 Fath geni'r exonwys ar y cyfrifoeddau cyfan o Moddiem 5 880, ar gyfer Bob Dorris, o sut sefydlu fath gynhardwch y dystriwad yn y systemu athialym, i wneud ei ddedigau fod yn sicr o'u cw diskut ysgol. Ieidwch i'n gweld i fynd i atiwn i'r rhai o'r cyfrifosydd a'r cyfrifosydd, ond mae oedd yn dewnyng sof wnaeth theidwch. Ieidwch yn bob Dorris i gynhyrch â'r cyfrifosydd i'r dibwyd. I'm my thanks to parliamentary colleagues who have signed my motion. The debate on how we will survive steps to preventing destitution in the asylum system is a joint report from the British Red Cross and the Refuge Survival Trust. The report is the conclusion of important work carried out by peer researchers, and I particularly thank, and I must go to those peer researchers, Ronald, Adnan Tandi and Zane Abbenwood joining the gallery this afternoon I have drawn on their own experience and lived testimony and that of others, as well as great expertise and skill to reach important recommendations made to both the UK and Scottish Governments. The research found that during the first six months of a person's time in the UK asylum system was a particularly high risk of destitution. Factors included delays or problems in receiving financial and other support, language barriers, but are unaware of their rights and difficulties in having access to an effective support and advice network. The report calls on the Home Office to offer an initial grant to asylum seekers to help them set up life in the UK, which it considers with less than the likelihood of destitution. Asylum seekers often arrive in the UK with little or nothing at all, and the case for an initial grant is a powerful one. The report also says that people are still at risk of becoming destitute. This is partly because the difficulty in making an allowance of just over £5 a day stretched to cover a person's essential needs, to feed yourself, to clothe yourself and to pay various other costs just over £5 a day. Inflation is spiralling, and those in the most precarious financial position are most exposed to rising costs. That includes asylum seekers, Presiding Officer. They are on the front line of their cost of living crisis. The report recommends that the Home Office should review the weekly asylum support allowance to ensure that it reflects the real cost of living. This must happen. Asylum seekers cannot strike for better income or strike for improved conditions. Many, of course, do not have the right to work in the first place, and that must also change. The report recommends that the Home Office should allow asylum seekers to work after they have been waiting for six months for a decision on their claim, and that right to work should not be restricted to the shortage occupation list. Not only is the right to work to seek to support yourself, to support your family, is it a basic human right. To deny asylum seekers the right to work is clearly an act of self-harm against the social and economic interests of both Scotland and the UK. There are many skilled asylum seekers restricted from using those skills for the betterment of our country. We hear week in, week out in this place about unfilled vacancies in health and social care in our country. We have a willing and able workforce, denied the right to work. Many have been driven into destitution, rather being permitted to make a contribution, and that is just wrong. I praise all those who have raised their voices as part of the Lift the Band campaign championing that right to work. There are recommendations for the Scottish Government and a key recommendation relates to peer support. Peer research has believed that people seeking asylum should have access to good quality information, advice and advocacy, and stressed the benefit of a formal peer support network. The Scottish Government has called upon to invest in and pilot a peer support system for people seeking asylum in Scotland. That would ensure new arrivals, and those who are more vulnerable at any stage of the asylum process are able to access support, guidance and friendship from people who have shared experiences of navigating that asylum system. There are wonderful existing models of peer support. For instance, Mary Hill integration network, who I am privileged to have in my constituency, offered peer support and have done for many years. PNAF from MIN told me ahead of today's debate that at MIN they are going to officially launch their peer support volunteering pilot in January coming. Although MIN voices group operates on a peer support model, they want to expand the process across MIN and train people to be peer support volunteers to help with some of the following. To provide information for new arrivals, attend meetings with people, have training on essential areas such as healthcare, current immigration rules and a variety of other matters. I would therefore say to the cabinet secretary that much of the work to develop peer support models for asylum seekers has already been developed by the communities themselves and their third sector partners, but it does need resource, formalised and support offered to identify and address gaps in provision. There has been a positive movement in some of the recommendations within the report, because the report states that the Scottish Government should take on board recommendations from groups, including the voices network, to implement free bus travel for people