but the chipping away at the asylum seekers right did not start with them. The so-called hostile environment was started by Labour, a phrase coined by Labour immigration minister at that time, Liam Byrne, in 2007. 2024 may well be the year that we see the Tories out of government, but so far Labour is not offering anything different, but I am pleased to hear today that they would scrap the Rwanda scheme. My challenge to Labour is this, devolve immigration to Scotland so that we can build a better and fairer system that meets our needs. Work with the SNP to establish a fairer system of applying for asylum in the UK with safeguards and legal routes. Commit to supporting asylum seekers right to work while they are here. Scrap the awful illegal migration bill. I believe that an independent Scotland offers the opportunity to ensure that asylum and migration policy is set according to Scotland's needs and through the proposals that are set out in the Scottish Government's building a new Scotland, we can be good global citizens and create a sensible and open, fair and welcome migration system. Asylum is normally granted in the UK if a person is unable to live safely in any part of their own country because of a potential persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or anything else that puts them at risk because of the social, cultural, religious or political situation in their home country. Or at least that was the policy that we have had for many years. However, in fact, the UK has signed up to treaties, as the minister said in her opening speech, reflecting those principles. The pretty patell has long gone, but the UK Government plans on immigration right now could not be more against these treaty principles. It is disastrous, it is callous, it is completely inefficient into the bargain, it is becoming an international joke on the back of a recent court decision that we have heard on the Rwanda policy, and we are spending millions to the French to get their co-operation preventing migrants from coming here. Even the French are saying that the UK is failing on our end. I would echo the Scottish Refugees Council's principle that we are a strongly resilient nation and we can and should do much better than this. There is indeed a correlation between geopolitical matters, including conflict and the extent of migration. It is a highly sensitive and political issue, and it requires an understanding of all politicians that world affairs, be it migration due to climate change or war, has an implication on migration. I know that, after 40 years of conflict in the recent Taliban Government and the Afghan refugees, the third largest displaced population in the world, with more than £1.6 million, which Britain had some responsibility for, fled the country in 2021. We did not do a great deal of service to the Afghans, for not all of them were allowed to flee to the UK. Since Russia's invasion of the UK in 2022, 38,000 Ukrainians have taken advantage of the UK Government's supersponsor programme. There have been programmes that are very welcome, and they show that this is the way in which we can support people in other countries fleeing persecution. As we witnessed the longest deepest offensive in the Gaza Strip, as an example, there will be geopolitical consequences of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population. Although we must robustly resist forced evacuation in the occupied territory of Gaza, as it faces obliteration, there will inevitably be a percentage of the population who will seek refuge in the rest of the world. We must live up to our responsibilities where we are involved. In Glasgow, there are 5,500 people in asylum-supported accommodation, and 1,800 of those people are in 21 institutional hotels across 13 local authorities. On average, there are in these environments for at least nine months, often stuck in state and posed with severe poverty, forced unemployment and very few people are permitted to access any work as we have heard. However, home office decision making has fallen again in terms of the backlog of asylum cases. They do not seem to be able to ever get that under control and has drastically increased leading to months of long waits for claims to be processed. The home office has also begun its hotel maximisation policy. It is one of the aspects of the policy that makes me most uncomfortable. Compulsory room sharing for hotel and hostel residents in Scotland is totally unacceptable and does not fit with the principles of any of the treaties that the UK has signed up to. It can be extremely traumatising for those individuals. Hotels can often be isolated areas anyway, making it more difficult for the people living there to access community support services that they need. We have seen tragedies unfold as a result of those types of conditions. Back in 2020, the asylum seeker by Dredin Abdullah Adam made 72 calls for help to the home office. The charity magnet helped before killing six people in the Glasgow park in an absolute tragedy. During the pandemic leading up to the tragedy, Glasgow asylum seekers were removed from their residencies to be placed in hotels, simultaneously being stripped of their £35 weekly support allowance. Three years later, that is down to £9 a week. I do not regard that as being a dignified existence. In particular, accommodation residents were unable to social existence or by things like mobile phone top-ups in order to stay in touch with their families or to need their lawyers back home. Sixteen others have died in asylum seeker accommodations in Scotland in 2016, some taking their own lives. Events like that should never happen, so that is why it is really important that local authorities are funded adequately in order to play the role that they want to play. I am proud of my city of Glasgow, which has historically paid an important role in all of that. I think that the Rwanda policy that many members have talked about is important to understand that Supreme Court decision. One of the reasons that the Supreme Court came to the view that it did is because it did not believe that Rwandan authorities would make fair decisions in relation to claimants. It is important to note that, even in cases where the person had a successful application, they would never ever see the United Kingdom. It is a bizarre, strange and completely callous policy. Across Europe, many countries are facing similar challenges. Immigration is very often talked about in a negative way. In fact, I would like to think that many members in this Parliament see immigration as a positive thing. Scotland should play its role. I believe that it can play its role as a devolved Parliament, and I look forward to hearing the other contributions, because I think that Scotland can do more and play a more strategic and positive role in immigration and asylum seeking. Thank you, Ms McNeill. I now call Bob Doris to be followed by Maggie Chapman in around six minutes, Mr Doris. Scotland should rightly be proud of our record of welcoming refugees and asylum seekers, as well as migrants more generally. We should acknowledge the moral responsibility nations have, including Scotland, to meet our international humanitarian obligations and the imperative to have an ethical and human asylum immigration system. We should also be clear and acknowledge the huge contribution that migrants to Scotland make to our society. The vital roles that many play right across society