 The next item of business is very little time in hand. I'm moving on. The next item of business is a debate on motion 14548 in the name of Eileen Campbell on a place of safety supporting asylum seekers in Scotland. Can I remind members of the purposes of the standing orders rule and subjudice? No mention should be made of any live cases during the debate. I know that you're well aware of it, but I've just put that back on the record for you. I call on Eileen Campbell, Cabinet Secretary, to speak to and move the motion. Nine minutes please. We all need a place of safety, a place where we are welcomed, a place where we feel secure, comfortable and happy, and a place that allows us to be ourselves but also supports us to fulfil our potential. This Government is determined that Scotland should be a place of safety for people seeking asylum, a place that gives them the space and peace that they need to rebuild their lives free from the war and persecution that forced them to flee their own homes. In January we launched the second new Scots refugee integration strategy, again developed in partnership with COSLA and the Scottish Refugee Council. New Scots aims to support integration for all refugees and people seeking asylum who are living in Scotland. That is why our key principle remains that integration begins from day one. That means that people should be welcome and supported to integrate from the moment they arrive, not just when refugee status and leave to remain have been granted. Over the past three years, refugees from the conflict in Syria have settled all across Scotland. That's fantastic achievement and I am grateful to everyone who has worked so hard to make that happen. However, we must remember that the vast majority of refugees have arrived in Scotland as asylum seekers and it is their experience that we want to focus on today. In line with the approach of the new Scots strategy, the Scottish Government is pleased to ensure that people seeking asylum have rights to access key services that support their integration, such as health and education. However, integration from day one does not just require access to services. It also requires a fully functioning asylum system, one that treats people with dignity and respect, that makes fair decisions and that does not leave people left in limbo for years on end. People seeking asylum have to navigate a complex and often frustrating system, sometimes over many years, before they receive refugee status and are able to get on with their lives. That is often at great cost to their mental health and to their future prospects. I do not think that anyone could argue that we have the asylum system that we need, because what we do have is a flawed system that is failing the very people that it is supposed to help. Never let anyone say that claiming asylum is an easy option. The asylum system forces people to travel the length of the UK to get to Croydon just to be able to lodge their claim. The Scottish Government has long believed that people who are in Scotland and wish to make a claim for asylum should be able to do so here. It is not right that people are forced into another harrowing and unaffordable journey, and it is the third sector that is picking up the cost and reducing the risk of people becoming prey to those who seek to exploit them. I am grateful. The minister mentions that the locations for lodging a claim are one of the issues in the Smith commission recommendation, which my amendment references. Can the minister tell us whether the UK Government has been willing to hold discussions with the Scottish Government about implementing that? Has there been any willingness at all on their part? As I go through my remarks this afternoon, I think that it will become clear that it is very difficult often to engage with the Home Office to make the progress that I think all of us—ultimately, when we get to the point when we decide on this amendment and motions tonight—will send a clear message about what we think should happen through asylum. It is very difficult to get that sense of co-operation from the Home Office. Nevertheless, we will always seek to try and do what we can to work with them to make the progress that we know needs to happen and needs to happen quickly. Glasgow has been a willing partner in asylum dispersal for nearly 20 years and is currently hosting nearly 5,000 people seeking asylum, more than any other single area in the UK. In fact, more than Liverpool and Birmingham combined. As we all know, people make Glasgow. I know that Glasgow is proud to hope to welcome people seeking a place of safety from persecution and that the city has seen enormous benefits from the contribution that it has made. However, it may surprise members to know that the Home Office does not provide any funding to Glasgow City Council for the substantial role that it plays in supporting asylum dispersal. That is despite the fact that asylum is a reserved matter and that funding and support is being provided to local authorities in England. Along with my Welsh Government colleague, Julie James, I have made clear to the immigration minister that that is not an acceptable position. The Home Office is seeking to widen asylum dispersal into new areas and, in principle, the Scottish Government supports that. However, we believe that dispersal must remain voluntary. It is far more likely that new authorities would agree to take asylum dispersal if they could see the Home Office working in equal partnership with those that are already involved, recognising their crucial role and resourcing it appropriately. Since I became Cabinet Secretary, I have been incredibly concerned about the way that accommodation is provided to people seeking asylum. A safe place to live is a basic need for everyone and a human right. I have already heard of too many cases of people seeking asylum being placed in accommodation that is far from satisfactory. Of course, we are all aware of the threat of eviction that hangs over people seeking asylum. I will not comment further on that now, given that the use of lock change notices is currently the subject of legal proceedings in the Court of Session. Bob Doris. Cabinet Secretary mentioned that many asylum seekers are accommodated in Scotland. I may be aware of that. Theresa May, the Prime Minister, has instructed the Home Office to look again at the case of my constituents, the Bakish family, but, unfortunately, she has declined to meet the family. Because of her restrictions, I would not mention the particulars of their case. However, I wonder if the cabinet secretary would accept my invite to meet the family to better understand their plight. Will she urge the Prime Minister to join us in that meeting so that Theresa May can see for herself how the UK asylum system is letting down the vulnerable families that I represent? I am very willing to meet the member and his constituents and to explore if there are any ways in which we, as a Government, can help for by the work that is already funded across the city to help to support with advocacy and destitution. I hope that the member has instructed or informed his constituents of the help that is out there, but he will remain happy to meet him and his constituents if that would help. Members will be aware that the Home Office is currently assessing tenders for the nexosylum accommodation contract and understand that the outcome of the exercise should be known by the end of the year. The Scottish Government had hoped that a public sector bid that would not be motivated by profit could be made for the new contract, and we were ready to work with partners on that. However, we were extremely disappointed that the requirements and timescales of the tendering process did not support a public sector bid. The new asylum accommodation contract is expected to run for 10 years, so it is absolutely crucial that the Home Office gets it right. Scottish partners have been frustrated at the lack of engagement so far, and we want to ensure that the new provider understands the Scottish context and the differences in legislation and regulation to achieve the best outcomes for people seeking asylum. I still want to believe that the new contract can provide an opportunity for the Home Office to work in genuine and equal partnership with devolved Governments and local authorities. Those are all points that we emphasised to the immigration minister at the four nations meeting on asylum on 15 October. The Scottish Government takes its commitments to vulnerable young people extremely seriously. Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are looked after children, and since 2010 Scotland has led the way in providing specialist independent advocates for them through the guardianship service, delivered by the Scottish Refugee Council and Aberlour childcare trust. 40 per cent of children supported by the guardianship service have been recognised as victims of human trafficking, and we will be shortly launching a consultation to gather views on the role, responsibilities and functions of the new independent child trafficking guardians. However, we are also very aware that the funding provided to local authorities by the UK Government to support unaccompanied children does not cover the costs that they incur. An increase is vital to ensure that this support is properly resourced, and we again have pressed the Home Office to clarify future arrangements following its review of funding. Last month, more than 80 organisations, including the Scottish Refugee Council, launched the Lift the Ban campaign, calling for the right to work for people seeking asylum. That is something that the Government has strongly and long supported. Employment is critical to integration. It helps people to build their skills, support their health, wellbeing and self-esteem, increases their social networks and friendships, and at the most practical level puts food on the table and clothes on their children. However, it is not just people themselves who benefit. We all do. Our economy needs more people to work in our public services and to start and grow businesses. Lift the Ban estimates that people seeking asylum could contribute £42 million to the UK economy if they were given the right to work after waiting six months for a decision on their claim. It is clear that we are missing out on a tremendous wealth of talent, as well as an opportunity to promote further integration. Without employment, people seeking asylum must survive on financial support of £5.39 a day. I expect that most of us spend more on that just on food before we even consider other essentials such as toiletries, clothes and travel. Poverty is a part of the asylum system and the spectre of destitution is never far away. Even for people who are granted refugee status, the move-on period of 28 days does not give enough time to secure housing and welfare benefits or employment at a time when they should be able to get on with their lives by risk becoming homeless and penniless. People who are refused asylum and have exhausted their