in the asylum system. We are not there yet, but that is hopefully in course to be delivered. I pay tribute to the voices network and others, as well as acknowledging the cross-party approach in this Parliament to delivering that recommendation, particularly between myself, Mark Ruskell MSP and Paul Sweeney MSP. Together we have pushed free bus travel for asylum seekers in both this parliamentary chamber and the constructive meetings with two ministers, Neil Gray and Jenny Gilruth. We understand that a pilot project is imminent and the policy intent of the Scottish Government is to, within the powers currently available in this Parliament, seek to embed wider provision within the concession travel scheme in the longer term. I am conscious that there are other powerful recommendations within this report on mental health, on insuitable temporary accommodation, on which I would note that there are up to 600 asylum seekers currently staying in 10 hotels in institutional accommodation across Scotland, and they get just £1.18 a day to live on. I am sure that colleagues will also pick up on the tragedy of the part in so powerful recommendations in relation to housing and who expects that housing also within the report to make sure that it is a suitable standard. There are recommendations on the need for longer term, stable funding for those within the asylum system needing that support points of crisis. Perhaps it is part of a review of the Scottish welfare fund and again this would build an excellent partnership work between the Scottish Government and the British Red Cross who currently administers the Scottish Crisis Fund project as part of the Scottish Government's ending destitution together strategy. The project provides grants to people who face destitution, who face additional barriers in accessing support. To date, they have supported over 1,400 people and provided over £450,000 in cash payments. As I draw to a close, let's work together across party to persuade the UK Government to deliver on those initial grants, on the right to work and then improve the dreadfully low level of financial support to asylum seekers and various other matters that I have not had time to mention. That can be a key driver to reducing destitution. Likewise, we should continue to press constructively our own Government here in Scotland to address recommendations aimed at them, which, whilst the report recognises itself as often mitigation measures, are no less important. I therefore would welcome very much a Government debate on these said matters in this Scottish Parliament. I think that that would be welcomed by many. I close by thanking our peer researchers for their powerful recommendations. I look forward to working with others to address the very real concerns that has been raised by them for the benefits of all. Thank you very much. Mr Doris, we now move to the open debate. I call First Maurice Golden to be followed by Pauline McNeill for any about four minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I start today by acknowledging the vital work that organisations such as the British Red Cross and Refugee Survival Trust do to support those in need? I thank them for producing the How Will We Survive Steps to Preventing Destitution in the Asylum System report. At a time when we are faced with a cost of living crisis, it is important to note that those who have the least, including those seeking asylum, are the most impacted by rising costs, and with no right to work or no right to a bank account, those in the asylum system are dependent on the support of those in need. Over the past five years, we have seen a significant increase in the number of individuals who have been waiting for an initial decision on their asylum claim, which is leading to an increased pressure on the limited resources available. More must be done in order to speed up the process so as to reduce both the number of people waiting on an initial decision and the length of time that they are waiting for. I note that the Home Office also recognises this as a problem and has increased case workers by 80 per cent to address this issue. The UK Government has recently made a host of key reforms in regards to the asylum system. That includes cracking down on the illegal people smuggling networks and ensuring that those who are engaged in people smuggling should be faced with tougher penalties. In doing so, the UK Government has pledged to free up the asylum system so that it can better support those in genuine need of asylum through safe and legal routes. I appreciate Maurice Golden giving away, and he was right to mention illegal networks. Denying asylum seekers the right to work, the legal route in right to work can push them in destitution to be exploited by illegal networks. At a real crisis point, at a real dire exploitation, would Maurice Golden acknowledge that and think that we should look again at extending the right to work for asylum seekers? I think that that is something that should be looked at. I think that the member pointed out that after six months allowing asylum seekers to seek work would, to me, seem like something that should certainly be considered. The report that today's debate focuses on has in turn made a number of recommendations, and through the UK Government's pledge to better support those in genuine need of asylum, I would encourage the UK Government and the Scottish Government to review those recommendations. Although the British Red Cross and refugee survival trust, the Scottish Government and the UK Government all have different approaches and views to the way in which the asylum system should be designed and supported, there will undoubtedly be areas where common ground can be found and those should be fully explored in order to improve the current system. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you very much, Mr Golden. I now call Pauline McNeill to be followed by Clare Adamson for around about four minutes. Thank you to Bob Doris for his members' debate. I want to pay tribute to Bob Doris for the relentless campaigning that he has done both as a constituency member but also as an involvement in the social security system. I myself have a long-standing interest in refugees and asylum seekers and I feel quite passionately about it. I hope that the member—and the Presiding Officer—would forgive me if I was not able to stay for all the contributions, but I will stay for as many as I can. It is simply because, as a dog lover, I really would be upset if I missed the dogs in the Parliament. I hope that that is okay with everyone. I want to begin by acknowledging the work that Baroness Helena Kennedy has done in the final report on the commission of the inquiry into Salon Profession Scotland and the overall conclusion of the panel in relation to the part incident that Bob Doris mentioned in Glasgow 2020. I remember it very well indeed. I am sure that the member will, too. Helena Kennedy said that it was unavoidable tragedy and I believe that, too. Not much has changed or not enough has changed in the two years since the park in tragedy. Today, between 500 and 600 people in the asylum system live in 10 hotels across Scotland in eight local authorities. I believe, as the member does, that those 600 or so people are people who are seeking safety, seeking refuge and a better life. However, it is now clear that placing asylum seekers into hotels is perhaps not the best policy because it removes them from the communities and undermines their human dignity and has caused unnecessary suffering. We all know that there are serious consequences for the health and wellbeing. I have learned in my work with brave Gs in asylum seekers and the work that I have done in other countries. The very core of human being existence is that feeling of dignity. That is what drives being a human being. I think that the dignity of anyone who is already destitute leads to serious consequences, not just for them. However, there might be a reaction to that. Most are barred from working. As has been said, asylum seekers rely on UK Government support typically £40 a week, just £5.84 a day. Others than hotels are not asylum seekers get £8.24 or £1 a day. I support the British Red Cross campaign to lift the ban and acknowledge what has been said about running a pilot that would make sense so that we can see how that would run in practice. I do very much welcome Maurice Golden's suggestion that six months at least would be a period of which we could look to. However, I have always supported the notion that we give people here the chance to do even some limited work so that we protect their dignity and their wellbeing and give them some income. Academics and policymakers have argued that destitution is designed to the UK's asylum system as a form of deterrence and punishment. I think that it is a risky policy for reasons that I have outlined. Already traumatised people trapped with no money, no information, no agency and no opportunity. I believe that the Scottish Government could do some longer-time thinking on how those here to seek asylum could have more dignity in their daily lives. I would also like to welcome the work that is done by Bob Doris, my colleague Paul Sweeney. I cannot remember who else he said was also working with you, but I recognise that cross-party work on things like free bus services, little things that could make a huge difference to people here seeking asylum in the UK and Scotland. People were removed from their communities where they had made friends and established neighbourly connections now living in hotels. We need to have some longer-time thinking about how we are going to move away from that with all the problems and challenges that that brings to us. For too long, the third sector, such as refugees for justice in Scotland and the Scottish Refugee Council and the Refugee Survival Trust, name a few, has been tasked with those very difficult challenges. I would like to see better funding for those organisations and a recognition that they are dealing with some of the hardest cases on their front line. I do welcome the pact to provide new Scots with information about how they can go about surviving here in Scotland. In the face of a hostile environment from refugees and asylum seekers seeking shelter and long-term accommodation, we can do better to restore the dignity and humanity to people who, for the most part, may be the most vulnerable people in our society. Clare Adamson will be followed by Maggie Chapman in four minutes, Ms Adamson. I thank Bob Doris for securing the debate this afternoon. I also apologise to the chamber if the debate is still going at half-past one. I am afraid that I will have to leave at that time. Thank you for the permission to do so. It would be a mess of me, I