being that in the care sector, our NHS and the science and technology and research and higher education, our business community and much, much more, just to think what more they could do if they were all allowed to work. But also the contribution that migrants make to our arts and culture communities and how they enrich society more generally. I want to pay my thanks to the contribution that migrants make to the communities that I am privileged to represent. That national responsibility that Scotland has is clearly complicated by the reserved nature of immigration and asylum policies, and let's be clear that the UK Government responsibility to the fund appropriately, the support that is required across Scotland's local authorities to ensure that both vulnerable refugee families have come to Scotland and our wider communities are appropriately supported. I want to spend much of my speech focusing on this matter, but before I do, let me put on record what I consider to be the UK Government's approach to asylum and immigration more generally. My constituents expect me to do so, and I do find it repugnant. Trying to offshore moral obligations for refugees to Rwanda, seeking to demonise those who come to our shores on boats given the death of any legal routes to the UK that they could use and tacitly encouraging the normalisation of right wing rhetoric across society are just some of the aspects of the UK's discourse on immigration that I am deeply concerned about. As imperfect and flawed as the current asylum system is, and despite this being reserved, the Scottish Government and our councils have a clear duty at all they can to have a welcoming, integrated and inclusive approach to the immigration and asylum system. It is not only the right thing to do, it is in our self-interest given the needs of our economy and public sectors of a committed, skilled and growing working-age population. Migration to Scotland makes a key contribution in that respect. The Scottish Government has rightly highlighted in its motion concerns over the individual lines on contingency asylum accommodation caused by a backlog in home office decision making and various other concerns. However, I want to focus on the streamlined asylum process and a limited move on period allowed once a decision has been made that fast-tracking that we have heard about this afternoon. What does that mean for Glasgow? Rather than a manageable flow of asylum seekers staying in the city requiring to be rehoused from mere accommodation into mainstream accommodation after the secure positive decision, there will be a significant spike in the numbers of the city to manage without one penny of additional financial support from the UK Government. Let us remember that spike is due to the UK home office having a dreadful record on failing to terminate asylum decisions timisly over many, many years. I have referred to a spike, but what we are talking about is vulnerable asylum-seeking families in very large numbers having to move from designated asylum accommodation that they are currently in into a homelessness system without the UK offering any financial support. That cannot be fair on anyone. When I met miers at the start of December last year, they indicated that there were 560 positive decisions over stairs mainly in Glasgow, defined as being a miers accommodation 20 days after that positive decision. I am unclear how many of those positive over stairs are now homeless. To have no UK funds falling a positive decision was always unfair on councils, but to potentially have hundreds of families being made homeless without a short space of time and there to be no UK government financial support, it is scandalous. It is not fair on the families facing homelessness, asylum-seeking or otherwise and it is not fair in Glasgow. There is an acknowledgement from the UK government that there is initial costs on local authorities when they first host a vulnerable asylum-seeker. Every time a bed is identified, it triggers a payment of £3,500. Why no acknowledgement of the need to offer support to local authorities when vulnerable asylum-seekers are at a point of transition into our mainstream system? It makes no sense. I also discussed with miers how they work with councils across Scotland to ensure that we have a Scotland-wide approach to supporting asylum-seeking families. It was encouraging to hear that councils outwith Glasgow are working constructively to identify 2,000 additional bed spaces around 600 to 700 properties, but that led to a discussion about how miers or the council indeed could work with asylum-seeking families ahead of any positive decision to prepare them for transition. For instance, could they help them save for a deposit for a private rented property in the future, but if only they were allowed to work? Or could they discuss with them about what their housing options may be more generally? Would families wish to remain in Glasgow, understandably as kids may be at school or there may be routes put down in communities? Would families consider moving elsewhere in Scotland and what support package could be offered to do so? What would accommodation options look like? What would schools look like? What are the local amenities in any given area? Are there support networks elsewhere in Scotland should families wish to do so? I should also put on record that I am happy for them to stay in Glasgow, but they should have options and these things should be planned. The response that I received from miers is that not only were such systems not in place, they were specifically restricted by the Home Office from any kind of conversation of that nature whatsoever. That is crazy, that is wrong and that is unacceptable. In closing, Presiding Officer, I understand that there is a test for change group that includes Glasgow City Council, Home Office, the Scottish Refugee and Miers, looking at solutions on housing issues. I welcome an update from the Scottish Government to where that has got to. Finally, a lot has been made in the chamber this afternoon about this being a polarised debate about visions for our immigration and asylum system and the kinds of society we want to be. It absolutely is, but I obviously also live in the here and now. My communities and my vulnerable asylum-seekers families need support in the here and now. That has to involve partnership work between the UK Government, the Scottish Government, Scotland's councils and all our stakeholders, vitally including those with lived experience. I commend the Scottish Government's motion to hear this afternoon. I want to thank organisations, communities and individuals who work day in, day out. I am supporting asylum-seekers. I pay tribute to Grampian Regional Equality Council and Dundee International Women's Centre for their work across the north-east, and of course the Scottish Refugee Council. We have heard that we shouldn't be having this debate, that as immigration is a reserved matter we can cheerfully and with clear consciences leave it to those wise men and women of Westminster. But this is one of those moments when history will judge us by what we say and do or by how we keep silent. For the scandal that is UK asylum policy and legislation is already having disastrous impacts at multiple levels, internationally for the UK, for Scotland, for our communities and most of all for the people and families that the asylum system is supposed to protect. Globally, passing the