 The next item of business is a debate on motion 5802 in the name of Christina McKelvie on behalf of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee on Hidden Lives, New Beginnings, Destitution Asylum and Insecure Immigration status in Scotland. Can I ask those members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request to speak buttons now? I call on Christina McKelvie to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee. Convener, 10 minutes are there abouts. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Before I set out the committee's main findings, I want to say something that I hope will set the tone for today's debate. Destitution is first and foremost a humanitarian issue. People who are destitute are one of the most vulnerable groups in our society and they deserve our compassion and our support. A human response, one that seeks to protect them, treats them with dignity, fairness and respect. In truth, Presiding Officer, we found a subject matter of our inquiry a difficult topic. Much of the evidence that we heard was harrowing. We visited Shakti Women's Aid and heard from Hemat Griff Women's Aid and were deeply affected by the harrowing stories from the women there. Our report concerns lives that have been shattered through torture, exploitation, abuse and fear. Those are hidden lives but they are no less valuable than our own. We are seeking a new preventative approach, one that focuses on new beginnings. Our report, Hidden Lives and New Beginnings, asks a lot of the Scottish Government and it calls on the UK and Scottish Governments to work together. We want a better life for those who come to the UK seeking protection, seeking sanctuary, but instead become destitute, fighting at the very least for an existence and at the very worst for survival. Our report is wide-ranging, as this particular aspect of destitution has not been looked at before by a committee of this Parliament. We have made a large number of recommendations. Time will therefore not permit me to cover them all, but I am sure that members of the committee will highlight other aspects of our work. I will therefore focus my contribution this afternoon on some specific findings. Those are the harmful impact of destitution. Destitution is a by-product of the asylum process as a result of fleeing domestic abuse, no recourse to public funds and women escaping domestic abuse, the importance of independent advocacy to address destitution and the need for a national anti-destitution strategy. First, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the British Red Cross, the Children and Young People's Commissioner in Scotland, the Scottish Refugee Council, the Scottish Women's Aid, Positive Action Housing and Engender, who made an impassioned and well-evidence plea for the committee to consider the issue. As a committee, we succeeded in reaching a consensus on almost all of the conclusions and recommendations. That is a great achievement, given the subject matter covered, reserved and devolved areas and diverse political views. On agreeing our report, a couple of members held different positions. One descended from recommendation in paragraph 41, which recommended that asylum seekers should be allowed to register an initial claim or a fresh claim in Scotland, rather than having to travel to England and wanted further background information. While two members descended from paragraph 207, which concluded that Immigration Act 2016 risks exposing more people to destitution as it provides for cuts to be made to asylum seekers' support and gives power to compel local authorities to participate in wider dispersal. In conducting our inquiry, we had been keen to hear from those who had experienced destitution. That is why we enlisted the assistance of the organisations that I have already mentioned. Notably, individual testimony represented a significant proportion of the 107 responses that we received. We would like to express our particular gratitude to those who shared their real-life stories, to the organisations that worked hard to help us to gather valuable information and to everyone who provided written and oral evidence. I wish to pay a special tribute and say a special thank you to Olivia Nandotte, who courageously gave oral evidence to us, sharing her personal experience of destitution and her fight to gain accommodation and financial support for her and her son. News of our inquiry was far-reaching, so much so that we received heart-breaking correspondence from an asylum seeker in Turkey, whose family was facing destitution. The evidence gathered provided an unequivocal insight into the issues associated with destitution. A key theme to emerge was the significant detrimental impact that destitution has on the individual, on their mental health, their ability to access healthcare, including maternity services and in maintaining prescribed treatments. The difficulties health practitioners faced treating those suffering. Glasgow psychological trauma service told us, when clients are destitute or at risk of destitution, the impact on mental health is significant. Clinicians and service users described the worsening mental health problems. Destitution also increased clients' vulnerability to further trauma and re-victimisation and interfered with clients getting the health treatments that they needed. It was also important for us to understand why destitution occurred. The risk of destitution was present at numerous points within the asylum and refugee system at the pre-asylum application stage during the asylum process and post-decision, irrespective of a positive or a negative decision. Other reasons were linked to issues of domestic slavery, domestic abuse and threat of retribution from wider family members, where women had entered the country on a spousal or student visa and on fleeing from their partner found that immigration status was insecure. During our visit to the British Red Cross, we heard from parents who feared their children would be taken away. Some recounted being told by social work staff that the only way they could help was to take their children into care, a terrifying thought for any family. On a personal level, as a former social care worker, I found those accounts deeply concerning. We found inconsistency in the interpretation and application of child protection legislation, and I have asked local authorities to review their training and guidance to ensure that there is no room for ambiguity. Destitute people are less able to access their rights and then to challenge any decisions. We heard about gatekeeping practices by public authorities. Wyringly, getting support was described as, as I quote again, a grueling fight. The Scottish Refugee Council advised that 60 per cent of initial claims refused, 20 per cent went on to make successful claims. Being bit destitute made it more difficult for people to re-engage with the asylum system and to make a fresh claim, prolonging their destitution. Kirsty Thompson from the Immigration Practitioners Association told us that the complexity of the legislation, the processes and the ability to access specialist legal advice meant that there was a deficit in accessing justice. Advocacy is crucial to help people to access support to address their destitution. We have asked the Scottish Government, COSLA and our third sector partners to provide a fully funded independent advocacy service for those who are destitute. I know that it is a huge commitment, but if we help people at the early stages then we do not have to pick up the pieces in the later stages. We feel strongly women fleeing domestic violence who have no recourse to public funds because of our immigration status should be given access to safe refuge, accommodation and provided the financial assistance that they need to survive. We should be ashamed that abused women have to use pillowcases as nappies for their children because they have no access to funds. We have asked for the Scottish Government to negotiate with the UK Government on this issue in particular. Meantime, we have asked for a crisis fund to help those mosques at risk. Quote to address in the issue set out in our report will be the development of a Scottish anti-destitution strategy to inform a national approach to mitigating destitution. I am not sure whether the cabinet secretary is in a position to offer a commitment on this today. I will understand if she is not, but we hope that she will agree that this would be a positive step forward. In conclusion, the committee calls on the Scottish Government to embrace a preventative approach to destitution. We all know that prevention is better than cure. When we help people at the early stages of the destitution, they then do not take out from the service as much as they need in the later stages, should we have been there early enough. This will benefit Scotland. People will be spared the harmful effects of being trapped in a cycle of trauma. That is people who have come from trauma seeking sanctuary here. Opportunities to exploit people for domestic slavery or criminality will be reduced. We have just released our new strategy on human trafficking today. That will help that because people will not be forced into dangerous situations. Public services will not have the same demand on them to pick up the pieces at that later stage. Non-governmental organisations can return their folks to core business and, ultimately, those who have had a positive experience of Scotland will integrate better and so will their children. It is my pleasure to move that motion in my name, on behalf of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee. I thank the convener for her opening remarks. I am very pleased that the committee has been able to secure today's debate. The Scottish Government has welcomed the committee's inquiry, which has given a much needed focus to the issues of destitution, asylum and insecure immigration status in Scotland. The committee's report is aptly named. There are too many people leading lives hidden from view and suffering the consequences of immigration and asylum policies built on, in my view, hostility at a time when they should be able to make a new beginning and a new life. We should be in no doubt that the causes of the destitution that has been examined by the committee is the asylum and immigration system that is currently as well known reserved to the UK Government. I am therefore disappointed that the immigration minister declined the committee's invitation to give oral evidence, although I note that he provided written evidence. I firmly believe that it is better to prevent destitution in the first place than to apply a sticking plaster once the damage has been done. The committee has made a number of recommendations to the Scottish Government to try and mitigate the impacts of destitution caused by the immigration and asylum systems. We will consider those recommendations carefully and fully, and we will respond formally in July to the committee to meet its timescales. In doing so, we will adopt both a sympathetic and a can-do approach, although it is being clear about the