think, today, not to mention Glasgow's refugee councillor, Rosa Zillee, who has been named one of the most influential women of 2022 by the BBC. Rosa, of course, was one of the Glasgow girls who campaigned against deportation and on raids and also was influential in campaigning for the right to education to further and higher education to the children of asylum seekers and those children who had arrived here alone, but met the residency criteria in Scotland and she acknowledges how important that is. Indeed, she says that the list reflects the role of women at the heart of conflict around the world in 2022 from protesters bravely demanding change in Iran to the female faces of conflict and resistance in Ukraine and Russia. I think that it's really important to acknowledge what an immense achievement that is of Miss Zillee to have been nominated as such. She also acknowledges that Scotland does do things differently, although there's always more that we could do. The fact that the Scottish Government has committed to the developed policies and their devolved responsibilities to reflect the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and to refugee children should be acknowledged today as well. As someone who was taught by a refugee, a Chilean refugee, Dr Jose Munoz, who fled from Pinochet with his wife, who was a pediatrician, I remember what influence that had on my life but also telling me how frustrating it was for him and his wife not to be able to work in their profession when they came here at first until their asylum status was complete in the UK. I think that we have to recognise that this is about people's talents, their experience, their education and what they bring to Scotland as new Scots, which we should be able to embrace in all its forms and welcome people. The right to work, I think, is such a clear area that we could move forward in making that situation better for people. I recognise that in Mr Doris's motion to the Parliament today. I also want to talk a little bit about the work that my own committee has been doing as a convener of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. We have, of course, been working very closely in this settlement of temporality space to Canadians coming to Scotland. I just want to give a couple of things. There was one thing in the British Cross report that I did find quite disturbing, because it said that the inappropriate use of ships such as Glasgow and Edinburgh should be stopped by the Scottish Government. I think that it should emphasise that our committee visited the ship. That is not a permanent solution and temporary accommodation should never be a permanent solution for asylum seekers, but it is a staging post. As one of the MSPs who has a new block of flats dedicated to looking after Ukrainian displaced people in my own constituency housing up to 80 families, I linked up the group on the ship with the group in my constituency in order that they can talk to one another and give that peer support for those who may be thinking of coming to live in North Lanarkshire. I just want to say that Darya Bondarenko, who is part of the group that came with the Ukrainian Freedom Bally, gave out evidence and said that the peer-to-peer work is about their own initiative. While it is being supported by the Scottish Government, the crew of the ship was a big help, but it is their own initiative to support the children on the ship at the moment. It is not normal and it is not ideal, but we have to take some positives from the great work that has been done to bring people 18,500 to a lot of people to Scotland, whom we initially said would only take about 3,000. I am grateful to Bob Doris for lodging his motion securing this debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss how we can better support some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Because we should view those who are in the asylum system as being part of our society, Scotland can and should be a welcoming place. It is right that we provide sanctuary to people who are fleeing unimaginable horrors, war, environmental catastrophe, threats to their personal safety because of any aspect of their identity or any other risks. We would want others to support us if we were in such need. The last thing we would want to face, were we in the position of seeking asylum in a foreign country perhaps without any connection or tie, like language, culture or anything familiar? The last thing we would want to face is destitution. As defined under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act, a person is destitute if they do not have adequate accommodation or any means of obtaining it, whether or not essential living needs are met, or they have adequate accommodation or the means of obtaining it but cannot meet other essential living needs. The UK's asylum system is hardwired to produce destitution amongst people seeking sanctuary here. Indeed, the threat of destitution is used as a deterrent and as a part of the hostile environment as an explicit policy choice by the UK Government. We cannot disagree that having less than £50 a week to cover all costs is not enough for people to meet their essential living needs. As we have heard, destitution can occur at all points in the asylum system but people are most vulnerable when asylum claims are refused or in the first six months after arrival in the UK. Of course, women and