illegal migration act represents a serious blow to the UK's standing. While the British reputation for decency and fair play has often been undeserved, it is the case that people and organisations in the UK have played significant roles in developing international human rights and asylum systems. It is the greatest of insults to these hardworking courageous pioneers that their country is now seen as a rogue state, a reputation which now gained will be very hard to lose. Who would have thought it possible that a UK Government would pass laws that admit on their very face that they are not compliant with our most basic human rights? This reputation is an international humiliation but it's also worrying that others may be tempted to follow the UK's lead. If the UK, with all its prosperity and advantages, can disregard shared humanity and international law, others will ask why they shouldn't do the same. In the UK, those policies and the rhetoric behind them are doing inculculable damage to our political and public discourse. The crude violence of the stop the boats messaging would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. The level of opposition from moderate Tories and the official opposition has been woefully weak. It is my profound hope that their consciences will overcome their cynical calculations of electoral advantage, not least because those calculations are very likely to be wrong. Despite the extraordinary media messaging over many years, messages of spite, bile and blatant untruth, most people are not xenophobic border obsesses but compassionate citizens who recognise themselves in those seeking refuge and welcome them as neighbours, colleagues and friends. Here in Scotland we have long recognised the value of people coming from elsewhere, for our community, culture, identity and economy. That tradition of welcome and mutual enrichment is deeply rooted and remains strong and vibrant, though its practical manifestations are made much more difficult by actions of the UK Government. Demographically and culturally, we know, as politicians and commentators in England seem to have forgotten, that we need new Scots. The motion recognises also that the pernicious impact of Westminster policies is especially painful for our local authorities, those who already host and support people seeking asylum and those who want to do more. Our councils are impossibly being prevented from carrying out their fundamental duties to provide essential services to those most in need. Finally, and most importantly, those inhuman and illegal policies are having tragic effects for our new and potential Scots neighbours. On people seeking asylum here, including those in situations of deep danger, longing for refuge, those who have embarked on long and perilous journeys, those who are already here awaiting decisions from a cruel and dilatory home office, those who have received their refugee status and many others affected by the hostile environment and discourses of demonisation. Those blows fall most heavily upon the vulnerable. Especially upon victims of trafficking, whose rights and means of redress have been essentially shredded by the illegal migration act. They fall upon children, including young teenagers whose age is disbelieved by the home office, and the youngest babies and toddlers placed in institutional accommodation with few, if any, opportunities to play, crawl, walk and reach the other essential milestones of child development.  I implore all those who think these policies acceptable to take a moment to imagine themselves faced with the horrific choices which have to be made by those in danger of persecution, imprisonment or death. Think about the dangerous journeys made, the homes, families, friends, lives left behind. Then imagine that when you finally reach what should be a place of safety, the fear continues, fear of attack by hostile far right actors, trauma reawakened by windowless rooms that feel like cells, anxiety and sleeplessness triggered by rooms shared with strangers. Think about the simple actions we here take for granted, sufficient money to catch a bus to an essential appointment, to phone a family member, to buy a child a small toy or treat. Think about having studied and worked for years, perhaps in a much needed medical or caring role, and not being allowed to use those skills for the community around you, not being allowed to work at all, but left maybe for years in a limbo of indignity and lack of information. At the end of all that waiting, when the decision finally comes that yes, what you said was true, you are indeed a refugee. Imagine that decision coming along with the news that you have but a few days before being evicted from your accommodation, with little hope of finding a home or escaping further destitution. These are the realities behind the brash slogan of stop the boats. Not boats stopped, but lides, families and communities broken and bereft. Asylum seekers, all human beings deserve better. I cannot see a rationale or justification for an approach to asylum determination that takes years, costs the taxpayer extraordinary amounts and that prevents the individual from contributing to the economy and society. Not my words, but those of Helena Kennedy Keasey as chair of independent commission of inquiry into asylum provision in Scotland. We should at this point remind ourselves that the UK is a signatory to the 1951 refugee convention and the 1967 protocol which serves to protect refugees. The convention defines a refugee as someone who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion and is outside the country of their nationality. The latest figures for the 12 months to September 23 states that 75,340 asylum applications were made to the Home Office relating to 93,296 people. In terms of the number of asylum applications per head of population, the UK ranks 20th highest in Europe, very far behind other countries like Cyprus, who talk that table for asylum applications per head of population. The refugee council identified that the top five countries of origin of people who are seeking asylum in the UK were from Afghanistan, Iran, Albania, India and Iraq. Two of the countries are where British troops engaged in armed conflict for many years and one where human rights abuses, particularly against women and girls, has been well documented and others as a result of crackdown on independence movements or sectarian violence. That is why 75 per cent of people who apply for asylum in the UK are granted protection on their initial application. As of September 23, 124,000 people were waiting the conclusion of their asylum application. Meanwhile, those same people seeking asylum are banned from working and, in many cases, are provided with £9 a week from the UK Government to cover the cost of their basic necessities. That is at a time when across the UK there are currently 949,000 vacancies that need to be filled to help the Scottish and UK's economy to grow. Why are we not using those individuals who have been granted protection in this country to work to support themselves? The National Institute of Economic and Social Research and its discussion paper states that the economic and social impacts of lifting work restrictions on people seeking asylum highlights that the UK is only one of six European nations who grant asylum applicants the right to work after they have been waiting for an outcome of their application for a longer than a year, unlike