challenges in which recommendations either cover areas that are reserved or are impacted by reserved issues. However, we will also be equally open to the opportunities where we have devolved powers that could make a real difference to people facing destitution. We will shortly undertake engagement to develop the next New Scots refugee integration strategy. New Scots takes a multi-agency partnership approach, and I want to see which recommendations could be taken forward through New Scots, bearing in mind that it does not cover the immigration aspect of the committee's inquiries. There are some aspects of an anti-destitution strategy that could be taken forward as part of New Scots. Destitution, in my view, is built into the asylum system. It is in the rate set for asylum support. How many of us could live on £36.95 a week? It is in the length of time that people have to wait to receive the support, and it is in the ending of support to many of those who have been refused asylum. It is also in the mismatch between the 28 days that people have to leave their asylum accommodation in support, and the length of time it takes for benefits to be paid when they are eventually granted refugee status. That is at a very time that people should be able to be getting on with their new lives in Scotland. I have met families who are suffering the devastating impacts of destitution, which is a consequence of the system. Those are families with young children who have faced the terrifying reality of being homeless and penniless, not knowing how they would get by from day to day, all after seeking a place of safety and refuge to escape the trauma of their previous lives. Destitution does not only impact on the individual, it impacts on our communities. We believe that asylum seekers and refugees should be welcomed and supported to integrate into our communities from day one. That is the key principle of our new Scotch refugee integration strategy. If people have to spend all their time fighting off destitution and are susceptible to exploitation, integration is therefore impossible. That is first and foremost devastating for them, but it is also a loss to our communities of culture, skills and friendship. The Scottish Government and our partners in the third sector and charities and local government are literally paying the price of the UK Government's policies on asylum and immigration. We are all paying for the services and support that would not be required if people were not being left destitute in the first place. The success of the Syrian resettlement programme shows what can be achieved when programmes are sufficiently funded. Scotland has now welcomed around 1,700 Syrian refugees into 31 local authority areas. The committee has rightly said that this is the standard that we should be aiming for in both the asylum system and in resettlement. The tailored support that is part of the resettlement programme is in stark contrast to the complete lack of support that is provided to people in the asylum system. That includes people who receive refugee status. The driving force is creating a two-tier system and risks the division between communities. The Scottish Government will absolutely do what it can to take a holistic approach to all refugees and asylum seekers, but we cannot tackle the root cause while asylum and resettlement remain reserved. The Scottish Government plays its part by supporting organisations working with asylum seekers through the Promoting Equality and Cohesion Fund, including the British Red Cross, Positive Action Housing and the Scottish Refugee Council, with more than £800,000 of investment. That includes £39,000 specifically for the British Red Cross for its short-term asylum response project, which provides emergency humanitarian assistance. I am particularly concerned about the needs of asylum-seeking children. The interests of the child must always be paramount. That is why unaccompanied children in Scotland are looked after children and have the right to be supported by an independent guardian. I will continue to work for the reinstatement of the Dubs amendment for the most vulnerable unaccompanied children in Europe. The Dubs amendment has provided the only safe legal route for unaccompanied children outwith the Middle East and North Africa area to reach the UK and without it thousands of children will be condemned to an uncertain future. I believe that destitution should never be an outcome of the asylum process. It is unacceptable that people fleeing war and terror should end up destitute or homeless in a country where they have sought refuge. Although people are living in Scotland no matter what their immigration status, they should be treated as part of our community and be able to live fulfilling lives. Our asylum and immigration systems should support that very simple objective, not hinder it. I thank all those who gave evidence to the inquiry by the Equalities and Human Rights Committee of which I am a member. I look forward to this debate this afternoon, and we will be supporting the motion in Christina McKelvie's name today. The evidence that we heard in committee highlighted areas where improvements can be made to ensure that vulnerable people are not at the risk of destitution. We need a system that is more accessible and more flexible. Whatever stage an asylum seeker is at, the refugee council SRC told us that people have to travel to Croydon to make an initial asylum claim, and if they are refused, they have to travel to Liverpool to make a fresh claim. They therefore raised concerns over accessibility, which must be looked at closely and quickly. When people cannot access their asylum system, they can be left in a vulnerable position. They can be left with no recourse to public funds. A cause for even greater concern is where the report says that people with insecure immigration status find themselves destitute for a combination of reasons, but mainly linked to human trafficking or abusive relationships. Human trafficking is a serious problem in the region that I represent. Two weeks ago, BBC Scotland broadcast a shocking documentary on despicable trade. It provided clear evidence of young girls being trafficked from Slovakia to Glasgow, where they are forced into sham marriages to local men. That is a scandal that is going on right under our noses right now. Therefore, it is essential that we keep the human trafficking exploitation Scotland Act 2015 under review to ensure that our police officers have the powers that they need to tackle this problem and save those young girls from this horrific violation and exploitation. I will continue to hold the Scottish Government to account on this matter. The committee recently visited Shakti Women's Aid in Edinburgh, and we heard from a number of women who found it challenging to access the support that they needed. Again, they had often come from abusive relationships or had been victims of human trafficking, and others had sought refuge to avoid their young daughters being forced to travel abroad to undergo the inhuman procedure of FGM. Hearing about the experience of those women was truly emotional for all of us who were on the visit. As I noted earlier, we had heard concerns over how realistic it is to expect people struggling to travel hundreds of miles to make an asylum claim. Although the Home Office needs to maintain an efficient service, which can quote with the number of claims that it receives each year, it must also work to ensure that services are accessible. I recognise the Scottish Refugees Council's call for the Home Office to make use of its network of regional and local offices, including the one in Glasgow, to aim for a more accessible system. That is why I have written to the Home Office Minister, Robert Goodwill, this morning, to ask them to consider the feasibility of allowing refugees to lodge their claims in any fresh claims in Scotland. The evidence that we heard in committee was not only effective at identifying the problems but also at making suggestions of how we can begin to make the system work better. In particular, the SRC, while supporting the report's overall recommendations, asked us to consider three recommendations in particular. Firstly, I think that it is clear from the evidence that we heard that we need a Scottish anti-destitution strategy, and I am pleased to hear the cabinet secretary say that that is something that is going to be looked into. I believe that the anti-destitution strategy can bring the focus to the issue that it deserves. That strategy can focus on preventing destitution in the first place, but will, of course, require leadership from and co-operation between the Scottish and UK ministers. That strategy should be developed in partnership with the National Practitioners Network, involving those with the experience of providing services to at-risk groups and sharing best practice to deliver a better quality of service. The network should continue working in partnership with the Scottish Government when its strategy has been developed in order to ensure that it is working effectively. I would also strongly echo the calls by SRC for the Scottish Government, COSLA and third sector partners to consider funding an independent advocacy service for destitute asylum seekers and people with insecure immigration status. That would allow them to begin the process of integration into UK society as quickly as possible and allow signposting to key services to begin at an earlier stage. In conclusion, the Conservatives are determined to build an asylum and immigration system that ensures fairness and offers support to vulnerable people. That has the confidence of the people who are already in the UK. The UK has a proud history of helping those who are in most need. We are committed to the UK remaining a sanctuary for refugees and asylum seekers, but by understanding the concerns raised by the report and acting on many of its recommendations, we will be better able to make that ambition a reality. I urge the Scottish and UK Government to consider the report's findings carefully and address the concerns that the motion identifies, and I will be supporting the motion at decision time. Thank you very much. I call on Mary Feet over Labour a generous. I keep saying generous, but nobody is using it at 16 minutes. You are very kind, Presiding Officer. I will take more than six minutes. I would like to take this opportunity at the start of the debate to thank everyone who assisted the Equalities and Human Rights Committee in producing this report on destitution, asylum and insecure immigration status in Scotland. On behalf of all the members of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, I thank all the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee, all the individuals who contributed written submissions and all individuals and organisations who assisted the committee's research on destitution, asylum and insecure immigration status. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the clerks on the committee who provided expertise and assistance to all members throughout the process. It is only right and just for me to commend the strength and courage of the people whom the committee met, seeking asylum and refuge and living in destitution. Their personal accounts of fleeing persecution, warfare and suffering in their home nations for the refuge of Britain, of their individual struggle for survival and who continue to live a life of extreme destitution in the land that they once hoped could offer them safety and comfort, where harrowing and inspiring unequal measures. From the outset, it should be made clear that the Equalities and Human Rights Committee fully recognises and accepts that immigration is a reserved issue. However, the UK Government's immigration policy has a profound impact on Scotland. The majority of the committee believes that, fundamentally, the Immigration Act 2016 risks exposing more people to destitution, which could either further traumatise them or make them vulnerable to exploitation. The committee's report outlines a plethora of recommendations and points for consideration to the UK Government, the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities. The current UK immigration and asylum system fails to treat our fellow human beings with dignity and respect. The system fails to appreciate and understand the extensive variety of complex circumstances that help to explain why individuals seek refuge and asylum in the UK. I would like to focus my remarks on the experience of women seeking refuge and asylum in Scotland, who are most at risk of destitution. Destitution is linked to marginalisation and oppression. The truth is that women seeking refuge or asylum in the UK are often survivors of domestic abuse, genital mutilation and rape. The insecure immigration status of those women leads to further exploitation. An insecure immigration status is linked to women's experience of abuse, violence and having their liberty and autonomy severely restricted. In the evidence to the committee, Scottish Women's Aid articulated and I quote, women with insecure immigration status experience specific patterns of abuse. Destitution is built into the current system, due to the fact that there are only a few locations in England that asylum claims can be dealt with. The only place where people are able to register their claim to seek asylum is in Croydon. The only place where people who have been refused asylum can make a fresh claim is in Liverpool. That results in the indefensible situation in which individuals who are fled from conflict, fled from human rights abuses and fled from humanitarian crises, travelling a treacherous journey of, in many cases, many thousands of miles across continents to arrive in Scotland and then being expected to travel on an eight-hour bus journey to Croydon to register their claim to seek asylum. The current immigration system lacks compassion. It fails to treat our fellow human beings as just that—fellow human beings. Instead of our immigration system offering support and an inviting welcome to vulnerable and marginalised people who have travelled to our country to seek safety, the system appears to add to their suffering and increase the likelihood of them becoming destitute. The committee supports the recommendations of the Scottish Refugee Council to open local and regional offices in order to make the system more accessible to newly-arrived women, men and children. In Scotland, we need a more collective approach. The Scottish Government should work with local authorities and third sector partners to identify the number of individuals in destitution and those with insecure immigration status. Meaningful data will help to inform policy and enable a much more co-ordinated approach to tackling destitution. The establishment of migrants' access to benefits and local authorities services in Scotland's guidance should be updated as a matter of extreme urgency. It is vital that the guidance is a living document that makes meaningful change to individuals who are in need. The Conservative defence of the UK's current immigration system is unsustainable. It is inefficient, illogical and lacks any sense of compassion or any sense of understanding. There is hope of a better future. There is hope that our immigration system can change. An immigration system that treats people with compassion and with understanding. However, change will not come with the election of another callous Conservative Government. Hell bent on achieving arbitrary immigration targets by dehumanising our fellow human beings. That is time for Conservative MSPs in this chamber for once to do the right thing and calling their colleagues at Westminster to radically review the Immigration Act 2016. We now move to the open contributions of around six minutes, please. We do have a wee bit of time in hand if people want to intervene and respond. I call Gail Ross to be followed by Jeremy Balfour. Anyone reading this report will conclude that there is both that more the Scottish and the UK Governments can do to address the subject of destitution. This is a hugely complex piece of work and I also would like to thank everyone that has contributed to evidence sessions, welcomed the committee on visits and also the clerks for all their hard work. Destitution is defined under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 as, quote, anyone who does not have adequate accommodation or the means of obtaining it, whether or not essential living needs are met, or someone who does have adequate accommodations or the means of obtaining it but cannot meet other essential living needs. The report, prepared by the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, examines the impact of destitution on asylum seekers and those with insecure immigration status. People who have fled their country and lodged an application for protection, people who have had their claim for asylum granted and people with insecure immigration status who are waiting on a response from the Home Office are the real subject of this report. During this debate and the work that follows, I sincerely hope that we can all focus on the humanity of the situation that people find themselves in and not get bogged down in statistics because we can and must improve the situation for these people. Presiding Officer, I only joined this committee after the Easter recess, but on reading the report, the official reports from the committees and hearing the feedback from the other committee members, it is not difficult to see that these evidence sessions were very emotionally draining. One of the huge injustices that struck me as we went over the report was the part about destitution and insecure immigration status, and all the speakers before me have touched on that as well. I will quote from page 10, section 37 of the report. The reasons given for this were more likely to be linked to issues of domestic abuse, domestic slavery and the threat of retribution from wider family members. For example, a woman who was forced into a marriage of domestic slavery but having escaped had no documentation to prove who she is. People living in fear for their life and the lives of their children, including fear of honour killing, female genital mutilation, incarceration and death. Women who have stayed with abusive partners so as not to become destitute or had left abusive partners and were now destitute. It is clear to us that the asylum and immigration system is peppered with points at which the risk of destitution becomes more likely. The sheer complexity and inaccessibility of the process makes it unnecessarily difficult in practical terms for someone who is new to the UK who is destitute to initiate the process. Destitution is further built into that system by there only being certain geographical locations in England where parts of the process can be accessed. We know that people arriving in Northern Ireland do not have to travel to Croydon to make an initial claim. It is unacceptable that destitute vulnerable people are forced to continue in the UK what has already been a very difficult journey. We are in no doubt that destitution should not happen as a result of failings in the system, as we heard about with refugees moving from asylum accommodation. Sadly, I would contend that people are being made destitute because of the complicated and onerous system that confronts them when they arrive on our shores. Vulnerable, poor, frightened, disadvantaged people must be protected and offered sanctuary, not regarded as a statistic. What can we do? The recommendation that is made by the majority of the committee at section 41 asks the Scottish Government to intensify its negotiations with the Home Office to ensure that people who arrive in Scotland and wish to make a claim for asylum should be able to do so here in Scotland and not have to travel to Croydon. We have also recommended that we stop forcing those who wish to make a fresh claim to have to make the journey to Liverpool to complete it. We need to establish why those journeys are being forced upon vulnerable people and if there is a way to change that. The message from the report was as damning as it was clear that destitution is built in to the UK asylum process. Positive action in housing director Rubina Quarche said that this report is a stark reminder that the UK asylum process, instead of sheltering vulnerable refugees while they try to build new lives, is fast-tracking men, women and children into a deeper humanitarian crisis of absolute destitution. Scottish Refugee Council policy officer Graham O'Neill said that today's report is an important wake-up call to a severe human rights problem, often called destitution. The simple truth is that UK Governments have sanctioned destitution as a policy lever and it has failed completely. This report is a blueprint for Scotland to develop a humane, preventative and more effective model against destitution. The report calls for several things. The creation of a Scottish anti-destitution strategy. There is also the need for government and other agencies such as the third sector to work together across all sectors with the aim of mitigating the negative effects that destitution has on asylum seekers. More needs to be done to identify how widespread destitution is among asylum and insecure immigrants. Asylum seekers should be allowed to work paid or unpaid, giving themselves the means not to become exploited or destitute and also to help their physical, mental health and self-esteem. A destitution fund should be created by the Scottish Government to help women who are suffering domestic abuse and cannot find other help. To look at extending free bus pass travel to asylum seekers so that they can travel to hospitals or appointments. There should be a national co-ordinated practitioner's network and that would comprise of several agencies including the Scottish Government, health boards, local authorities, NGOs, the third sector and the legal sector and also that COSLA guidance should be updated for local authorities to let people know what help is available to them. No one flees war and persecution in their own country and has to come to the UK or Scotland to face destitution. We are