appeal right face the ending of all support. The Equalities and Human Rights Committee has rightly drawn attention to the issues of destitution arising from reserved asylum and immigration legislation. The Scottish Government is working with partners to develop a strategy with practical actions to try and mitigate some of the impacts of those at highest risk. I understand that I am going to have to bring my remarks to a close. I would point out, Presiding Officer, that this does not have to be the way that we need to take forward asylum. We can point to the Syrian Reff resettlement programme as a positive way, where local authorities and the UK Government can work together. We see 31 out of 32 local authorities providing a home to people who need it, sanctuary to those who have fled from persecution. Another way is possible, a more humane way is possible if we choose to work together. What is currently happening at the moment is a choice that I do not want to make. I do not want to see people living in destitution. Another way is possible if we decide that we work together and work across parliamentary boundaries to make sure that the Home Office gets a strong message today. Please move the motion. I move the motion in my name. Thank you. I am sorry. Time is very tight when you take interventions. I did give you extra time. I call on Michelle Ballantyne to speak to her and move amendment 14548.2 by half the Conservatives. Ms Ballantyne, six minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scotland has always been generous when it comes to offering hospitality. Indeed, Scots are famous across the world for the welcome that they offer to others. Whether it is the Huguenots seething freedom from religious violence in the 17th and 18th centuries or Polish exiles during the Second World War, offering a refuge to those suffering because of conflict or persecution in their home country has long been part of Scotland's heritage and today is no different. The world as it stands is in a state of flux. Millions of people have been displaced from their homes from a combination of conflict, natural disasters and religious and ethnic tension. For Myanmar to Kandahar, Hungary to Damascus, nearly 70 million people are on the move. 3.1 million of those are considered asylum seekers. We are lucky in this country to have the freedom to express our opinions, freedom to choose our religion, freedom to vote how we please and to write what we will, but many have endured all manner of hardships for the chance to practice what we take for granted. Thankfully, most of us will never know the pain of having to leave our own home against our will, of being separated from our families and having to cross continents in search of safety. It is right that those seeking asylum from persecution who find themselves in Scotland should be able to feel safe and secure. That is why it is important that Scotland extends the hand of friendship to those who need it most. The UK and Scottish Governments have taken many positive steps to help asylum seekers, particularly over the past few years with the rise of the crisis in the Middle East and, notably, in Syria. The minister referenced the resettlement programme, which I wholeheartedly support and I think is an excellent example of how to help people. However, it is important to provide asylum seekers with basic communities, I do think that we could be doing more. During the time that it takes to go through the process of seeking asylum, which can be years, we need to ensure that we do not put people's lives on hold and that we do not waste the skills that people have or prevent them from developing as people. If we do not ensure that asylum seekers have the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to their own lives, as well as their host nation, we do everyone a disservice. It is for this reason that I feel that the UK Government should investigate relaxing the rules for asylum seekers looking for work in the UK. I appreciate that asylum seekers can currently engage in voluntary work. If we really want to ensure that individuals are able to prosper, both here and should they ever wish to return to their countries, then the prospect of employment is essential. All regimes fall in the end and there will come a point after any conflict when the time comes to rebuild. When that happens, countries need a cadre of well-educated people to reconstruct their countries, doctors, teachers, town planners and market traders. People of all professions will be required to build their country's future and we can play a role in that mission by ensuring that asylum seekers have the chance to shape their own lives. Similarly, when countries are hostile to certain viewpoints or ways of life, they often lose much expertise and diversity due to the drain of talented youth. That was a point that emerged while I was speaking to a young man from Pakistan who I'm going to call Imran, it's not his real name, but Imran is gay, something that is frowned on in his home country and fearing persecution from religious hardliners, Imran left to seek asylum in the UK and more specifically in Glasgow. Imran has been granted the right to stay here but he spoke thoughtfully about the seven years whilst he was waiting for a decision and I'd like to share his words with the chamber. He said, I didn't have much money as I wasn't allowed to work, what could I really do? While I'm grateful that I'm living in a country where I won't be criminalised for my sexuality, I wish I'd been allowed to work while my decision was pending. It would have made all the difference. I wanted to work hard and show people that I belong here. Similarly, he had an issue around language and in fact when we spoke he spoke in Urdu and was translated because he said that while his local mosque offered basic English classes, some education from the council would have been helpful and he found that if he spent his time, all he could do with his time, was pray and spend time getting to know his new home. It is really important that we give young men like Imran a real chance, allow them to work, to show them, to enable them to show us their talents, enable them to move forward in their lives but also we need to enable them to integrate the best way we possibly can. I am pleased that the Scottish Conservatives are saying something different than the UK on the question of the right to work but their amendment doesn't delete the criticism of the UK Government in relation to the deliberate use of destitution. Is Michelle Ballantyne agreeing with the rest of us that that brutal policy must end? I'm afraid that you're in your last minute now. All right. I wouldn't agree with the sentiment that it's a deliberate policy of destitution. What I'm saying is that I do think that we should be giving asylum seekers the right to work and I think that that's a conversation where we are having and we need to continue having because this is that right to work that actually will prevent the criticism that Patrick Harvie is actually raising. So I'm just running out of time anyway. So we should be doing all that we can to ensure that people like Imran and many of his fellow asylum seekers are able to grow as human beings during their time here. I think that we do have an obligation to do that. Not only is the right thing to do, it makes practical sense to enable asylum seekers to contribute to our society, to our economy and also eventually, hopefully, to their economy whether they choose to return or not. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, for the sake of those such as Imran and for the future benefit of countries around the globe, we should always be doing what we can to shelter and support asylum seekers because they come not out of choice, they come out of desperation and they come and deserve expecting the friend of handship. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much. I'm sorry, time is really tight. I now call on Pauline McNeill to speak to a move amendment 14548.3 for Labour Party. Five minutes please. I also welcome what Michelle Ballantyne has said today about relaxing the rules on work, and I wonder if that is the official position. It will help to clarify that in whoever is closing for the Tories. However, like Patrick Harvie, the party on this side supports the view of the Cabinet Secretary and the Green Party that forced the institution of asylum seekers is never an acceptable policy if you believe in a humane system for asylum seekers and refugees. The refugee crisis that dominated the news in 2015-16, resulting in a sharp rise in the number of people coming to Europe to claim asylum, is less dominant now. Arrivals have dropped, and now many Governments are cracked down in the movement of undocumented migrants within the EU. Thousands are stuck in reception centres or camps that are not visible to most people now while others try to settle and make new lives for themselves. It is the Guardian that said that the cameras have gone but the suffering endures, and there is a proliferation of camps across Greece, Turkey and many European countries. There have been political consequences of those visions across Europe. Denmark will no longer take any refugees under the United Nations quota system. They are now focusing on integration. The German Parliament has voted sharply to cap the number of refugee reunions while Poland and Hungary ironically are challenging the European Union on who enters their borders. There has been a response. On 27 October, Putin, Merkel, Macron and President Erdogan gathered in Istanbul and agreed a Syrian-led constitutional committee to perform to try to bring the seven-year Syrian conflict to an end. 12 million people were forced to flee their homes. There is no other conflict in recent times, which has highlighted the cause and effects of war than the plight of the Syrian people who across the world seek a place of safety. We have only taken 10,000 of those poor people and we are involved every day in that conflict. Currently, around 1.5 million people remain in Idlib province, which remains a rebel stronghold. 