LGBTQIA plus people are disproportionately at risk too. The inhumane UK Government seeks to treat those who get to the UK via irregular routes—small boats, for example—worse than those who come via other routes. No one gets in a small boat to cross a dangerous body of water unless they have no other option. Criminalising them and treating them as less than human is not the right response. So what should we do? As long as we do not have control over our immigration system, we need to keep campaigning against the UK's hostile environment. We must keep pressure on the UK Government to grant asylum seekers the right to work, as others have already said. We know that we have a skills shortage in Scotland and we know that we also have folk who are desperate to work here. But there are other things that we can and should do within devolved powers. We must ensure that our different approach to asylum to offer genuine sanctuary is backed up by the radical action needed to keep people safe. We should be testing the limits of the devolution settlement with things like this. We cannot tolerate a UK Government that is forcing people into homelessness and poverty by blind ideology. The Scottish Refugee Council recently presented its 10-point action plan for social inclusion of asylum seekers and refugees to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. The plan includes identifying where preventative action could not only result in savings over current approaches but also deliver a more humane and just service for people in need. I would ask the cabinet secretary to address in her closing particular points from that plan that asylum seekers and refugees need to be explicit groups within both the Scottish child poverty action plan and there should be guidance on what should be in the legal duty to prepare, review and implement local child poverty action plans. And also that we close the data gap that exists around the number of people in Scotland who do have no recourse to public funds. These anti-poverty recommendations are clearly within devolved competence. We must accept them and implement them as soon as we can because doing so will make a material and positive difference to the lives of people in asylum and resettlement or relocation programmes. In closing, Presiding Officer, I'd like to thank the individuals, communities and organisations like the Scottish Refugee Council, the Red Cross, Crisis, Refugees for Justice and so many others who work day in and day out to support asylum seekers and refugees doing battle on their behalf. I am grateful to them. Thank you, Ms Chapman. Are we listening to respond to the debate, cabinet secretary, for around about seven minutes please? We are. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thanks also to Bob Doris for this important and timely debate. There have been a number of thoughtful contributions from members and I thank them for that. When the British Red Cross and the Refugee Survival Trust commissioned research on behalf of the destitute asylum-seeker service in Glasgow, they knew that there were recurring issues of poverty and destitution impacting people seeking asylum. As members have noted, the How Will We Survive report found that experiences of destitution were widespread among people seeking asylum and sadly this situation has not changed. People who have been forced to flee war, persecution and violence are increasingly finding that they must endure prolonged periods of uncertainty and destitution before they can properly feel safe and begin to rebuild their lives. Members have spoken about the report and highlighted that the key causes of destitution for people seeking asylum include delays in receiving asylum support, the inadequacy of support when received, and the long waiting times for asylum decisions. That tells us that the fundamental cause of asylum destitution is home office policy. Home office statistics show that, at the end of September, there were over 140,000 asylum applications awaiting an initial decision. Nearly 100,000 of those had been waiting for more than six months. That is shocking. We should all be appalled that that means that there are people living in our communities who have already been waiting years in Limbo for a decision. That significant backlog is a symptom of years of under-investment in the fundamentals of the UK Government asylum system and a lack of recognition of the importance of our international obligations to recognise refugees. Changes need to be made so that the UK has a fair and effective asylum system that protects people seeking safety. I have repeatedly called on the UK Government to make improvements to ensure that people are treated with dignity at all stages of the asylum policy. The UK Government policy means that people seeking asylum are subject to no recourse to public funds. That prevents them from accessing safety nets such as the Scottish welfare fund in times of crisis. Instead, if they would otherwise be destitute, the home office will provide basic accommodation increasingly in a hotel or other institutional setting and just £40.85 per week for all food, clothing, travel and other essentials. It is also the home office policy to restrict the right to work for people seeking asylum, something that others have touched on during the debate. It prevents people from supporting themselves, using their skills and contributing to our