asking both the UK and Scottish Governments to make changes to ensure that those people who are already weak, scared and vulnerable are helped when they need it most, not forced into more unimaginable situations because the help is not available. There are many good examples out there of organisations and individuals who are doing excellent work in this field but this report shines a light on a problem that is quite often hidden in plain sight. I call Jeremy Balfour to be followed by Ross Greer. I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate the report. As a member of the committee, I, too, want to start by thanking those who gave us oral and written evidence over the past few months. Without their evidence and openness, we would not have the report that we have performed today. I also thank the clerks for pulling us together and for keeping us moving in the right directions. I think that this report shows that there are many issues around this area, that it is simplistic to think that we can simply do one or two things and everything will improve. What we need to see is a closer work between Scottish Government and UK Government, between Scottish Government and local authorities and local authorities and the third sector. What became clear to me and others on the committee was that there are good practices out there. There are lots of good ways that we should do things written down, but often they are not getting to the grassroots. Too often policies are being written and left on the shelf. Too often, when someone walks in and has their first contact with a social worker or someone else, it is not a good positive experience. The first thing that I would want to see happen is for local authorities, through COSLA through other ways, to be sharing information in a more professional way so that everyone understands firstly what the law is at present and secondly how we then apply that law to individual cases. Mr Balfour, for taking that intervention, what is your response to the comment that COSLA made to the committee that destitution was an inevitable consequence of the immigration system as created by the UK Government? Jeremy Balfour? Do not accept that statement by COSLA, and I think that where COSLA has failed in its work is that it has not distributed the information down to the 32 local authorities in a proper way. As I was about to say, this is going to become more and more important if we are going to see the system rolled out across Scotland at the moment, predominantly Glasgow and Lanarkshire and, to some extent, Edinburgh. However, if the system is going to go to other parts of the country, there needs to be much greater access to the information. We heard evidence from local authorities that, within neighbouring local authorities, different practices have been followed, and that seems to me not acceptable. The other area that I would like to pick up on briefly is in regard to that of advocacy and independent advocacy for those who are going through the system. Clearly, those who have arrived in this country come with a raft of different stories and experiences, but almost all of them have had a negative experience of their Government or someone within authority over them. I think that there is a slight danger that our advocacy, which is done by those who are seen to be part of the system, will mean that people will not go forward and use that advocacy. I think that we need to look at independent advocacy being independent and that being funded directly by the Scottish Government, whether that is CEB, whether that is advice shops or other third-party organisations. I think that there needs to be a distinct difference between the Scottish Government and the state, so that people feel that they are getting absolutely independent advice. That advice will sometimes come from lawyers, and I think that there is an issue around that. People who deal with immigration law legally here in Scotland are based here predominantly in the central belt. How do individuals who need advice, whether they are in the north of Scotland or other parts of Scotland, get that advice? There was an issue that was raised around the whole question of legal aid in paragraph 63, and I think that that is something that the justice minister and other ministers need to look at very quickly to make sure that people are not losing out. I agree with Gail Ross that we need to look at that as individual people rather than statistics. I think that we need to look at that in a way that takes us away from cheap party scoring points and leads to see at what Scottish Government, UK Government and local authorities can do together to help those very vulnerable individuals. I think and hope that this report will shed light on practices that are happening at the moment. I think that there is a real challenge for UK Government and Scottish Government that we have asked for progress back in a fairly short period of time. The reason why we have done that is because it is so urgent and we need answers quickly. I hope that, when this comes back to the committee in a year's time, we will see genuine progress and that people's lives will be made easier. The work of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee on the issue has been fantastic, and I am grateful to it for having produced this report and the opportunity to debate it here in Parliament. Asylum and the issues around it are, of course, significantly reserved to the Westminster Parliament, but the report recommends a range of initiatives that could be undertaken here in Scotland, which would be of real tangible benefit to the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our country. In December of last year, we held a debate in this chamber welcoming the 1,000th Syrian refugee to come to Scotland. Since that debate, the Westminster Government has ended the dub scheme, as the cabinet secretary mentioned. That scheme is designed to take in unaccompanied child refugees, many of whom are currently destitute across the rest of Europe at huge risk. Named after Lord Alf Dubbs, a former child refugee of the Holocaust and someone that I am very proud to know, it was meant to take in 3,000 children. It took in barely a tenth of that, abandoning 1,000 more of the children most in need on this planet. It claimed that councils across the country did not have capacity, but were immediately contradicted by councils in Scotland and the rest of the UK, offering places. Quite frankly, they were lying. I know—I am sure that we all know—the efforts that some councils across Scotland and the rest of the country have gone to in securing accommodation, both for unaccompanied children seeking asylum, as well as for families coming through the Syrian resettlement scheme. The green MSPs sent a letter to the Home Secretary and the Minister for Immigration requesting that the scheme be reinstated. This is the second time that we have formally written to the UK Government with concerns over support for refugees and asylum seekers. They have not had the courtesy to respond to either, so if Annie Wells manages to receive a response from them, she should let us know what the trick is. In government, the Conservatives have consistently contributed towards the instability across the world, which forces millions to claim asylum. They have even brought arms manufacturers to this Parliament, the very company whose weapons turn innocent people into refugees by destroying their homes, their schools and their hospitals. Yet, when a very few dare to come here to claim asylum, the Westminster Government does everything that it can to turn them away, to offer them as little support as possible, to make it a difficult and grueling task to get residency here. The committee has noted the distances that they need to travel to Croydon, to Liverpool, to make initial claims and to reapply if rejected. As I mentioned to Mr Balfour, Andrew Morrison from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities told the committee that destitution was an inevitable consequence of the UK immigration system, as it sought to create a hostile environment for those who do not have a legal right to be in the UK. I have seen the reality of the refugee crisis. I know exactly how much those people need some basic compassion when they arrive in Europe. Last month, I was in Lampedusa, which is the small Italian island at the centre of the refugee crisis, since the European Union's deal with Turkey caused routes through the Balkans. In 2016, at least 6,000 people drowned trying to reach Lampedusa. The reality is that the number will be far higher than that. Just before we arrived, another boat sank. As Patrick Harvie mentioned at First Minister's Questions, last Wednesday, 34 people, almost all babies and toddlers, drowned. The horrors that are experienced by survivors are beyond what any of us can comprehend. We met Vivian, a 17-year-old from Central Africa. She was pregnant by rape. She had been kidnapped twice, forced into prostitution. Her best friend had drowned in the Mediterranean. We saw the grave of Walaila, an 18-year-old from Eritrea. She suffered terrible burns when gas canisters had exploded in the Libyan warehouse that she was held in. Rather than taking her to hospital, the people smugglers put her on a boat to die in agony at sea. We saw the unmarked graves. For those whose names, ages and stories we will never know, those are desperate people asking for nothing more than safety and security. However, even if refugees make it to the UK, their struggle does not end. This Westminster Government and previous Governments have constructed an asylum and refugee policy that is heartless and immoral, a system that does not offer the safety, security or dignity that asylum seekers are entitled to. We have a system that lines the pockets of multinational providers such as Circle, G4S and their subcontractors, a system that puts profit and cost savings before basic rights and dignity. In January, the UK Home Affairs Select Committee published a report on COMPAS, the provision of asylum accommodation in the UK. What they found is simply sickening, including infestations of rats, mice and bedbugs, rotten sofas, dirty carpets, women in late stages of pregnancy being forced to share rooms and accommodation without locks and completely unfit for habitation. In Glasgow, we have heard of atrocious living conditions in substandard housing being provided by, for example, orchard and shipment. They have been the subject of numerous allegations of putting vulnerable people in slum-like conditions. Health professionals and charities say that the health of refugees, particularly children, have suffered as a result of that. What kind of society can tolerate this treatment of those who came here seeking refuge? It is essential that silent support services are entirely devolved to Scotland as this Parliament voted and agreed on a number of months ago. If the UK Government will not operate on the basis of dignity and respect, then we will. However, as I mentioned, there is plenty that the Scottish Government could take a lead on right now. Free bus passes for