1 million children are at risk here. Britain is involved in the daily bombing of Idlib, and we should be live to that. There is a cause and effect of being involved in war, and that is the refugee crisis and the number of asylum seekers that come here for safety. I want to thank the Scottish Greens who pushed for this debate and the Government for a positive response, because the dreadful scenes in Glasgow of thousands of asylum seekers facing eviction and, as I have said, we will not support a forced destitution policy. It is not acceptable. In fact, we also believe—and that is what our amendment is about—that we believe that there should be a public sector provider of asylum-seeker housing and that it should be accountable. That is the problem with a private provider. It is not accountable to us, and that is something that looks like it is going to be lost to us. According to the Scottish Refugee Council, there has been unprecedented, ungoing collective responsibility, sorry, representation by asylum dispersal councils to the Home Office, including Glasgow, that we must have a partnership and local oversight. They go on to say that there is a real risk if the Home Office does not shift on that position. In fact, there is a real risk that it will stop choosing to beat dispersal authorities. I am proud of the record of Glasgow and, indeed, Scotland on that. I am sad to see that that ship may have sailed. We too believe that the lift to lift a ban on the right to work is a humane thing to do, and that the Smith commission's recommendations, as mentioned in the green motion, is something that we should be able to return to, to ensure that Scotland, people come to Scotland, have a way of lodging their asylum claim when they come here. Can I ask you to move your amendment, Mr Greer? Presiding Officer, I move amendment 14548.1 on behalf of the Greens. Four minutes, please, Mr Hart. I thank the Government as well for bringing this motion for debate. There has been long-standing public and political concern about this issue. I well recall the wave of opposition to Don Raid's back in the early years of Glasgow's participation in the dispersal programme. Communities would barricade their neighbours into their flats rather than allowing Home Office agencies to kick indoors, tear children from parents arms and drag people off to detention. Those nightmarish scenes sound like something from dystopian fiction, but they were a reality then and they are still a reality today in this country. Detention is still being used without time limits against people who pose no threat to the public, people who have done nothing wrong and many of whom still have roots to challenge unfair refusal of asylum. If citizens of this country were being subjected to the sham of due process in our criminal courts as asylum seekers endure in the asylum process, the outrage would be overwhelming. Yet the UK Government permits that as part of its wider hostile environment policy towards immigrants more generally, not just towards asylum seekers. What should be a system designed to ensure safety and refuge to all those who need it is, in fact, a system designed to say no to the maximum number possible. It is a system that places people in grossly inadequate housing and then tips them out into the street with nowhere to go, destitution used as a deliberate weapon of policy. I will not mention specific cases, Presiding Officer, but we all know that the more general background to this debate is that, in Glasgow, the Home Office's outsourced thugs circle have threatened massive evictions and lock changes in a bid to force hundreds of people into destitution. That is an organisation that cannot claim to be neutral in the face of the UK Government's vicious policies by implementing those policies that are complicit. While that threat is currently on hold, we know that the potential is still there for a humanitarian emergency in Glasgow over the coming winter months. I welcome the Government's motion, and I agree that Scotland must be a place of safety for people who are seeking asylum. The asylum system must treat people fairly and with dignity and respect at all times, but we cannot have this debate without a recognition that the asylum system that we have in the UK at the moment fails to do so, and it is designed to fail to do so. We will continue to make across party lines, I hope, the case for fundamental change in that system, but while making that case, we cannot accept that urgent steps can be avoided now within the powers that our councils and the Scottish Government also have. Today, the First Minister agreed that the Government will implement all the recommendations of the Harsag report, and that includes under recommendation 5, funding for short-term emergency accommodation for destitute migrants, and that includes failed asylum seekers, who are not entitled to statutory homelessness assistance, and who are currently at high and imminent risk of rough sleeping, and that has to be provided alongside access to advocacy, immigration and legal advice. To be clear, that provision does not yet exist, and we need a clear commitment from the Government for the delivery of that commitment urgently. I also want to see the UK Government pressed to act on the Smith commission recommendations. Government should clearly signal an indication as well of support to those who, in the most extreme circumstances, find themselves with no option, but once again to mobilise physically to prevent evictions and lock changes if they are once again threatened. If Serco and the Home Office find other ways of intimidating people out of their homes, we must ensure that they have places to go and that those supporting them have the support of the Scottish Government. I move the amendment in my mind. I now call Alex Cole-Hamilton to speak to and move amendment 1, 4, 5, 4, 8.4. Mr Cole-Hamilton, four minutes. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I take great pride in moving the amendment in my name. I am very grateful to the Government for bringing this debate to Parliament today. Briefly, if I may, I speak to the other amendments who are, of course, happy to support the Conservative amendment. I can indicate our support for Labour this afternoon in particular. We have heard a lot about the situation in Glasgow. Vince Cable, my federal leader, has set out a five-point plan for my party on outsourcing. One of the clear red lines that he has set is for the sensitive areas in which the profit motive should play no role. I believe that the delivery of asylum accommodation certainly falls into that bracket. It is also sympathetic to the Green amendment, which we will be supporting tonight. All of our parties are signatories to the Smith commission, and paragraph 96.4 certainly calls on ways to work together between the Governments to make this system far more flexible and nuanced, aligned to Scottish values. When we think about asylum and immigration and refugees in general, we often hear the term exodus, and that is a biblical term. It is right that our human history has been peppered with examples of the mass movement of people avoiding conflict and violence. It is very sobering to think that the number of people currently on the move today, as a result of persecution and violence, is greater than the whole of humanity at the time that the Bible describes. 65.3 million people have been forced from their homes. 21 million are on the move right now. They are fleeing conflict, violence, extreme poverty and famine. Whether that is in the caravan of 1,500 refugees fleeing gang violence in El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras, or those taking to treacherous barely seaworthy craft in the Mediterranean, all of them suffer trauma, dislocation and destitution, is our response to that movement of people, which will define us as a nation and our generation. There are two kinds of response to that. There is the public policy response, which we have heard something of, and the community response, to which my amendment speaks. At a policy level, it is fair to say that the UK Borders Agency and the Home Office routinely operate in an atmosphere of mistrust, whether that is in testing age or evidence of torture. It is about disbelief with no flexibility in the process at all. It is certainly not trauma-informed, but we are wrong to pejoratively assume that we always do things better in Scotland. In fact, the Hillingdon judgment in England afforded an accompanying asylum-seeking children the status of children at risk far sooner than Scotland did. I am glad that we have moved towards that so that they can enjoy section 25 support, but that is still not routinely deployed across the country. The treatment of young unaccompanied asylum-seekers is how I got into this, Presiding Officer. I worked with Abelara and the guardianship service for eight years, and it is their experience of the hostile environment that the UK Borders Agency ffosters, while providing both support with accommodation, navigation through immigration systems and companionship, which makes them unique and I support their work to this day. Shackty, we visited in our inquiry, which are incredible in terms of helping women with no recourse to public funds being domestic violence. The Edinburgh clothing store, which is gathering in clothing to give to new arrivals. English classes in Edinburgh are provided by the welcoming project and the Edinburgh Remakery, who refurbish old laptops to give to asylum-seekers and refugees as they begin to settle in Scotland to help them to start on their own. Rarsan Shire is a writer that I have quoted before, and I will finish with this, Presiding Officer. As she said, no-one leaves home unless home is the mouth of a shark. Whether you start your journey in Tapatula or in Aleppo, you will find space here and you will find comfort here in Scotland. Our systems will not harm you and our communities will embrace you, and I very much believe that that is the spirit of the motion before us today. We move now to the open debate, and time is very tight, so strict, up to four minutes each, please. Alasdair Allan, followed by Maurice Corry. As anyone who has looked at Scotland's place names on a map will realise that Scotland is the product of many diverse influences, Scots have, of course, been migrants the world over and Scotland has become the home to many people who are on the move, whether they have come to study and work, or whether they have come here as refugees or asylum seekers. Over successive generations, those communities have made great contributions to our social, cultural and economic life. With the Syrian crisis, Scotland has showed itself, I hope, as a nation that is both hospitable and caring. My own constituency in the Helen and Anir has welcomed a number of Syrian refugees. One of those, 17-year-old Annas, told newspapers of the kindness that his neighbours have shown him since he arrived, stopping him in the streets to ask if he needed anything, and to tell him that he is welcome in Scotland. Let me also take this opportunity, however, to thank the Syrians who have come to the Isle of Lewis for the contribution that they have made to our community. As one example of that, a mosque has been built reflecting a desire to ensure that new members of the community, along with the established Muslim population, had a place of worship for the first time. This principle and this project were supported by a significant majority of the community, including many Christian organisations. I quote those, because support of this kind is strongest when people have an idea of why Syrian refugees, why asylum seekers in other cases have come to this country and just what people have had to endure to get here. We should all of us take the chance to find out and it will give us pause for thought. Sadly, of course, not everyone does think, including some in the media who should know better. The strange political times through which the world is living has