most other countries where that restriction is six months. However, the UK is the only country to impose further restrictions on what jobs a person seeking asylum can apply for once the right to work has been granted by allowing people to only take up jobs on a shortage occupation list. The report found that the annual impact from allowing people seeking asylum the right to work in the UK would be to increase tax revenue by £1.3 billion, reduce Government expenditure by £6.7 billion and increase the UK's GDP by £1.6 billion. As Helena Kerri stated in the final report of the commission, what a utter waste of human potential in our resources, particularly in a country that has an urgent growth agenda and massive skill shortages. She continued, The UK needs care workers, HGV drivers, butchers and other technical and professional skilled workers. We need to honour our commitments to protect people and we need people who want to play a role in our economy and society. Canada's recent announced 23-25 immigration level plan embraces a strategy of immigration to manage future social and economic challenges. It sees immigration as an opportunity, not a threat. In contrast, the UK seems short-sighted on multiple fronts. Many refugees are highly skilled and want to contribute to their new country to say thanks for the opportunity to rebuild their lives. Instead, the UK Government has left over 56,000 of them languishing in hotel rooms, resulting in increased mental health issues, on-going trauma and loss of wellbeing stretched, resulting in them requiring more support from already stretched NHS. The recently published Scottish Government's immigration proposals in building a new Scotland would welcome asylum seekers and would provide support so they could more easily integrate into communities. People seeking asylum would be given the right to work and therefore would pay taxes, which in turn would allow access to public services, including employability support. The result would be increased tax revenue for the Scottish Government, lower expenditure and asylum support and increased productivity. The UK Government's repugnant policies on asylum and immigration in no way reflect Scotland's values of compassion, humanity and upholding international law, nor do they take into account the migration benefits Scotland's economy and our public services. In independent Scotland, we will be able to establish a humane approach to supporting refugees and people fleeing conflict and persecution who deserve our compassion and aid and be aware of the need for equity of the global south in our approach to migration. We will be able to do that with values of dignity, fairness and respect at the heart of all aspects of immigration policy. As the Conservative UK Government descends into electoral oblivion, they have resorted to ever more desperate acts, most notably their cynical project to make the asylum system as inhumane as possible, shipping people seeking safety from horrendous situations such as war and persecution off to Rwanda. Not only has it been an appalling waste of public money, but it is also a waste of life. Three quarters of asylum claims are granted at the initial decision, and over half of appeals are successful. That means that almost nine out of every ten people seeking asylum in Britain end up being granted refugee status. £140 million has already been paid to Rwanda, yet not a single asylum seeker has been sent, thankfully, as the Supreme Court ruled the policy unlawful in November, but the public funds wasted on this atrocious scheme work out at £1,500 for each of the 93,296 people who sought asylum in the UK in the last 12 months. Just think what we could have done with that money instead. The eccentric and unlawful Rwanda gimmick is just one element of the cruel Tory asylum policy that strips people of all hope and humanity when they need it most. You just have to look at the conditions on the Bibby Stockholm barge to see the aim of the UK Government's asylum policy. Such a policy demonstrates nothing but hostility to people whom we should be opening our arms to. Those asylum seekers banned from working to pay for their own lodgings and instead housed in barges and hotels do not feel safe. Where is the empathy in forcing people that have fled war and persecution into rooms without windows for long periods of time? It is no wonder that asylum seekers are at a heightened risk of experiencing depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. The UK Government's efforts to clear the asylum barge log while cutting the so-called move-on period in which refugee status is granted and asylum accommodation provisions end, heightens the risk of mass homelessness and destitution for people seeking asylum in Scotland. We must do all that is possible to ensure that refugees and asylum seekers do not end up homeless. That is why it is bitterly disappointing that the Ukrainian resettlement team in Glasgow is winding down their operations in order to merge with the general asylum refugee team. The work of the specialist Ukrainian resettlement team is vitally important in ensuring a smooth transition from asylum accommodation and for other refugees. That merger will not only increase the chance of Ukrainian refugees slipping through the cracks and ending up without a roof over their heads. The Scottish Government promised a warm welcome for all Ukrainian refugees, but with homeless rates higher among Ukrainians in the wider population, it is clear that they have fallen short of their promise. The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee's report into asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland suggested that the Scottish Government could do much more to ease the situation of asylum seekers in Scotland. The decision to bring about concessionary bus travel for asylum seekers is welcomed, but there are other practical improvements that must be explored. I hope that Mr Sweeney would take this opportunity to put on record that he would agree with me that the point of transition from a positive decision by the UK Home Office, almost for a Samson family, into the mainstream system in Glasgow. I have another local authority, Mr Sweeney, that there should be a financial payment from the UK Government to support that, and that would be a reasonable thing for any future UK Government to also support. I do not think that what the member has proposed is unreasonable in the slightest. In fact, I would be inclined to support his suggestion. However, I do not think that it is at all helped by the Scottish Government's recent announcement of cutting the capital budget for housing and seriously constraining council budgets, which means that the opportunity for councils to manage that transition is seriously harmed. I think that we need to seriously address that in the Government here. It should take responsibility for that decision. The Home Office certainly keeps families separated in the desperation of conflict apart, and I wonder whether it will ever be reunited. I particularly want to raise one case that has been brought to my attention recently, the on-going plight of Kaltouma Harun, Ibrahim. Mrs Ibrahim is a much-loved member of the Gorbos Parish Church in Glasgow. She studies English at Annesland College and works part-time with disabled children for Glasgow City Council. In 2014, alongside her husband and five children, Mrs Ibrahim boarded a boat in Libya bound for