those in destitution is an excellent recommendation from the committee, for example, and that could be extended to all refugees and asylum seekers, though I recognise the identification issues that a wider roll-out might face. The recommended advocacy service for people in destitution, whose immigration status is insecure, is an excellent idea, but it should not only be limited to those who are destitute. Many whose residency here is insecure would benefit immensely from such a service, and it would likely head off large numbers of cases of destitution. That is an excellent report. It is one that the Parliament should be very proud of. The UK Government, on the other hand, should be ashamed of its findings, not that there is anything new, not that this is the first time that people here, in other parliaments and devolved assemblies in these islands, charities or NGOs have said before. Even the United Nations has had much to say about how the UK Government treats refugees and asylum seekers. However, the Scottish Government should take on its recommendations and show that, when powers lie with this Parliament, we can create a dignified, just society for all those who need it. I welcome the opportunity to debate the report from Mayor Qualities and Human Rights Committee, Hidden Lifes, New Beginnings, Destitution, Asylum and Insecure Immigration Stations in Scotland. I thank the committee's clerks for their help and effort during the evidence sessions and bring the report to its final conclusion. I thank all the organisations and individuals who have submitted or come before the committee to give evidence. However, I must stress my disappointment at the lack of engagement by the UK Government, who refused to contribute any evidence, even in person or at a video conference. Since January, the committee has worked hard to understand the challenges that are faced by asylum seekers and refugees in what the Scottish Government, the UK Government and local authorities in the first sector can do effectively to tackle the risk of destitution for each and every person fleeing persecution and seeking a safer and fair life here in Scotland. Scotland has a proud history of inclusivity and our approach to helping asylum seekers and refugees integrating to mainstream society has been praised by the Quality, Local Government and Communities Committee of the National Assembly of Wales. That is in stark contrast to the approach that has been taken by the UK Government. Evidence received by the committee showed that destitution is built into the harmful process and creates a two-tier system of protection, which forces far too many people into hardship and has a huge detrimental impact on their integration into our communities. Individuals who have fled from dreadful circumstances are finding themselves trapped in destitution and homeless, often for years as a direct result of the asylum process. The system places unfair stresses and constraints on claimants that impact on the whole of our society. We need to have a more inclusive and fairer approach to the assessment process. Andrew Morrison, from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Cozzler, summed up his view when he stated that destitution was an edible consequence of an immigration system as it sought to create a hostile environment for those who do not have a legal right to be in the UK. Graham O'Neill of the Scottish Refuge Council described the UK Government's policy as co-inhumain and senseless and advised that there was a significant risk of exploitation, including sexual, to newly arrived asylum applicants seeking to fund their travel to Croydon. That also includes individuals who have been refused asylum and are required to travel to Liverpool to submit a fresh claim. The Scottish Refuge Council has called for a home office to make use of its extensive network of local regional offices to make access in the system more accessible for new arrived destitute women, men, children to register a claim. The committee recognises that the UK Government and the Parliament only have the power to legislate on asylum and immigration and ask the Scottish Government to continue its negotiations with the home office to allow people who arrive in Scotland to be allowed to register a claim here in Scotland and to allow fresh claims for asylum to be submitted here in Scotland. Currently the national and local government and First Secretary of Finance are paying the price for the failure of the UK Government policies and the ineffective asylum process and the immigration system cannot go on. In particular, Glasgow City Council and First Secretary organisations cannot possibly sustain the level of services that they are currently providing without additional funding to help. Local authorities are cautious about becoming involved due to the lack of funding, but the success of a Syrian resettlement programme highlights what can be achieved when programmes are sufficiently funded and more local authorities become involved. There are many First Secretary organisations who have played a tremendous part in helping to meet the needs of destitute asylum seekers and those of insecure immigration status, but if necessary, they will simply be able to continue providing a survival assistance. I welcome recommendations in the report asking the Scottish Government, COSLA and the First sector partners to consider providing a fully funded, independent advocacy service for destitute asylum seekers and people with insecure immigration and the creation of a national corded practitioner's network. I firmly believe that early advocacy will result in long-term savings on health and social services while providing people with the best opportunity to start their integration process. A national corded practitioner's network comprising of representatives from across a number of sectors will enable all parties to share their best practice and highlight concerns regarding legislation and practice. We need to better understand and address issues that are forced by those coming to Scotland seeking asylum. We must also strive to combat misrepresentation, often attached to asylum seekers that they do not need to be destitute in this country. We can simply choose to return to their country of origin. This is unfair and unjust. Given the choice of most people who would choose to continue living in their home country but due to devastating situations and the events out of their control, finding themselves with no choice but to seek asylum and a safer life for their family in a different country. Many claimants have fled from terrible violence and hardships. We need to ensure that provision and successful delivery of help and support views seeking asylum need to continue learning, thriving and developing both mentally and socially. However, research shows that many barriers continue to impact on a daily basis, ranging from difficulty with travel costs to emotions restrained that day-to-day uncertainty brings, isolation and the feeling of disconnection to wider society can also hamper opportunities and, in turn, create further barriers. Too many asylum seekers are left with no knowledge of the means of securing their livelihood. Denied access to financial support or a right to work, they are often forced to adopt strategies to cope with no income and often without homes, while dealing with extreme levels of despair at long periods of time spent in the uncertainty of the asylum process. A high proportion of claimants report mental health issues, but this issue is substantially underreported in asylum seekers and refugee populations. A determined response is required to ensure that appropriate support is given through every stage of an asylum process to all asylum seekers living in Scotland when we are forced into destitution because of delays in the administration of a complex and inefficient asylum system. We must all work together to find solutions to the causes of destitution experienced by asylum claimants and improve efficiency as a matter of priority. In conclusion, the impending 2006 Immigration Act and Supplic Institute changes to support have a real potential to increase the issue of destitution for many who come here for a safer environment and risk exposing even more people to further trauma. I urge the Scottish Government to consider key findings and recommendations in their support and to undertake a Scottish-wide consultation. I look forward to the Scottish Government report that has been submitted to the committee in one year's time. Deputy Presiding Officer, I welcome today's debate following the publication of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee's report into Destitution, Asylum and Insecure Immigration. My colleagues from the Equalities and Human Rights Committee tell me of some of the moving evidence that they have heard on this issue, and we have heard more this afternoon. The issues that are raised in the report are serious and many of the solutions are sensible. I support the call for the creation of a Scottish anti-destitution strategy. If we want to create policies that mitigate destitution, then it is vital that we have more information on the scale and nature of the issue. I would also welcome the creation of an independent advocacy service for destitution destitute asylum seekers. Scaled advocacy can help mitigate the issue of destitution and exploitation as asylum seekers are directed to the right financial support and accommodation. Finally, the creation of a national co-ordinated practitioners framework would enable best practice to be shared among health boards, local authorities, Government officials and third sector organisations. However, I have some concerns about aspects of the latest report from the Equalities and Human Rights Committee. While its domestic focus brings to the four some significant issues, we must also consider the international picture. For the international response informs the domestic response. To put the actions of UK Government, Scottish Government and local authorities into context, we have to look at domestic policy and international policy in equal measure. The report mentions little of the humanitarian efforts of the UK Government in its response to the Syrian refugee crisis. The UK is the second largest donor and has committed over £2.46 billion to helping Syrian refugees in the region surrounding the war-torn country. If we break that figure down, we find that the UK has provided about 20 million food rations, four and a half million relief packages, two and a half million medical consultations and 400,000 shelters. British aid offers the greatest amount of help to the greatest number of Syrians who have fled to neighbouring countries. As Rob Williams, chief executive war child, estimated, caring for the basic needs of a refugee in Europe costs at least 10 times as much as in countries neighbouring Syria. In 2016, the House of Commons International Development Committee praised the UK Government's response as it discourages refugees from risking their lives on long, perilous journeys into Europe, sometimes on unseaworthy boats and often at the mercy