emboldened some voices of prejudice, so we all have a duty to challenge prejudice and discrimination wherever it is found. The UK Government's position on asylum seekers remains lacking in many respects, and Dungebel detention centre sits just 30 miles away from Glasgow. That, as we have heard, is a centre for others like it, which often separates families. Data obtained by the Sunday Herald under the Freedom of Information Act shows that, in one month in 2017, 20 out of 145 detainees were monitored for being at risk of self-harm and suicide. Those are just some examples of the misery that regressive policies can cause when they are inflicted upon those who have come to our country to start a new life to escape the terrors of war and destitution. I call, along with, I am sure, many others in this Parliament, for the Tory Government in the UK to act now to end the intransigent attitude that the Home Office has very often shown towards those families. We want to do more in Scotland, more than the UK Government legislation allows us to do sometimes. We want to be an international leader in supporting asylum seekers and allowing integration. We want to build upon the Scottish Government's new Scots strategy, and we want to build upon supporting charities to ensure that asylum seekers have safe accommodation and not be stuck in detention centres. We want, Presiding Officer, to show that Scotland welcomes both refugees and asylum seekers. Those islands have a long record of people with different traditions working together. I think of my own islands where people of different traditions and heritages work together. Across Scotland, new people are endlessly surprised by the way that they can enrich our own cultural heritage. That is true of Scotland, as I say, as a whole. Today is a chance to celebrate our asylum seekers, to challenge prejudice and to call for the UK Government to show the respect that our asylum seekers deserve. Maurice Corry, followed by Sandra White. Today, the record of worldwide forcible displacement of people has never been higher. There are over 3 million asylum seekers and they may have experienced war atrocities or persecution of their religious or political identities. Some have even been denied their human rights or suffered because of their sexual orientation. Migrants and refugees, often from countries such as Somalia, Syria and Afghanistan, have faced enormous challenges in their home countries. Surely, meeting those challenges with fair engagement and integration upon their arrival in Scotland, where possible, should be our shared aim. It is paramount that Scotland offers protection for asylum seekers, and protection should come hand in hand with support and advice. I have seen first hand examples of a member of my local staff in Kandahar in Afghanistan being threatened because he worked for NATO, with their families receiving night letters in their mosque and therefore forcing my staff member to leave not only their job but Afghanistan for their own safety. Knowing what asylum seekers have experienced, I welcome the support that is already in place as part of our asylum system. On a UK-wide level, refugees who claim asylum have the right to free healthcare, including prescriptions, optical and dental care. Accessing those services offers a fundamental and fair right for those individuals. Through the support of refugees in other countries, the UK Government lessens the potential for exploitation of human trafficking. Asylum applicants are also entitled to weekly payments that go some way to help them, including during maternity. Of course, the UK asylum seeker system is not perfect, but an annual review of the allowance ensures that helpful improvements can be made where possible. Of particular importance to me, as it should be to the whole chamber here today, is the principle of family reunion, which the UK favours. Its resettlement scheme aims to ensure that the child refugees can join their families in the UK. In practice, the system may have resulted in difficult cases, but having that principle in place is a starting point that the UK can develop further and build on. In Scotland, there has been a notable effort to support asylum seekers. It has been encouraging for me to understand that local authorities across Scotland, and I know that my last councillor, where I was a councillor before in Argyll and Bute, Scotland has reached its target for housing 10 per cent of the UK refugees three years early. That commitment to asylum seekers' support is admirable and will help to rebuild the lives of those who have suffered. I also note that the goals that are set out in the new Scots strategy for the next four years are okay. Those aims favour practical integration of asylum seekers into our communities. As asylum seekers' cycles are resettled, skills and knowledge must not be underestimated. Our local communities can benefit from them, and I have seen that in the Isle of Bute in my region from their input. We would also appreciate that different cultures and experiences that asylum seekers bring. To close, we can see that the asylum system is complex, and indeed the need for careful adaption and improvement has been made, but they must be learned from. I hope for further development of current efforts and goals for the system for the sake of the genuine asylum seekers in need. Sandra White, followed by Mary Fee. There is something that I want to say in the introduction to my comments. We talk about asylum seekers and refugees. When we look at it, there would not be asylum seekers and refugees from the west, the UK and others who had not bombed those countries. We actually owe those people, because we are actually the ones who went in there and bombed them. We look at Iraq and other areas as well. I just want to say that in opening. Many people have mentioned other areas, maybe 10 or 12 years ago. I can remember a good few years ago, when the first asylum seekers came to Glasgow. I am proud of what Glasgow has done to help asylum seekers. Under age asylum seekers, which was mentioned, is a very difficult one, too. People stood their neighbours, communities stood behind those asylum seekers. As Patrick Harvie has already said, they stopped them from being removed, taken away, bolted up their houses to make sure that they were not taken away. Obviously, the Glasgowers talked about Seithill and Scottson. I am proud of the fact that we did that. We stood hand-in-hand and beside them with that. From there, we had Dengaville, which you are very familiar with. Presiding Officer, that is an abomination. We know as well as everyone else the amount of people who stood there to get it closed down. I am proud of what the Scottish Government has done, I am proud of what this Parliament has done of all parties to try to alleviate some of the suffering of asylum seekers. We move on from there, and we see that Westminster still pulls the strings when it comes to asylum seekers. Years ago, we tried to phone up the Home Office to help asylum seekers and to be told that that is only for MPs to do, but it did not stop us, people in here, it did not stop us at all. We still went through and we pushed and we pulled, and we had some successes. I remember one particular family up in Royston, six of them, and I am glad to say that, along with others, they are still here to this day. We were determined to do something. That is why I think what it says in the motion that we should have equality between MSPs and MPs to help our constituents is absolutely the way forward. We also need equality and funding for the asylum seekers for the work that local councils do, too. It is an absolute disgrace when the Home Office will fund local authorities in England, but it will not fund local authorities here in Scotland, where we take. One of the Conservatives said that we have more asylum seekers here in Scotland than they do in any other area. That is something to do with equality, and morally it is wrong not to give the people who come to Scotland the same opportunities as elsewhere in the UK. When it comes to working, I have often said that we have all said this. We have colleagues of mine anyway and other parties. Why should they not be allowed to work? I have people in my constituency and others here who are doctors, gather shopkeepers, psychiatrists, surgeons, and they cannot lawyers and they cannot even work. They may just be people who want to do things with their hands. It does not matter what they want to do. If they are able to work and they want to work, they contribute to our economy, but, more than that, they contribute to themselves, they help themselves, they do not feel quite so bad. Just in finishing, I want to mention destitute asylum seekers. I met a destitute asylum seeker who had walked from the east end of Glasgow to the soup kitchen, which was in Kelvin Grove Church in Anderson. That is a long walk, if anybody knows Glasgow, coming from the east end park to the west end of Glasgow. That was the only way that they could get food. I think that I mentioned it before, the time that they got back, I am assuming that they would be hungry again, but that was all they had. They had no money and nowhere to stay. I remember the poor soul who died in the churchyard just outside at the Calton, who was destitute as well. We owe those people. Mary Fee, followed by Ruth Maguire. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The text of today's motion states that the asylum system must treat people fairly and with dignity and respect at all times. It should shame us all that we need to articulate that. However, that is the reality of what is happening in the UK and across much of Western Europe. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everybody has the right to seek asylum. Sadly, the human right to seek asylum appears to have been lost within the current climate, which has seen the political discourse throughout Western democracies tainted by the language of nationalist right-wing populism. In the UK, xenophobic and racist attitudes have been manifested through the Tory Government's callous hostile environment policy. In July of this year, Serco attempted to conduct a mass extrajudicial eviction of some of the most vulnerable people in our society when it attempted to covertly remove over 300 asylum seekers from properties across Glasgow by changing the locks of their properties without warning. The lock change policy pursued was barbaric, lacking compassion, lacking humanity and lacking rationale. It was a decision that was motivated by greed. Serco, a company with an annual revenue of more than £1 billion and an annual trading profit of £80 million, wanted to squeeze some extra profit by forcing vulnerable individuals who have been victims of some of the world's cruelest dictators and repressive regimes into homelessness and onto the streets of Glasgow. However, the events of July are the culmination of the unseen practices of Serco's management of accommodation of asylum seekers. Through my working relationship with the women's asylum-seeker housing project, I have heard first-hand experiences from asylum seekers who have experienced Serco's coercive and intimidating practices. I take this opportunity to welcome people from wash to the gallery today to listen to the debate. I have heard the experiences of the extremely poor quality of housing accommodation that Serco provides. I have heard the experiences of men, of women and of children struggling to stay warm in the depths of a Scottish winter because they have no electricity or gas because their £10 top-up voucher has been used. Serco has failed to keep their properties in good habitable standard by not repairing broken boilers. When repairs are carried out, I have heard stories of Serco housing officers using their own keys to enter the properties of asylum seekers without notice when the occupants are not at home. To have a stranger enter your property without knowledge is extremely distressing, especially for asylum seekers who have experienced traumatic and violent episodes in attempting to flee oppression or warfare in their home country. Scotland should be a place of safety, where people are able to live free from persecution as valued members of our communities. However, as it always is with the Tories, the current system puts profit before people. The system must change. Asylum accommodation must be taken out of the hands of private companies. We need an asylum system based on the values of compassion, of humanity and of human rights. In coming to a close, I would like to offer a strong and vocal message of solidarity to all asylum seekers in Glasgow who have experienced the brutal, the callous and the inhumane practices of Serco and the hostile environment policy of this UK Tory Government. Scotland is your home. We welcome you with open arms. You have every right to be in this country and to live your life in Scotland. Ruth Maguire, followed by Alexander Stewart. The First Minister's question today is a colleague. Forgive me, I cannot remember who said it, but they said that we were in a privileged position to be able to offer asylum. I absolutely concur with that. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that everybody is entitled to seek asylum. I want to open my remarks with a few basic questions that underlies how I believe we should approach the need of asylum seekers. If we were in a situation where we were fleeing for our very lives and with our right to seek asylum guaranteed under international law, how would we wish to be treated at the first port of call where we sought sanctuary? If we or our families or loved ones had caused to flee from our homes, from our towns or villages, only taking what we could carry in fear of our lives, how would we want to be treated? Would we want to be shown compassion, care, decency and humanity? Would we expect to be able to work and contribute to our new community? How we treat those who need our help defines who we are and what we value as individuals and as a society. We must ensure that we do all that we can to ease the process for asylum seekers. At present, we have a ridiculous situation in which asylum seekers based in Scotland have to make the long journey to the screening unit in Croydon to make their claim rather than here. Of course, claiming asylum must be extremely traumatic and disorientating, a process in which claimants have to be evaluated to determine whether a return to their home country would lead to persecution, with a range of factors—race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality or political beliefs. Despite the appalling rhetoric on immigration from the UK Government and its inhumane hostile environment policy, the numbers of asylum seekers in the UK are at a historic low. At the start of this century, there were over 100,000 asylum applications annually in the UK, but the rate is now at about 30,000 a year, despite a recent spike caused by the Syrian situation. I would endorse comments made by Sandra White that we have an absolute responsibility in areas in which we are perpetrating more conflict. The success rate for applications in that period—there is an absolutely not, Michelle Valentine, no—has risen, however, from less than a third being successful to about 40 per cent. For successful applications, there remain many barriers to be navigated through and settling into their new lives. Amongst their challenges, they will have just 28 days after leaving asylum accommodation to find a new home to set up a bank account to register for benefits supply for a job. I am pleased that the Scottish Government is making progress in co-ordinating the efforts of organisations and community groups across Scotland to help with the integration process through its new Scots refugee integration strategy, which has been endorsed by the UNHRC for involving refugees and asylum seekers in its conception and delivery. The failings of the Westminster current asylum system are many. I am proud that Scotland plays its part in welcoming those fleeing persecution. My constituency is Cunningham South and North Ayrshire Council is just one of many that has taken in refugees as part of the Syrian resettlement programme, which across the country has settled more than 2,000 refugees, providing them with access to health, education and other essential services to help them to integrate into our society. As new Scots, their arrival strengthens our diversity and helps us to collectively redefine and build on our identity as a nation. Nevertheless, as has been mentioned by countless other speakers, the circumstances in which Scotland wishes to help are becoming more difficult by the day, particularly with regard to the provision of accommodation. I am running out of time, Presiding Officer, so in just closing I would ask that Conservative colleagues who have been keen to share warm words use whatever little influence they have with the UK Home Office and insist that they work with the Scottish Government, with local government and with the third sector. Just leaving us to pick up the pieces is utterly unacceptable. Before I call Mr Stewart, can I warn the last two speakers in the open debate that I will expect them to cut down to below the four minutes? I call Alexander Stewart to be followed by Gail Ross. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful to have the opportunity to participate in today's debate on asylum seekers. The number of people globally who have been forcefully displaced continues to rise and is now at a record high. In 2017, around 3 million asylum seekers worldwide were fleeing the conflict, persecution or exploitation. It is only right and proper that developed countries such as ourselves support those individuals because they have made a massive and continue to make a massive contribution to our society. The UK Government is committed to supporting those who claim asylum in our country as a number of different ways by providing a combination of financial assistance, housing, education and healthcare. Rather shockingly, around half of the refugees around the world are children, and it is therefore entirely important that we support those young people who have been forced to flee their country's origin. Children who have been recognised as refugees by the United Nations High Commission on Refugees are able to join close family members here in the United Kingdom. Between 2012 and 2017, 24,000 family union visas allow those children to start a new safer life with relatives who already have integrated into communities in the United Kingdom has taken place. Since 2010, 42,000 children have been granted leave to remain in the UK, affording them fleeing from their own country's opportunity. It is only right and proper that we do that. In addition, the UK Government is also committed to supporting asylum seekers and refugees who settle in other countries around the world. The Department of International Development provides essential services to ensure that that takes place. That means that refugees are less likely to be exploited by people smugglers and trafficking across the dangerous issues coming into Europe. That approach seeks to tackle those problems at source rather than deal with them when those individuals are already in difficult situations and find themselves in even greater danger. However, in Scotland, our record on supporting and integrating asylum seekers is good, and we should be rightfully proud of that. We have heard today some stories and indications from individuals about specifics within our constituents and their constituencies about individuals that that has happened. The Scottish Refugee Council, the Scottish Government and COSLA, have set out in great detail what they would expect for individuals to deal with. It is firmly and I agree with the Scottish Conservative amendment that each individual case should be very much taken and assessed in its own merit and the skills and talent that those individuals should be recognised. It is encouraging to see the strong collaborative desire in Scotland to ensure that those individuals can live free from persecution as valued members of their community. The ability to pursue their ambitions through education, through employment, through culture, through leisure and other activities. However, it is encouraging to note that local authorities in Scotland have been meeting their targets of housing refugees ahead of schedule. I, as a past councillor, have seen at first hand the work that has been achieved by those authorities in gaining that success. They have gone above and beyond the call to ensure that those individuals have been housed, looked after and educated. That is very important that we do that. I commend and congratulate the councils that have achieved that. It is incredibly important that we continue to fulfil our moral responsibilities by ensuring that our asylum system protects those who are fleeing from conflict, who are fleeing from persecution and exploitation. I am confident that, working together, the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the local government can come together to achieve some of those objectives, but more can and must be done for the outcomes to improve. Individuals who require support need that shelter and support, and we should do all that in our power to ensure that they receive it. Gail Ross, to be followed by Clare Adamson. Around three minutes would be helpful. We have already heard from a number of people about the plight of asylum seekers, and we know that those are people who have in many instances lost everything, their fleeing persecution and so many of them are vulnerable children with no family to help and support them. I am proud to be part of a country that welcomes asylum seekers and which takes our international responsibility seriously. In earlier this year and is forward to the new Scots strategy, Sabir Zaza, chief executive of the Scottish Refugee Council, said this, refugee empowerment and engagement with communities are at the heart of all our work, so we were delighted to support the wide-scale consultation with communities