Italy after fleeing war-torn Sudan, but tragically the boat sank and two of her children, Mohammed and Faisal, drowned. She was separated from her three surviving children and husband in the aftermath of the tragedy, and after being forced to give up her search to find her family, she returned to her birthplace of Chad. Yet Chad is terrorised by the violent Islamist militant group Boko Haram, and she again was forced to flee to France and then on to London, claiming asylum there in 2016. Mrs Ibrahim moved to Glasgow in 2017 and secured refugee status in 2019. Thanks to a humanitarian charity, Mrs Ibrahim managed to track down her husband and teenage children who are living in war-torn Sudan. Around 15 months ago, her lawyer submitted the required paperwork to the Home Office so that her family could join her in Glasgow. Within that time, horrifically, her 13-year-old daughter Safa perished in a rocket attack near her home in Khartoum. The situation that Mrs Ibrahim and her family are in is deeply distressing, as I'm sure all members will agree. It is astonishing that it should take so long to process such a case. I ask therefore that the minister here would be willing to take a direct action and make representations on behalf of the Scottish Government to the UK Government on behalf of Mrs Ibrahim in Glasgow, so that we can end the decade of torment and tragedy and reunite what remains of the shattered family. The UK Government's asylum policy and legislation is a muddled mess and creates anxiety and downright hostility to those who come here looking for safety and security. The complex and inhumane system denies people who come to Scotland to work, raise the families and settle into our society. And make no mistake, Presiding Officer, we need immigration. Scotland is not full. We welcome the diversity and enrichment from everyone coming to these shores. The Scottish Government's vision for Scotland is one of an internationally responsible, welcoming and compassionate country.  Nor do they take into account that migration benefits Scotland's economy and our public services. The Scottish Government is developing mitigations as far as possible within our devolved powers and budget, including through our new Scots refugee integration strategy. As the minister outlined, work is under way in partnership with the Scottish Refugee Council and COSLA to inform the refresh of the new Scots refugee integration strategy. The minister spoke in her opening speech about the plight of women and babies with no idea what their future will be, what a desperate situation. With independence, we can focus on Scotland's priorities, create a system that eradicates human trafficking and also create a migration system that has fairness and dignity to its heart. In a recently published building a new Scotland paper, we propose that an independent Scotland would have human, fair and compassionate refugee and asylum policies. A flexible visa system would help Scottish businesses to attract and retain the international talent that they need to thrive. I recently met a young asylum seeker who gained a degree in computer science and was looking to complete her masters in that subject. Her asylum appeal had not been confirmed but she was desperate to stay here and contribute to our society. Why on earth would any country not want her to do that? We also need not just the brightest brains but people who want to work in all sectors of our society, as Gordon MacDonald outlined, and to educate and bring up their children here in a safe environment. Because Scotland has a long history of welcoming refugees and asylum seekers and recognisants, it is a human right to be able to seek asylum in another country. What does it say about a society when it cannot welcome those fleeing conflict and persecution? I cannot fathom the mindset that thinks it is acceptable to create a hostile environment. I look for ways to turn people back or export them to an entirely unsuitable country such as Rwanda. Despite the Supreme Court ruling in relation to the safety of Rwanda, the UK Government persists in trying to prove them wrong, knowing better, in order to complete this incomprehensible plan, and I think that says it all. Those fleeing conflict and persecution should be protected and welcomed. We cannot turn our backs on people impacted by conflicts across the world who have been killed trying to escape or facing illness due to the lack of clean water and medical assistance. Whether they come from Sudan, Gaza or Ukraine or Afghanistan, the UK should be providing sanctuary for the most vulnerable, not holding them in hotels or trying to ship them off to Rwanda to be put in even more danger. We are talking about children and families here. Financial support provided to people seeking asylum should reflect the real costs of daily life, including digital access and travel costs. The Scottish Government has also raised concerns about the impact of the UK Government's streamlined asylum process. The Minister for Refugees, as we heard, wrote to the UK Government to request urgent funding for local authorities and to work constructively with them to ensure that people receiving a positive asylum decision are supported to move on from asylum accommodation. Instead of creating a culture war that attacks the most vulnerable, the Tories should be investing in clearing the backlog and creating safe and legal routes to those who are being wore in persecution. I would like to mention that our many amazing third sector organisations work in flat out to support migrants every day. We need them, because Westminster has made it clear that they couldn't care less about some of the most vulnerable people in the world. However, the Human Rights Act is a key protection for every citizen in the UK, including rights of asylum seekers. I would also like to highlight the scandal of the fact that migrant women in the UK fleeing domestic abuse have no recourse to public funds. Do they not matter? Should they not receive care and protection in the country where they are living? The Scottish Government cannot amend restrictions placed on people seeking asylum while they await a decision, including long-standing UK Government policies to restrict the right to work and access to public funds. It is high time to devolve immigration to Scotland so that we can ditch the appalling illegal migration act and show some compassion and respect to refugees. Refugees are desperate people fleeing war and persecution, and Scotland has repeatedly voted for a more compassionate and welcoming approach. As Karen Adam said, it could be any of us, it could be us. So, I think that we need the chance to implement the policies that reflect the values of Scotland. Thank you. We move to winding up speeches, and I call on Foisal Choudhury up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Recent hostily-crate government policies have contributed to Scotland being painted as a country that does not welcome refugees. These policies have encouraged hostility and bad feelings towards those in our society who are most vulnerable. This fear of other, rhetoric strokes racism, puts immigrants in danger and deprives the UK of the benefits migrants bring. Just this week, there were reports that a far-right activist had posed as Home Office Inspector to get information about a Dumfries hotel that was housing refugees. Even more shockingly, the Scottish Refugee Council have reported that suicide