of human traffickers. We hear almost daily, if not weekly, about tragedies in the Mediterranean. We must recognise the UK Government's attempt to find an alternative system that provides refugees a safer and more secure passage to Britain. Created in 2014, the vulnerable persons resettlement programme works in conjunction with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The programme is aimed at those refugees who cannot be supported in the region surrounding Syria, prioritising victims of sexual violence and torture, older people and disabled people. Under the programme, almost 5,500 Syrians were resettled in the UK between October 2015 and December 2016. Most importantly, refugee status is granted to individuals before they arrive in the UK. Upon arrival, the refugees should have immediate rights to work, to access welfare and to access public services such as health and education. As a result, the risk of destitution and insecure immigration is reduced. That is a major advantage of the vulnerable persons resettlement programme. The European Union is mirroring the UK's actions by taking steps to establish a system that supports targeted refugee settlement. As the European Commission stated in April 2016, the overall object is to move from a system that, by design or poor implementation, produces disproportionate responsibility on certain member states and encourages uncontrolled and irregular migratory flows to a fairer system that provides an orderly and safe pathway to the EU. Together, the UK and the EU are moving towards a more competent and more co-ordinated international response. With international effort transitioning from an asylum-seeking programme towards a refugee resettlement programme, it is hoped that the risk of destitution and insecure immigration will be lessened. The asylum and refugee crisis that we face across Europe is one of the biggest challenges of our time. We cannot help but be moved by the personal tragedies experienced by those fleeing conflict and persecution. To find a way forward, all levels of government must co-operate with one another and domestic policies should align with international response. In my closing remarks, I wish to recognise the efforts of those individuals who have offered their homes to those fleeing war zones or persecution. I also wish to recognise the work of dedicated refugee and asylum organisations in Scotland that have provided food, money, shelter and skilled advocacy support, and organisations such as Massive Outpouring of Love and Caffe DG2 in my constituency. The last of the contributions in the open debate is Sandra White. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I was hoping that it would be a consensual debate. I think that most people's contributions have been, but I honestly cannot take the hypocrisy from the Tory side here, who have caused more misery in suffering with their cuts to asylum seekers' help and destitution. Perhaps they would let people in with some questions, who might have got some more answers from them. When you stand and support a Government that goes about with a big white man telling refugees that they should go home, I really cannot praise them. All I can do is highlight the hypocrisy from which they come from. I want to thank all the many, many people who have helped over the years including myself, if you do not mind me, for the work that has been done since the late 90s. The first tranche of asylum seekers' refugees coming not just to Glasgow but Lanarkshire as well, and Dengaville, where the Presiding Officer, myself and many others, were instrumental in closing Dengaville down, but it took a long time and a long number of years. The many groups and organisations who absolutely went out, demonstrated, fought, cajoled, whatever it may be, to ensure that people who came to this country were treated with dignity and respect, particularly in the first tranche when Glasgow, Sighthill and other areas, people were quite frightened, did not know what was happening and people were there to reconcile and integration came about on behalf of the fantastic Glasgow girls and others as well. It can work when people are treated with respect and dignity and that is why I want to thank the committee for the report. I think that it is a fantastic report and bringing this debate forward has been absolutely great. The contributions apart from the Tories have been absolutely excellent, I believe. One of the issues that I feel particularly strongly about is the fact that people do not have to go down to Croydon or Liverpool. That recommendation is something that myself and many other groups and individuals have been calling for for years and years and years. I sincerely hope that that recommendation will be delivered. I understand that we cannot just deliver it ourselves as immigration asylum is reserved to Westminster, unfortunately, but I am sure that if the two Governments can work together, we can look forward to that recommendation being put forward. People are facing a traumatic experience, and I thank Mary Fee for her contribution in that respect of what happens to people coming here and then they have to go to Croydon or Liverpool. It must be absolutely frightening when you have come from that to go down there, and you do not even know that in here also. I really do want to make sure, hopefully, that that recommendation will be forthcoming. A number of MSPs members mentioned Christine McKelvie and David Torrance and mentioned the situation of mental health aspects. The impact that destitution can have on people with mental health problems, not necessarily even when they arrived here, just the traumatising of that person from what they went through. I would like to give an example of one of the many—I am sure that other people here, members here, get this in their postbox or phone—and I want to give you one example of that. It was a lecturer from a college that would not be named who the person is or who the college is. He contacted me and asked for my advice regarding one of their ESL students at the college. I will just say he, so I will not give any indication if it is a he or she. They have been in the UK now for almost six years. He said that he would really want to ask for your advice. He could request that. He is an asylum seeker, but during the entire time that he has been here, he has not received any support from the Home Office, no accommodation, financial assistance, nor the right to work to support himself, which I fully support in the report. I admit that it is rather unusual, but it seems that some asylum seekers qualify, and some do not, depending on whether it has been accepted via the Home Office. This particular person was involved in the trafficking case. He was given 48 hours to leave his temporary accommodation, which was provided for by the charity Migrant Help. That has rendered him completely homeless and, again, without any financial support. Meanwhile, his lawyer has planned to make a fresh claim for his asylum, but, during this entire time, his mental health is in rapid decline, he has barely eaten in the past three weeks, he has barely slept, and in his own words, he has given up on life. I do not know if there is anything that you can do under these circumstances. It is obvious that the lecturer is emailing me, but I find it appalling that there is absolutely no safety net for vulnerable people under his circumstances. The Red Cross, positive action housing, which has already been mentioned, were helpful in terms of support, but do not have the resources to provide accommodation for him, whereas a silent case can be reopened. I generally fear that he will take his own life as a result of being trapped in the system for so many years and unable to help himself in any way. Please, can you bring it to the attention of others? This is humane and fair to expect someone to live off nothing. If there is any way that they can be assisted, I would be very, very grateful. I just recently got the email back in after having contacted the lawyer and various organisations. Thank you for your help. He was admitted to Leavendale hospital. I am not sure how long he will stay here, but he is still very stressed and is as far as I can see without hope. That is the reality of being a destitute asylum seeker here just now, not just in Scotland but in the UK also. I really sincerely thank the committee for the report, and I am sure that we in Scotland can do something about it. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. We now move to the closing speeches, and I call on Pauli McNeill. He can give you up to seven minutes. I would like to wholeheartedly welcome the excellent report of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee. I believe that the recommendations that you have made and the oral evidence that you took will make a significant contribution to the work of this Parliament and an area that many of us care very deeply about. More than that, I do not think that the report could come at a more crucial time than it has now. Calling for an anti-destitution strategy in many of the recommendations could never be more timely. As many other speakers have said, the world that we live in right now, a world that we are not perhaps proud of but help to curate ourselves, where 65 million people are forcing their homes, 21 million of their refugees, and staggeringly half of those are under the age of 18. 10 million are stateless, denied in nationality, and we know that 53 per cent of those refugees come from countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, where we have had an involvement and Somalia. I would like to mention that the Palestinian refugee population, which until recently had been the largest refugee population in the world, and that tragically many Palestinian refugees who fled to Syria in 1948 and 1967 have now been displaced two or three times because of the Syrian conflict. However, as others have eloquently talked about, many reasons why people flee their own countries, domestic violence, persecution on the grounds of sexuality, where they come to seek sanctuary in a foreign country with which they usually have no connection. To be that person so desperate that you brave it all, in fact, brave your own life arriving in a foreign country with nothing, suffering and really there must be a lot of darkness in any person's life who is prepared to do that to get a better life. As the report says, destitution is built into the UK asylum process. It is inevitable as the immigration system is designed to be hostile for those who do not have a legal right to be here. However, I think that there is some consensus among some speakers here this afternoon that what the system lacks, built into the system, is a human approach. It lacks humanity, because once a person is destitute, they are much harder to find. Quoting from the report, Graham O'Neill from the Scottish Revenue Council said that there was a significant risk of exploitation to any new member arriving in a country. Annie Wells talked about young girls' human traffic from other countries who are extremely vulnerable, and we have