and refugees across Scotland. Their views are central to the direction and content of this strategy. Scotland is a country where we include asylum seekers in deciding what their needs are, and the strategy commits to supporting refugees, asylum seekers and communities and has been endorsed by the UNHRC as an extremely valuable initiative. We are committed to ensuring that asylum seekers here have access to health, education and all the services that they need. We are also assisting employability by funding the new refugee doctors project, which is unique in the UK and aims to maintain the skills of refugee medics and help them to gain GMC registration. Since 2010, the Scottish Government has assisted young people who have been trafficked or claimed asylum by funding the guardianship service, which provides guardians to young people who have claimed asylum or who are trafficked and has supported 376 young people to date. In academic year 2017-18, the Scottish Government introduced a long residence rule, which means that Scottish domiciled students who do not have settled status, including asylum seekers waiting for a decision to be made, meet the long residency criteria and are eligible to apply for tuition fees and living costs. However, while we in Scotland look to work in partnership with asylum seekers, the Scottish local government and the third sector, we continue to face the challenge of shortfall and funding from the UK Government to support those people in our communities and an increasingly hostile environment towards those coming to our communities from overseas. While the Home Office continued to be responsible for providing accommodation and financial support to asylum seekers, there are often problems with that arrangement, and we have already heard about the complete boorock that Serco has made of the accommodation in Glasgow. By contrast, our vision is that all people in Scotland live in high-quality, sustainable homes that they can afford and that meet their needs. We have clearly outlined an ambition for the fair and respectful treatment of asylum seekers, while also recognising the important part that is played by our partners in local government. However, what we need now is for the UK Government to respect that ambition and to fully fund our local authorities to support those people who are dispersed to their areas. The last speaker in the open debate is Clare Adamson. Like many of my colleagues, I am often asked by school children who come to the Parliament what is the best thing that the Scottish Parliament has done, what is the best law that we have done. I always return to something that happened in 2007 under minority government, and that was when the Scottish Government extended the right of asylum seekers' children to higher and further education in Scotland. To me, that is a symbol of our country, of our welcome and how seriously we take our responsibilities towards asylum seekers, and something that differentiates us from the rest of the UK is a really important piece of legislation. At the time, David Caldwell of University Scotland said, this move will not only enhance the skills of those young people but will allow them to make an invaluable contribution to Scotland's economy, society and culture, and will promote Scotland as a globally inclusive nation. Surely, that is what we are all wanting today, as a globally inclusive nation. I mention that particular area, because I welcome that the Conservatives seem to have moved towards agreeing that integration means that asylum seekers should have a right to work. However, if we are expecting asylum seekers to contribute to our society in that way, it is not too much of a step to recognise that that means that we have rights and responsibilities to protect those who cannot work. That means that I do not believe that we should be giving them £5 a day. I do not think that that is adequate support—£37 a week to feed themselves, to travel, to do all the things for sanitary, where all the things that they have to provide for themselves for that tiny, tiny sum—I do not think that that is a reasonable amount. I think that they should be extended the rights that we have as citizens to a safe home under the same conditions as our citizens and not under a situation of private companies, such as Serco. I just need to look at some of the things that Scotland has done recently in terms of the baby box, another symbol of how we value children in our society, and yet the children of asylum seekers cannot receive a baby box because of the no recourse to public funds that they live under in this country. I would like to see a situation where we recognise that asylum seekers should have the right to work and fully integrate into our society, but that means that, as a society, we take our responsibilities towards them more seriously. I am absolutely delighted that this motion has been brought by the Government today and that there has been such consensus across the Parliament about this current situation and that we all agree that the current situation of using destitution as a weapon against asylum seekers is utterly deplorable. Now, I move to the closing speeches. I call Alex Cole-Hamilton. No more than four minutes, please. Considering some of the fractious debates that have taken place in this chamber in recent weeks, this has been a refreshing and welcome debate around consensus. It started with the minister, and I would like to associate myself with those benches with her remarks and her belief that any immigration system, any system of asylum or dealing with refugees, those fleeing torture and persecution should be by necessity based in compassion and values. As such, our parties absolutely stand shoulder to shoulder in that regard. I am very proud of my own party. People talk a lot about things that happened in the coalition, but one thing that I am very proud of is the steps that we took to end the detention of children in asylum seekers. It is one of the most important achievements of our time in government that speaks to the values of liberalism and of this country. We have not seen those values at large in the conduct of organisations such as the UK Borders Agency, which still operates on an atmosphere of disbelief, who use bone density scanning to verify whether somebody is a minor or not, and only offer young people the opportunity to extend the time that they need to prepare their asylum case only if there is demonstrable evidence of torture or of rape. I find that desperately inhumane. It was great to hear so many plaudits for Abel Ahr and the Scottish Refugee Council in the guardianship service that they provide. I think that it is important to recognise that we still have questions to answer in terms of how we deal with people caught up in human trafficking, particularly around criminality associated with it. It was very refreshing and welcome to hear Michelle Ballantyne talking about the need of asylum seekers to be able to contribute. I congratulate her warmly on her call to her own government to see refugees in asylum seekers afforded that. It is important that they are desperate. The ones that I have met in the course of my career have been desperate to contribute to the country that they have seen as giving them salvation. We owe it to them to give them that opportunity. Alasdair Allan spoke warmly about the culture that exists and the history of islanders giving welcome to encumbers. We are all islanders in one way or another. Sandra White was really powerful when she talked about the historic culpability of the islands in a lot of the troubles that those people are fleeing. It is fascinating that the sense of national atonement that is still very evident in Germany has seen them take in nearly 50,000 Syrian refugees as a result. It is important that countries recognise the impact that they have on the world and take remedy in future generations to address that. Mary Fee gave the most striking analysis of the events of the summer, particularly around the operation of Serco, and they have operated beyond the realms of human decency in the way that they have treated people. That is a theme that was picked up by Patrick Harvie and a typically excellent speech by Pauline McNeill. Ruth Maguire demonstrated why the decision to make her convener of the Equality and Human Rights Committee was very much the right one. Along with Gail Ross, who made another excellent speech, I look forward to working with both of them in taking many of those issues forward. Ruth called on the Conservatives to pressurise the UK Government. I have been heartened by the Conservative tone and contribution to this debate. Alexander Stewart's book ended a very fine set of speeches with a commitment to do just that. Clare Adamson closed this debate with a reminder of what this place has done before within the powers that we have. I think that we do well to remember that. Madeleine Urineck said that, however they arrive, asylum seekers, immigrants and refugees reach without stretchhands towards safer, more promising shores, and welcoming those wayfarers, rekindles our own humanity and heals our broken parts. That says to me that there is huge capacity for enhancement within our communities when we welcome people here and we need to do more to do just that. Patrick Harvie, up to four minutes please. Thank you. I very much appreciate the many speeches that we have heard today that I will not have time to mention them all. I want to say something about each party's position, though I have already welcomed the Government's motion and the commitment to its support asylum seekers' right to work, the right to housing that meets quality standards and is appropriate to their needs and for a long-term solution that prevents destitution. In that regard, I hope that the minister, when she closes, will be able to say something about the timescale for the provision of emergency accommodation, a recommendation that the Government has acknowledged already accepted. I also welcome Labour's demand, which we absolutely share, that the housing and wider support provision needs to be well funded of a high standard and should be brought back into the public sector. We should be providing those services to a standard that we can be proud of instead of turning a blind eye while the home office and the private sector friends bully and demean people. We are here as our guests and they are leaving them unsafe, insecure and terrified. Of course, I agree with Alex Cole-Hamilton's amendment about the critical role that the voluntary sector has played and continues to play from emotional support to crisis accommodation, from legal advice to donations of basics, like toiletries and children's toys. Huge numbers of people want to help. For me, this is one of the most powerful aspects of the issue. Even after years and years of racist propaganda, both from the UK Government and from the far-right press, so many people see those who are in desperate need and want to help. So many people have a basic response, which is one of deep, instinctive