amongst asylum seekers in Home Office accommodations have doubled in the last four years. This is due to a series of UK government asylum policies that seek to address migrants as a horde of illegal people coming to the UK instead of safeguarding the well-being of migrants already in the country. As Miles Briggs mentioned, CPG Bangladesh recently visited Cogs Bazar refugee camp, and I refer members to my register of interest. It was great to see the positive impact of foreign funding for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. It is disappointing that we have not seen this reflected in the Home Office's recent asylum policies. Labour wants to see an end to costly and unacceptable asylum policies set out by the Home Office. Presiding Officer, despite being a reserved matter, UK government asylum policies directly affect Scotland and many devolved areas of competence within it. Under the recent UK hostel crackdown on migration, many asylum seekers in Scotland will be required to seek legal aid, housing and help from Scottish local authorities. Not to mention the potential overhoming of Scotland's only immigration detention centre, Dengobolhais. The minister, Emma Raddock, outlined that 80% of Scots also want to see a well-managed approach to asylum. Labour wants the immigration system to work for all, part of our country. We want a fair, controlled asylum system which supports refugees fleeing persecution while keeping our border secure and ensuring all accepted claims are legitimate. Currently, the Tories are outsourcing border security to criminal smuggler gangs. That is why our UK Labour government will reform and strengthen the migration advisory committee with appropriate input from across the UK. So the visa system works for all nations and regions, including Scotland. Cookup Street outlined how it is, how as it stands, the Illegal Migration Act can supply the power of the Scottish Parliament. When the UK government announced the act in March last year, the Scottish Government promised action to mitigate the damage that it would do in Scotland. We are close to a year, and just like Scotland, among others, continue to warn the danger to unaccompanied minors and victims of trafficking in Scotland under this act. The UK Supreme Court recently ruled the so-called Rwanda plans as unlawful. Yet, six rules around asylum and leave to remain have left many asylum seekers in Scotland and indifferent to Limbo, not being removed but unable to access concrete help. The UK government continues to creed down a path of policies that strip the refugees of their rights to ship them to third countries. A move that Alex Cole-Hamilton rightly observed that blankly laid aside key aspects of our human rights legislation. Karen Adam spoke of how the UK government does this instead of investing in tackling the asylum backlogs. Finally, Presiding Officer, as Paul O'Kane mentioned, the report by the Equalities Human Rights Civil Justice Committee recommended that the Scottish Government use powers with indible competence of the Scottish Parliament to improve the lives of asylum seekers in Scotland. The harm caused by UK government asylum policies can be mitigated in Scotland. However, over the decade of underfunding for local authorities' vital service provided to refugees at risk, the Scottish Government's future refugee strategy must stick to protect refugees in all devolved areas, ensuring help within housing, transport, employability, access to healthcare, including mental health, and protection from organised crime. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It frustrates me no end, but we seem to spend an incredible amount of time in this Scottish Parliament debating issues that are not within our competency. We are gathered here this afternoon to talk through an issue that is reserved to Westminster. We could be talking about the war for processing times at social security Scotland and the impact they have been having on the most vulnerable in Scotland. We could be talking about the tumblin education standards in Scotland that have come as a result of the Scottish Government's failures over the last 16 years. Or we could even be talking about the matter of the squeeze that local authorities are staring down the barrel of the result of the SNP in Greens refusal to allocate appropriate funds. Instead, we are talking about an issue that is not in our portfolio. It has been used as nothing more than an excuse for the SNP in Greens to teach cheap shocks at the UK Government in order to distract from their own disastrous record. And the truth is, Presiding Officer, that this Government has failed to protect the most vulnerable in our society at every opportunity. Miles Briggs and others highlighted the importance of local authorities. Yet, as Mr Briggs pointed out, the Scottish Government have yet again cut their funding, particularly around housing. Donald Cameron, in his usual school for manual, brought his own personal experience to difficult situations and showed us that, actually, things were worse under Labour. Many speakers have congratulated the third sector, and I agree and play tribute to all the work done by the third sector across Scotland in this area, but they need funding, not less from this Government, if they are really to reach out. Other speakers, including Alex Cole-Hamilton, seem to argue for completely open door policy that will not restrict anyone from coming in for whatever reason. As always, the Scottish Government likes to talk a big game when it comes to its commitment to refugees, but, as with everything else, the delivery is left wanting. As other speakers have commented on, look at their commitment to the freedom of war of Ukraine. The SNP went to great lengths to assure everyone that there would be no limit to the number of refugees that they would welcome. They wanted to contrat themselves with the big bag UK Government, and, once again, they ran into the hard-nosed reality of life. And a hard-nosed reality, why? Because, in July 2022, they paused the scheme, and, yet funny enough, it has still not been recommenced. In addition to this, as of April of this year, over 7,500 Ukrainians were stuck in temporary accommodation in Scotland. The Scottish Government made a promise to them that they would find safe and permanent accommodation here. However, thousands have been stuck in Limbo, not known when or if they will get a stable home. Presiding Officer, there can be no doubt that this Government is on very shaky ground when it comes to giving lectures on how to care for vulnerable. One only needs to look at the chaos that has been engulfed in them as they rode out the broad benefits for social security. Excuse me, Mr Balfour. I am going to take a point of order from Alex Cole-Hamilton. I just wanted to clarify, Presiding Officer, if Jeremy Balfour could actually see his screen, because I have tried to intervene on him several times, and I do not think that he has actually been aware of that. He has certainly not acknowledged it. Okay. That may not be a point of order, Mr Cole-Hamilton. Your comment is on the record, and I will ask Mr Balfour to continue. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I apologise to my colleague, and, of course, I am very happy to take his intervention. Alex Cole-Hamilton. I am very grateful to Jeremy Balfour for giving way, and I am loath to interrupt his speech. It must have sounded great in the shaving room mirror this morning, but it is not landing as well as I think he suspected in the chamber this afternoon, not least because some of the rhetoric he is using is actually playing to the dog whistle politics of the hard right of the Conservative party in London. The Liberal Democrats policy is not an open door come all ye to our country. It is about safe and legal routes for people who are legitimately seeking safe harbour in these islands because they are fleeing war and persecution, and I think he diminishes himself and the chamber with the rhetoric that he is using. Jeremy Balfour. Can I thank the member for his second speech? I actually, just simply listened to his speech. That is what he said in his speech. Now, that might not be the policy, but that is what came across as I was listening carefully to his contribution this afternoon. Presiding Officer, there can be no doubt that this Government, as I said, is on very shaky grounds when it comes to giving lectures on how to care for the runnable. Presiding Officer, we are all in agreement that those who are feeling persecution in their home country should be able to find virtues here, but we must ensure that we have a system that meets two criteria. Firstly, that is a system that is functional and delivers for those in need, ensuring a fine balance between generosity and affordability. Secondly, a system that makes sure that those seeking virtues come through safe and legal reach. Neither of those are optional. There is no workable solution that does not meet those. We cannot follow the same pattern that the Scottish Government has set out over its 16-year tenure of promising the world and delivering an atlas. We need to have grown up discussing the fact that the SNP have used this opportunity as a mud slinging exercise to try to promote independence does not bode well. I am happy to say that I will be supporting the Conservative motion this evening. I call on Christina McKelvie to wind up nine minutes or so. I think that this debate has been an opportunity to recognise the impact that UK Government asylum policy and legislation has here in Scotland on people seeking asylum, local authorities, public services, third sector support organisations and communities. Like Rona Mackay and others, I thank the Scottish Refugee Council, COSLA and the many more organisations that keep us briefed and work every day to support those seeking sanctuary in Scotland. It is important for this Parliament to discuss those matters because of the impact on devolved services and support in place in Scotland. That was recognised by Fausal Chowdry in his summing up, but sadly not recognised by the UK Government's representatives in this Parliament, the Scottish Conservatives. As the Scottish Refugee Council briefing says, we recognise asylum as reserved matter, but people are not. Point of order, Miles Briggs. Thank you very much. Scotland has sought to take a different approach to support integration for refugees and people seeking asylum from day one of arrival. I agree with Maggie Chapman and Karen Adam that we need many more new Scots. The new Scottish Refugee integration strategy is a partnership led by the Scottish Government, COSLA and the Scottish Refugee Council. It recognises that we can do more together to support people who have been forced to find a place of safety. I hope that members across the chamber welcome the support of the right to work pilot proposed by my colleague Emma Roddick in her opening remarks. As Colcab Stewart and Gordon MacDonald said, the right to work works effectively in other EU countries that adds to their economic growth. Why wouldn't we want to do the same? I know that Maryhill integration network who has been championed by Bob Doris, and I know that they will welcome this pilot because they have called for it for many, many years. Bob Doris also asked about the challenges in Glasgow. The housing minister is working closely with Glasgow City Council and I will ask him to ensure that he will respond to Bob Doris in more detail on that issue and others who raised it in the chamber. We need to be clear that what we are talking about here is people who have applied to the UK Government to have the refugee status recognised or to access humanitarian protection because it is unsafe for them to return to their country of origin. Paul O'Kane asked about the act of implementation and some of the mitigations that we are currently looking at. I would wish to update him in the fact that this Government continues to work in looking at all available mitigations within our devolved powers. We are doing that as we speak and within the law, and we will also continue to engage with all of those stakeholders, but if there are any positive ideas that Paul O'Kane would wish to add to that, we would be willing to hear them and we would thank him for it. I thank the minister for giving way and I recognise that the Scottish Government has put in place a number of things to mitigate the excesses of the UK Government's asylum and refugee policy. However, one of the things that has made some of those things much more difficult is the no recourse to public funds legislation that the UK has put in place. Can I ask the minister how much of an impediment she thinks no recourse to public funds is in terms of helping some of those most vulnerable people? Thank you very much Kevin Stewart for that very timely intervention. He will know from our past work together on this issue whether it is back benches or as members of the Government that challenging the UK Government on the use of no recourse to public funds has been something that we have continued to do and we will continue to do. One prime example of that is that a woman fleeing domestic violence is not allowed to access refuge when she needs it. That is absolutely disgraceful and that is one prime example of why no recourse to public funds is just not acceptable in any compassionate society. However, it is right that there is a process to consider and determine asylum applications, but the UK needs an effective, efficient asylum system that delivers for people who may be highly vulnerable. That asylum system should ensure that the UK upholds the 1951 UN convention on refugees. The experience of Mrs Ibrahim told us today by Paul Sweeney's testament as to why we need a system that works. I have asked Paul Sweeney in his contribution about getting an update on how we can contribute to the work that he is doing there. The minister is willing to speak to him on that, so drop her a line and she will pick that issue up with you in more detail. The 1951 convention does not prescribe a specific mechanism through which states should determine refugee status. According to international law, everyone who satisfies the definition set out in the convention is a refugee and signatory states have responsibilities to recognise and protect refugees. It also does not require someone to seek asylum in the first country that they come to—a dreadful misrepresentation of asylum law. As Gordon MacDonald reminded us, the UK does not take anywhere near the numbers of our close European neighbours when it comes to taking in people seeking sanctuary. The UK Government's asylum policy and legislation is increasingly seeking to undermine the established international refugee protection system. That damages the UK's international reputation and puts people in need of protection at risk. With the Rwanda policy, the Rwanda policy