a moral obligation to those young women. They go into a twilight world, and we do not always know how they get to Croydon as what Graham O'Neill went on to say, or how they fund it. I suppose that when you think about it, how does a person who has never been to the UK before have no friends, no connections, find Croydon in the first place? I could not tell you where it is, I could tell you what it is on the map. Find the funds, travel there, make their application, is obviously designed to put that person off. I really want to get behind the committee's recommendation that registering in Scotland to me is a basic human requirement, because whether your legal claim for asylum meets the test or not is what matters here. It should not really matter where you turn up to make that claim. The law will decide whether or not, under our rules, you are an asylum seeker and treated as a refugee. The report explains really well an important issue of age-disputed children and children travelling alone. Of course, when a young person comes here, there will be an age assessment on arrival. As the report says, many children are simply feared telling their stories and you really have to get the conditions right in order to get that information out of a young person or a child. Of course, being a child, asylum seeker affects the type of support and the level of support that he gets, so it does not matter whether we are able to have a system that determines that. I have talked in this Parliament before about a young eight-year-old boy in a gym that I met in Calais refugee camp two years ago. I was asked to help to find his family in London, and I would say that he is now safely with his family, not to my effort particularly, because I have to say that the system did work that children are being reunited with their families, and I am so pleased about that. The issue of unaccompanied asylum seeker children is something that requires some more attention. There can be no one more passionate or compassionate on the subject, as the cabinet secretary talked about this afternoon, than Lord Dubbs and the scheme that he helped to create, meaning that even more children, not enough as far as I am concerned, are coming to Britain. I believe that Britain can take many more child refugees, and although I welcome the £480 that we have, I would prefer to see that number increase quite dramatically. Some of the recommendations that the committee has made, which I want to mention, I think that the advocacy service is a superb idea, and I want to wholeheartedly support that, the right to make an application in Scotland, which I have talked about, but the right to do paid or unpaid work, which is a long-standing, outstanding issue that does need addressed. The reason that an advocacy service is very important when you are trying to prevent destitution in an asylum-seeking system is that every person would get access to some guidance to see their way through the system. Of course, that is distinct from legal representation, and I think that that would provide a central role in preventing more people becoming lost or hidden and becoming destitute because they would be signposted along the way into the actual process and how it works. I have talked about the right to make an application in Scotland, the right to paid work or unpaid work. I believe that that is for some time, and if you have ever had any insight into the life of someone seeking asylum or how despairing it is to be unproductive, you will understand how important that recommendation is. I will conclude with this. I will say that in seven minutes. Many members of the UN Committee on Detention met with some members of this Parliament earlier on this year. It convinced me that we have a poor record in the way that we detain people, such as Sandra White, if campaigns were unable to be closed. I believe that it is a fundamental right of every democratic elected member to go to any prison or any place of detention. I have written to David Mundell about this. I have not had a reply. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that that is because of the election, but following that election, I expect, as an elected member of this Parliament, to go and inspect the conditions of which people being detained in our country are. I call Donald Cameron in around seven minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be able to close this debate for the Scottish Conservatives today and to reiterate the comments of others across the chamber in terms of our shared commitment to do whatever we can to support reasonable and workable actions that help to support some of the most vulnerable people in our societies. Annie Wells has said that we will be supporting the committee motion tonight. We recognise that it is absolutely essential in this area above all for the Scottish Government and the UK Government to work together. I entirely support what Christina McKelvie said in her statement in that regard and also thank her for the tone in which she opened the debate. Debates like this are often peppered with passions and rightly so. It is a sensitive and highly important matter and should be treated as such. I was very struck by the individual stories of hardship and struggle in the committee report, which we should of course take into account some of those stories that were incredibly moving. As Gail Ross said, it is quite right that we think of people rather than statistics. We also need to balance this with the evidence to hand. I would like to do that in my closing remarks, because there are many elements of the report that I believe are very worthwhile and should be taken forward. One issue dear to my heart is the proposal of a new advocacy service, which the report asks the Government to consider. It has been mentioned by many people already. One of the most formative experiences of my professional life was appearing in the asylum and immigration tribunal, as it was then called. My early years as an advocate in Botol Street in Glasgow and representing asylum seekers there. My first observation is that the rules and regulations surrounding immigration law are formidable and hugely complicated and very difficult for anyone, let alone a lawyer, to navigate. However, my second observation is just how difficult it is when representing asylum seekers for those applicants to argue their cases successfully. How much more so would that be true if such an asylum seeker met the legal definition of being destitute? I think that the proposal for an independent advocacy service is to be welcomed. Deputy Presiding Officer, I want to focus the rest of my comments on healthcare. I feel that this is a significantly important area when considering how we support refugees, asylum seekers and, in particular, those who find themselves being destitute. In the report of the committee notes that some people who have come to the UK carry transmittable diseases such as TB, HIV AIDS and others. Quite plainly, that poses a very serious health issue for the individual carrying such a disease. In the report, it notes that many of the barriers faced by people with such conditions to receiving treatment. Issues include the distance to health centres, access to a GP, issues with contact between the patient and health workers and, crucially, the willingness of a patient seeking treatment. Treating HIV and AIDS is particularly difficult because of the cultural perceptions and stigma that continue to exist around the condition. Whilst that is true to some extent in general societies, it exacerbated among migrant communities, and in particular those from sub-Saharan African communities. Many find themselves embarrassed about the condition and are worried about others within their own community finding out. As the HIV and hepatitis C charity Waverly Care noted, those who find themselves living with friends or accessing shelter homes have less privacy and are at greater risk of refusing to take HIV medication as a result. Like others, I would also like to note the impact on mental health as a result of destitution. The report indicates the variety of serious examples that contribute to diminished mental health, such as young female asylum seekers being trafficked and individuals suffering from domestic servitude. Indeed, the Glasgow psychological trauma service notes in the report that mental health gets worse because of destitution, which then exacerbates such pre-existing mental health issues. I also feel that it would be pertinent to raise here the final substantial healthcare concern documented in the committee's report, which is the issue of maternity services for those who find themselves destitute. As the report notes, many pregnant women feel reluctant to talk about their pregnancy and some feel shame about it for various reasons. That poses a serious set of risks to women, including an increased incidence of maternal death due to an underlying condition or complexities during birth because of undisclosed conditions. The report also focuses on the issue of FGM, which this Parliament has quite properly discussed at length in the past. If the Scottish Government does indeed intend to take forward the report recommendation to create a Scottish anti-destitution strategy, I believe that the issues of tackling stigma, whether that be around mental health, treatment of transmittable diseases or pregnancy that can exist in some migrant communities, would require further examination and inclusion in such a strategy. In closing, I want to quickly touch on some of the remarks that were made by various people across the chamber. Annie Wells would like to welcome the fact that she has written to the UK Government today to consider whether it is possible for claims to be lodged in Scotland. Other speakers include Finlay Carson, who put into context the dimension of what is happening internationally and, quite rightly, put on record what the UK Government has done in terms of their efforts there. Pauline McNeill spoke with great passion and sympathy about migrant arriving here and the destitution that they face and the complexity of the system that meets them. I was very struck by her contribution. It is clear that we continue to live in an uncertain world with many unstable regions. United Kingdom Scotland will continue to be a beacon of hope for many people looking for a better life. In Scotland, we need to use the powers that this Parliament possesses to support people who choose to make Scotland their home. I reiterate the importance of ensuring that we have a suitable and specific strategy that deals with issues such as mental and public health in order to achieve that. We cannot always solve or eliminate every cause and circumstance that leads to destitution, but we can employ measures that can help to get people into a more stable environment for their benefit and for the benefit of Scotland as a whole. The convener of the committee opened the debate saying that, first and foremost, we should be approaching this debate today and the issue at hand about destitution in the immigration and asylum system with humanity in our hearts and minds. I