empathy. One of my favourite examples is Refugee Weegee. One of the most touching things that they do is ask people to write a letter or a card to an asylum seeker. They will probably never know letters and messages that are included in their donation packages. Those simple messages have welcomed many of them with drawings of Glasgow by local children speak volumes about their natural human empathy, which remains so strong and which we must use to prevent the UK Government from succeeding in making Glasgow and Scotland a hostile environment. Several members have mentioned the wider global context, the rise of the far-right around the world. In that context, those basic practical examples, actions of human solidarity, rooted in empathy, have never been more needed. I was puzzled by the Conservative amendment when I first read it. I want to say how much I welcome the fact again that the Conservatives are supporting the right to work. That is a difference from UK policy. It is a welcome difference. On its own, however, in the absence of a wider change to a more humane asylum system, would we be asking people who face the threat of imminent eviction, detention without trial, to hold down a job? How realistic would we feel that in the absence of a more wholesale change to the asylum system as a whole? I give way. I remind the member that those who are in detention have failed the asylum process. Michelle Ballantyne is wrong if she thinks that that is always the case. She is also wrong if she thinks that those who are refused asylum never have their refusals overturned on appeal. A great many of them are refused wrongly. It is still unclear to me, given the nature of the Conservative amendment today, whether they in fact defend the UK Government's policies. Michelle Ballantyne said that all regimes fall in the end. Let us hope that, in the case of the UK Government, that comes sooner rather than later. While that Government is responsible for the viciousness of their policies, it is not enough for us to stand by confident that we know who to blame. We have a clear and unavoidable moral responsibility to take action in defence of the most vulnerable among us and in defiance of those who treat them with contempt. Presiding Officer, we have had what was in the main consensual debate today. I would also want to welcome the women who have come along here today who spend their time campaigning for housing for asylum seekers. As has been acknowledged today, the world is witnessing the highest levels of displacement of people on record. The United Nations reports that over 68 million people from around the world have been forced from their homes due to war, violence and persecution, and that is on the increase. All of us will have seen the horrific images from countries such as Syria and Myanmar and the terrible violence that those people are having to flee from. I think that it is very important that we do not lose sight of the bigger picture of what is driving what is a global crisis. Yesterday, I retweeted what the First Minister had to say when she visited Outswitch and the impact on her of that visit. Personally, I will never stop thinking about what I saw when I visited Outswitch and I will always remember the tour guide telling me that, initially, Hitler tried to expel many of the Jews, but when they sought refuge, many other countries turned them away. I assume that the 1951 UN convention relating to the status of refugees was the world's attempt to make sure that people fleeing violence, persecution, fear and death would get support from the countries that had signed up to that convention, one of which is the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom can and should do more. The motion is focused on what happens when people are seeking refuge in the UK. The current experience for those seeking refuge in asylum is not good, you would have to say. As the cabinet secretary, Pauline McNeill and many others said, the home office process is slow and ineffective. Asylum seekers are facing record delays in the application process. Campaigners attribute the decline in grand office asylum in part to an unrealistically high standard of proof for asylum seekers, saying that applicants are expected to obtain impossible proof such as evidence, document and torture and sexual violence. High levels of error in home office decisions, which Patrick Harvie highlighted, of 11,461 appeals that were lodged last year, 39 per cent of those appeals, 4,307, were successful. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work. People seeking asylum in the UK are only allowed to work if they have been waiting on a claim for more than 12 months and they can fill a role on the shortage occupational list, which includes positions such as classical ballet dancers. Asylum seekers, it is estimated, could contribute £42 million to the UK economy if those rules were relaxed. The lift, the ban coalition made up of 80 organisations, is calling on the Government to give asylum seekers and their adult dependents the right to work after waiting six months for the decision on their claim and unconstrained by the shortage occupational list. For too many asylum seekers, there are detention centres and, given that 53 per cent of the global displacement are children, there needs to be a review of policy around family reunification. I think that in Scotland, we can do better. The motion is correct to identify the need for the UK Government to work more closely with the Scottish Administration, and we will also support the Greens amendment in order that discussion takes place as soon as is practical to implement the recommendations in paragraph 96.4 of the Smith commission. I call Jamie Greene for up to five minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank the members who have participated in today's debate. I found it extremely interesting when I was asked to speak today. The first thing I did was look up the definition of the technical differences between what constitutes an asylum seeker, a refugee and a migrant. I did that for a very specific reason. That is because those terms are often interchangeable, confusing and overlapping. In the context of today's debate and the research that was done around it, I wanted to ensure that we were clear on the differences of that. It is important that around 70 million people across the world had to leave their homes in 2017 alone for various reasons. Some of those reasons have been well documented in evidence today. It is not always war and conflict. There are a plethora of reasons why people have had to leave their home country, often taking that difficult decision. Their political views are often cited as one, but also their religious beliefs and these days gender identity and sexuality as well. I will turn to some of the comments that I made as I am closing for the Conservatives today. I will start with comments made by my colleague Michelle Ballantyne in her opening statement. She spoke first in her speech about some of the freedoms that we take very much for granted. Also around the fact that those coming to this country should be able to maintain the skills that they arrived with. I think that that is an important point, because there is good reason for that. One is the fact that, although those people are here, often they arrive as qualified doctors, nurses, teachers in their homelands and we label them asylum seekers. However, in their home countries they are professionals and they are valued parts of their communities and their homelands. Equally, that is why we think that they should be valued members of the communities and the countries that they have chosen to come to. On that issue, those that choose to stay should be welcome, but those who wish to return to their native countries should do so with the skills that they need to rebuild those countries. In terms of numbers, the majority of asylum seekers in the UK come from Iraq, Sudan, Iran and Pakistan if we look at the numbers. I can confirm that those benches believe that there is merit in the idea of allowing those waiting for their case to be heard to be given further employment opportunity. My colleague Michelle Ballantyne has written to the Home Secretary to express her views on this. I think that the example that she gave of her constituent, the young man from Pakistan, who said that he felt like he was in limbo for the seven years waiting on his case to be decided, serves as a perfect example of why we should have a grown-up conversation around the issue. I would like to turn to some of the other fair points that were made today. The minister opened with her remarks on the Syrian Resettlement programme and its success. Much of that is the great work that has been done in Glasgow. The minister in her motion and today makes a fair point that integration should be quick, effective and that access to education, health and housing are some of the basic building blocks of integrating people as they enter Scotland. I also accept her comments that the necessary process of processing claims can be complex and frustrating for those at the receiving end. There is no disagreement from those benches on that matter. The UK is an attractive destination for many, and the volumes of applications reflect that. Last year, the number of applications to the UK year-on-year dropped only by 1 per cent, whereas in the rest of the EU, that dropped by 32 per cent. In the short time that I have, I will talk about some of the other excellent contributions. First, I will talk about Pauline McNeill moving the Labour amendment. I think that there is much to agree with the premise of what they are trying to achieve. That should be about the quality of housing that is available, but we think that, restricting it only to the public sector at present, clearly the public sector is not geared up to deliver that. For that technical reason, we are unable to support their amendment, but she made some other important points. That is the fact that countries such as Denmark, Germany, Poland and Hungary are closing their doors—if not physically, at least in the tone that is coming from some of their Governments. Those countries that have bore the brunt of much of that are also changing their tone. We are pleased to support Alex Cole-Hamilton's amendment today, because we should never overlook the voluntary sector and the valuable role that they play. My final point is about Sandra White's comments about MSPs not being able to make representation to the Home Office. I agree. I share that frustration. I met the Deputy Chairman of our party on Saturday. I raised the spray matter, and I think that MSPs should be able to make representation. We will write to the Home Secretary on that matter as well. Thanks for allowing me the time to talk about this debate. I call Eileen Campbell. Six minutes would be appreciated if possible. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I will do my best. This debate has been an emotional and heartfelt debate, and that is absolutely right and correct, because behind the stats, the numbers and the due process are individual stories, stories of people fleeing their homes through violence, war, persecution and torture. The fact that journeying into the unknown is preferable to staying with what is familiar speaks to the truth that seeking asylum and sanctuary is not an easy option. It is forced and endured through desperation. It is up to us to create a welcoming response to that need that treats people with kindness, support and dignity. Today, the Scottish Parliament I hope will come together to show that we reject a flawed asylum system that enforces destitution, that deliberate destitution that takes away people's accommodation and financial support at the end of the process. That political consensus is not new. Indeed, the Scottish Refugee Council briefing notes the broad and enduring political consensus in Scotland that the legal right to seek asylum and safety and treated with dignity by the country of sanctuary is a precious one. It also pointed out that we should never forget that the legal right emerged after World War 2 from the international community's revulsion at the genocide of the Holocaust, a timely reminder given the discussion at First Minister's questions this afternoon, and again powerfully articulated by Alex Rowley in his summary. It was important to be reminded of some of the worrying current trends of international responses to asylum across Europe by Pauline McNeill in her opening remarks, but positively remarked on in terms of Alec Cole-Hamilton's articulation of Germany's response to the Syrian refugee situation. It was important to have the chance to debate in this Parliament the flaws and the failures of a system that is not reflective of the values of the country that we seek to create. Tolerant, peaceful and understanding of our global responsibilities because the system does require wholesale change. The barriers built into the system not only make integration more difficult but also in some cases exacerbate the terrible traumas that people have already faced. It hinders people's ability to settle in a new country to build new lives and connections within the community and impact on their health and wellbeing. Asylum decision making must be fair and enable people to tell their stories. However, it must not leave them hanging on waiting to get on with their lives for years on end. It must be a holistic end-to-end system of support and accommodation when it does not leave people homeless and penniless on our streets. That is not a system that we should tolerate, it is simply unacceptable. The current system is leaving the Scottish Government, local government and the third sector to pick up the pieces. Despite that, we will continue to work for an approach based on fairness, dignity, prevention and partnership. However, we need the Home Office to engage on seeking a long-term solution to supporting people at the end of the asylum process in a way that respects their dignity and rights. If people refuse asylum and are not able to return to their country of origin, the Home Office must provide them with accommodation and financial support by funding either asylum accommodation provider or the local authority. The Scottish Government is already providing extra funding to a number of organisations working with the people at risk of destitution and eviction. I am pleased to announce that we will also provide an additional £20,000 for Government community projects to increase their advice and advocacy services. That brings our total emergency funding to £150,000. However, I do question why it is us in the Scottish Government, local government and third sector that continually have to put stick-in-plasters on to a failed system. I am grateful for the intervention, and I agree entirely that responsibility lies principally with the Home Office and the UK Government. That demand should be made, but if they refuse, does the minister agree that we, Scotland and the Scottish Government, our local councils and our communities still bear the moral responsibility to put emergency provision in place? I underline the fact that we currently provide that emergency help, that destitution help and provide that through our third sector partners, which is why I have announced more money to do that through the Government community project. Again, there are other ways that we can do more than, of course, I will engage with the member to figure out what ways we can do that and how we can move that forward. I want to respond to some of the pertinent and powerful points raised by members. Pauli McNeill absolutely agree for the need for independent accountability and asylum accommodation contract. Her support also on the position that this contract should not be about profit but about people is an important one as well, again something that Alec Cole-Hamilton raised. Patrick Harvie again, I support calls for time limits on detention. It is unacceptable that people who have committed no crime—and that is an important point for the members in the Conservatives to remember—people who have done absolutely nothing wrong should not be held in detention and definitely presumption should be in favour of community-based solutions and we want to work to achieve that if the Home Office is willing. Again, I will get back to the member on the issues around the action plan but we hope to look to publish that in the coming year. Michelle Ballantyne again, I am pleased to hear support for the right to work and I hope that it will bear fruit with the UK Government. Patrick Harvie is also right to reiterate the wider failings of the asylum system that needs urgent reform before anyone can even begin to think about trying to seek work. I hope that they do take that on board and again make those points to their colleagues in the UK Government. Similarly, Maurice Corry said that the new Scots aims are okay, but I would just like to point out that there is no UK refugee integration strategy. Again, if he can influence improvements not just for what we are debating around people who are in our country in Scotland just now but if he can influence changes for the rest of the UK so that people who are seeking asylum are in the rest of the UK, any improvements he can make there would be welcome, I am sure. Again, Sandra White made some powerful points about MSPs not being able to represent their asylum-seeking constituents to the Home Office. That is something that we have repeatedly pressed on but despite that the Home Office continues to ignore those issues. Again, I point out to Sandra White the skills that people bring to the country. We are pleased that we are able to support refugee doctor projects, helping people to get back to their careers using their talents, skills and their experience. I would like to finish on the comments and responses to members about Mary Fee's welcome remarks and welcome representatives of women's asylum-seeker housing projects to the Parliament. We are pleased to be able to support some of their work through our funding. In conclusion, it has been a wide-ranging debate, much of it consensual, but I think that what we will ultimately decide upon in a few moments' time is that our message from this Parliament to the Home Office is clear. We need them to fix this failed system, we need them to end their hostile environment, we need to see people treated with dignity respect and we need them to fund our councils to do more to help and to treat our councils with equity and fairness. The system does not have to be like that. We can do better, we want to do better, we want to build an asylum system that signals to the world who we are and what we value and is based on tolerance, kindness and understanding. I am glad of many members' support for this motion today, because I think that it signals a very strong message to the Home Office that I hope they listen to. Thank you very much, and that concludes our debate on a place of safety supporting asylum seekers in Scotland. The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion 14571 on committee membership. Can I ask Graeme Dey on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau to move the motion? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much, and we will come to that on decision time. Before we do, there was a point of order that was raised earlier by Mike Rumbles, which my Deputy Presiding Officer drew to my attention and which she said she would return to. The point was that the cabinet secretary had been misleading in his delivery of a statement on the Aberdeen western peripheral road or in response to his questions. However, I have had the chance to review whether or not there was any discourtesy shown. I believe that it was a robust exchange of views. I do not believe that there was any lack of courtesy in that situation. Mr Rumbles, I can see that he wanted to come up again. Presiding Officer, the minister challenged my legitimacy to represent the people of the North East. The so-called MSP is discourteous. I challenge the legitimacy of anybody in this chamber. I am aware. I am glad that Mr Rumbles clarified the particular aspect that he was concerned about. I listened to that exchange, and I have to say that I heard those particular words. The Parliament is used to a robust exchange of views on a number of matters. I do not think that, in this particular case, much as I would implore every member, every member and every minister to treat each other with courtesy and respect, I do not believe that any discourtesy was shown in that case. On that note, can we turn to decision time? The first question is that amendment 14548.2 in the name of Michelle Ballantyne, which seeks to amend motion 14548 in the name of Aileen Campbell, on a place of safety supporting asylum seekers in Scotland, is agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 14548.3 in the name of Pauline McNeill, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Aileen Campbell, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 14548.3 in the name of Pauline McNeill is yes, 81, no, 28. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 14548.1 in the name of Patrick Harvie, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Aileen Campbell, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed again. We will move to division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 14548.1 in the name of Patrick Harvie is yes, 81, no, 28. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 14548.4 in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Aileen Campbell, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 14548 in the name of Aileen Campbell, as amended, on a place of safety supporting asylum seekers in Scotland, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 14548 in the name of Aileen Campbell, as amended, is yes, 81, no, 28. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. Our final question today is that motion 14571 in the name of Graham Day on behalf of the Bureau is agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. I close this meeting.