economy. It is also prevented from accessing the opportunities for social networking, wellbeing and integration that is found in a workplace. Others have noted that there are skills shortages in many of our parts of the economy in Scotland that people coming here with skills could help to contribute towards. Unless the underlying causes of destitution can be addressed, it will continue to be a reality for too many people across our communities. The Scottish Government is working with partners through the new Scots refugee integration strategy and the ending destitution together strategy to do what we can within our devolved powers to make a difference for people seeking asylum and our communities. I would always be interested to hear more about peer support projects and recognise the benefits that they can bring to people. There are fantastic initiatives within the third sector across integration networks, refugee-led community groups and the voices network, which enable people to meet, share their experiences and support each other. Of course, Bob Doris mentioned the work of the Maryhill integration network and others have pointed to other projects as well. I am pleased to be able to inform the chamber today that the Scottish Government will continue to fund two important projects that are delivering on ending destitution together priorities for the rest of this financial year. The Diagnostic Legal Advice project, led by the Scottish Refugee Council, as part of the fairway partnership, will continue to provide direct advocacy support triage and link people to qualified legal advice to ensure that people can resolve underlying status issues. I make informed choices about their future. I am also pleased to be able to inform Parliament that the Scottish Government will continue to fund the Scottish Crisis Fund project, delivered by the British Red Cross in collaboration with a number of third sector partners. The project will continue to provide crisis grants to people who are experiencing or at risk of destitution. That includes people who are facing challenges, accessing mainstream support and is inclusive of people who are subject to no recourse to public funds. Bob Doris, I appreciate the cabinet secretary giving way. As he mentioned, the cabinet secretary has no recourse to public funds. It is probably the best of me during my coalition not to mention emerging concerns over the pathways for the young people, who are prittling a silent process, leaving secondary schools, seeking to go to university, who are not able to take up places. I am concerned about that. I would be very interested in meeting the relevant Scottish Minister to discuss how we could take that forward in terms of making sure that we meet every aspect and aspiration of asylum seekers who have made their lives here in Scotland. That is something that we initially did seek to fix in 2007. My friend Hyslop was the cabinet secretary for education. Recent court rulings mean that we are not where we want to be in relation to that. I welcome on-going dialogue with Government. I will certainly ask colleagues, surely and summable, to respond to Bob Doris on that important point. I also want to mention another issue that I know Bob Doris and other members have taken a keen interest in. That is on concession to travel. I understand that there was a constructive meeting with the transport minister just recently. I hope that the members found that useful. I discussed that meeting. There is now work under way on a travel support pilot, which will inform work taking place in parallel on how we can provide travel support for people seeking asylum in the longer term. Of course, we continue to press the Home Office on reserved issues, which impact people living in our communities and push for positive change. I have written numerous times to Home Office ministers since I came into this role about many of the issues that are highlighted today. The UK Government must invest in the asylum system to increase the quality and speed of asylum decisions. That is the only way to uphold the UK's international responsibilities to recognise and protect people who are forced to flee persecution. It would reduce the uncertainty and the risk of destitution for people who just want and need to rebuild their lives in a place of safety. It would also reduce the number of people the UK asylum system has to accommodate and support by allowing people to get on with their lives and play a full part in their communities. The UK needs an asylum system that is effective, efficient and delivers for people who may be highly vulnerable as well as our communities. It is a system that should treat people with dignity and respect at all stages of the process and not subject them to destitution. I conclude by again thanking the member and other members who have contributed to highlighting this important issue today. Home secretaries and Home Office ministers have repeatedly referred to the UK asylum system as broken, and it is clear that we all agree on this, as we have heard from the contributions today. There is no use in saying that it needs to be fixed and then not taking action. The UK Government must now fix its failed and inhumane system or provide this Parliament with the powers to do so. Meanwhile, we will use our devolved powers to do what we can to support some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.