only decides the basis of someone's mode of transport, not their protected characteristics, not their vulnerability and certainly not the reasons why they would be seeking sanctuary, because there is actually no, apart from some specific programmes, any safe routes currently to the UK. I would challenge anybody in here to tell me they are, because no one can find them. So pushing back the boats and all the rhetoric about trying to keep people safe, create some safe routes and then they will be safe and they won't need to go to people traffickers. The focus of this debate is on the impact of the UK Government asylum policy and legislation in Scotland. The hostile environment and dangerous rhetoric has a direct impact on people living in our communities. Can I also share Colcab Stewart's concerns about the impact of the legislation that the UK Government is proposing and has brought in on trafficking victims? I share her concerns and Tara's concerns in this too. People seeking asylum are members of our communities who are living with constant uncertainty about when they will receive a decision and what it will say. They are living in contingency hotels and in dispersal accommodation. They are restricted from working and relying on low levels of financial support £1.25 per day. Health and wellbeing is particularly challenging for people in these situations and there are key concerns of people who are in institutional situations. Some members today mentioned the barges in the Bibby Stockholm situation. We heard just today that Leonard Farouk laid for 12 hours on the Bibby Stockholm dead before anybody realised. That is a disgraceful situation to be in and it should be nowhere near anything that we want to be recognised for in the UK. For people who are granted asylum and become newly recognised refugees, there are further challenges as the UK Government removes support and accommodation after just 28 days. According to the Scottish Refugee Council, sometimes that is shot into just 14 days and in some cases seven days. I was glad to hear Miles Briggs recognise that issue. I hope that he will ask his pals at Westminster to fix it. We also know that many people are receiving late notice of this support removal. For local authorities raised by Bob Dorris, the minimum notice period and increasingly late notification is creating significant pressure as newly recognised refugees present for mainstream housing support. UK Government's streamlined asylum process is exacerbating that and has not provided any additional funding to support local authorities. That is before we take into account the needs of unaccompanied children. The UK legislation rides roughshod over our established child protection responsibilities and treats cases with disbelief. I remember well the situation where the UK Government is proposing X-raying children's risks to determine age. Please do not let us hear anything like that ever again. People should not be at risk of homelessness and destitution at the point that the UK Government recognises their need for protection as refugees. That is not a new issue, either. We heard from cold cabsure that was raised and the committee that I chaired in 2017 is something that we have all wanted to have tackled. That report in 2017 created the strategy that we have now and I am happy to update cold cabsure that the refresh of that strategy will be available in March this year. The UK Government asylum policy legislation will continue to impact on all devolved areas. I encourage you all to agree the debate motion to recognise that impact and to oppose the Scottish Government's pursuit of its plan. The impact assessment cost for Rwanda was initially £169 million for 1,000 people as some of £169,000 per person. A cost that has now topped £290 million, imagine what COSLA and organisations in Scotland could do with £169,000 per person. It would transform services and the work that they do to support those people. I recognise and I hope that the UK Government must recognise the engagement of Scottish local authorities in asylum dispersal and agree that the UK Government needs to engage positively with devolved Governments, local authorities and public services across asylum matters to reduce the negative impact on people coming to our communities. Maggie Chapman, cold cabsure and Karen Adam gave us a timely reminder of the dehumanising language to stop the boats, words such as swarm and invasion. It has a dreadful impact on those most vulnerable, and that is why we welcome the Together with Refugees campaign. The Together with Refugees campaign has got a set of principles that align with the long-standing Scottish Government positions and Scotland's new Scots refugee integration strategy developed by and delivered in partnership with COSLA and the Refugee Council. I would ask everyone in this chamber to get behind the Refugee Council and the Refugee Together strategy. That concludes the debate on the impact of UK Government asylum policy and legislation in Scotland. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. Earlier today, Miles Briggs MSP took exception to being called a representative of the UK Government. I understand why, but I would also take offence. In doing so, I think that he may have inadvertently mislead Parliament. Mr Briggs stated that he was a representative of the Scottish Conservative Party, so this afternoon, I checked the Electoral Commission website and I can confirm that no such party exists. The only party that exists is the Conservative and Unionist party. How understanding orders Mr Briggs can correct this inadvertent misleading of Parliament? Thank you, Mr Doris, for your contribution. I am sure that, at this point in this session, members are very well aware of the mechanism that exists to correct any potential inaccuracies. At this point, we will move on to the next item of business. In the item of clarity, Mr Doris might need to get a life and understand that we are here to represent people in this Parliament. Of course, we will continue, members, to treat one another with courtesy and respect, and we will move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 11821, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Happy year. Moved. Thank you, Minister. No member has asked to speak on the motion and the question is that motion 11821 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of three parliamentary bureau motions. I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motions 11822 on approval of an SSI, 11823 on designation of a lead committee, and 11824 on committee meeting time. The question on those motions will be put at decision time, and I'm minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders that decision time be brought forward to now, and I invite the Minister for parliamentary business to move the motion. I'm happy to be helpful, as always, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Minister. The question is that decision time be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, and there are four questions to be put as a result of today's business, and the first is that amendment 11803.1, in the name of Miles Briggs, which seeks to amend motion 11803, in the name of Emma Roddick, on the impact of UK Government asylum policy and legislation in Scotland, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we'll move to vote, and there'll be a short suspension to allow members to access digital voting.