agree with that sentiment that, first and foremost, we are dealing with a humanitarian issue and, as Pauline Neill outlined in many cases, a humanitarian crisis that we have seen across the world, with the biggest displacement of people since World War 2. Mary Fee spoke about how destitution is built into the immigration and asylum system, and I agree with that. When you look at the statistics provided by the British Red Cross, who in 2013 said that 72 out of the 539 people that they dealt with, 13 per cent were living in destitution. How that in 2016 has increased to 49 per cent. When you look at 870 destitute individuals out of the 1,600 individuals that they worked with, they are dealing with an increase in proportion of people in need but also an increase in proportion of people facing dire distribution. Annie Wells said in her remarks that she would be holding the Scottish Government to account with regard to the human trafficking strategy and other matters. That is fair enough and quite right too, but I do have to stress that that will also be reciprocated in terms of members across the UK Government. Jeremy Balfour said something really interesting. He said that we cannot take a simplistic approach to this issue and that we should not just focus on one or two issues. I agree with that, because I believe that it is clear that the asylum system needs wholesale change. We in this Government are not shy in seeking out the UK Government, but we have to reciprocate. We need to get out of the situation where it is the Government that is always chasing the UK Government to meet or chasing up replies to our correspondence. I hope that Ms Wells gets a speedy reply to her letter. The Scottish Government will continue to do what it can to support people facing destitution, and we will continue to work for an approach that is based on fairness, dignity, partnership and prevention. I did hear the glib remark that, if the Scottish Government wants to mitigate, we can. Of course, we can and do mitigate with our support to the Scottish Refugee Council, Positive Action, Housing and others, but what we should be about throughout our partnership work is preventing destitution in the first place. In my view, there should be a holistic end-to-end system of support to ensure that people who are seeking asylum do not end up penniless in our street. The Scottish Government, local government and the third sector are already being left to pick up the pieces of the current system. Of course, we want to do what we can—indeed, as someone said earlier—a real moral imperative. However, we pair taxes to the UK Government and we have a right to expect that those services that are currently reserved have a right to expect that fairness, dignity and respect and prevention should be part of those services. We have the right to demand and expect that preventing destitution at source should be what we are all aiming for. As Mary Fee outlined in her contribution, the situation will only get worse when asylum support provisions in the Immigration Act 2016 are implemented and support is cut further still, including to families. We will also see the increasing criminalisation as well. I will not have time to go through all 28 recommendations from the committee's report, but I will reiterate what I said in my opening remarks, that we will look at all the recommendations sympathetically and look at them with a can-do approach, while recognising the legal limitation of our powers. I note that six or seven of the recommendations are reserved to the UK Government, but the committee has asked the Scottish Government to negotiate to try and work in partnership with the UK Government over things such as extending the destitute domestic violence concession and with regard to the issue of the right to work. Christina McKelvie I thank you for taking intervention on that point. Obviously, the right to work is one way to enable people not to have to face destitution at all. I wonder if the cabinet secretary is aware that just today the Irish Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban refugees from working in Ireland, and maybe we should take lessons from Ireland and use that in our negotiations with the United Kingdom Government. Christina McKelvie Well, here, in the Irish Supreme Court, I would be interested to know what the UK Supreme Court would make of such a challenge, but we will indeed, as a Government, look at our Irish friends and neighbours and look at that issue closely. The fundamental point here is that I actually believe that all human beings and citizens should have the right to work. Work is part of who we are, it is part of our identity. What comes across to me, time and time again, when I meet refugees or asylum seekers, they not only want to start a new life in Scotland, but they want to make a contribution to their communities and to their new country. We should not be hindering them from doing so. I know that my time is running short. I do not want to eat into the vice convener of the committee his time to sum up, but I just want to end on the point about the UK Government's U-turn on the Dubs amendment. To me, that is tantamount to turning her back on children at risk. Children at real risk of peril. The point that I would have put Finlay Carson if he had taken an intervention is that, currently, in Turpole, 10,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, 10,000, have went missing over the past two years. Where are they? How can we stand by and just think that it's all right for 10,000 children to go missing? Those children face the perils of abuse, exploitation, human trafficking. He spoke, as did other members, about showing some love in our policies, whether it's a response to the international crisis that's surrounding or in our domestic policy. What about those 10,000 children that have went missing? Where are they, Presiding Officer? While I note that the UK Government, in its recent manifesto, now says that it wants to offer asylum and refuge to people in parts of the world affected by conflict and oppression rather than those who have made it to Britain. What does that say about the people who have come here via routes involving human trafficking? What about those children who have come via clandestine routes? How are they fed? How are they supported? What does that say about the human trafficking strategy across the UK? What does that say in the name of humanity? I just want to reiterate to the committee that the Scottish Government will indeed do what we can to be coming to this issue with solutions. I hope and would like to hope that, seeing the evidence that the committee has painstakingly gathered, the new UK Government would also consider the damage that its asylum and immigration policies are causing to people, people who are only trying to find what we all want and need, a safe place to live, a safe place to raise our families and to make a contribution to our community and to our country. I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate in my role as deputy convener for the Equalities and Human Rights Committee. This is the first time that I have had the privilege to undertake the summation of business led by my committee. I am very much looking forward to the challenge of closing on such an important and wide-ranging debate. Given the reserved and devolved aspects of the subject area of our inquiry and the proximity of the general election, it is inevitable that the debate has generated some exchanges. However, in bringing this debate to a close, I thank members from all parties for the conciliatory tone that I think that we can all agree has been adopted in this debate. I want to re-emphasise that the purpose of our inquiry, which is to understand why those, in many cases fleeing conflict or persecution overseas, can become destitute in this country and what can be done to mitigate their plight. I also want to put on record my thanks to our convener, Christine McKelvie, the committee members, our clerks and the officials who service so well. We work very well together in examining the evidence before us, each of us getting to grips, which is what is a very complex system in terms of asylum and immigration in our country, in order to gain a clearer understanding of those issues. We also talked to a number of people on the front line, as well as those in need of support, so we could reflect on what actions the Scottish Government might take to improve their situation. I am very gratified to hear the cabinet secretary reflect on those in her closing remarks. I want to underline what the convener said at the beginning of the debate, that the destitution of asylum seekers and those with insecure immigration status in no recourse to public funds represents a humanitarian issue. One that is being measured out in the lived experience of thousands of people in our society on the edge, in many cases of crushing poverty and social isolation. We have heard some heart-rending stories today in that context. To put that in perspective, the UN global poverty target for developing countries is $1.25 a day. Destitute people have no access to money, and this is a shocking realisation in this, our country, one of the world's wealthiest nations. It has been heartening to listen to the consensus in the chamber this afternoon, I think that was remarked on by Donald Cameron a few moments ago. There have been a variety of well-made points, but above all, there is a general agreement that action has to be taken to ensure that vulnerable people are not forced into destitution to become more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. We are fortunate that non-governmental third sector and charitable organisations, alongside public services, have provided vital support to fill that gap. However, that is not sustainable. A co-ordinated national approach is required, not least because there is potential for wider dispersal of asylum seekers for the compounding existing issues. I would like to thank Christina McKelvie for her opening remarks. She rightly referenced the disparity in things such as the application of child protection legislation, which I will come on to again later, particularly in respect of unaccompanied children seeking asylum, and in the shattering poverty that those with no recourse to public funds experience. I also very much welcome the intervention that she made just now on the cabinet secretary bringing with it, as she did, news from the Irish Supreme Court, which, with impeccable timing, have today ruled that asylum seekers should be able to work in the Republic of Ireland, something that I would like to see in this United Kingdom as well. The cabinet secretary, in her opening remarks, spoke very eloquently of the successes of the Syrian resettlement programme and how our country meets the integration of such refugees with compassion and friendship. Mary Fee reminded us in harrowing terms of the plight of female asylum seekers and the great difficulties that they face in the actual link between insecure immigration status and abuse. That was a theme that was developed in an excellent speech by Gail Ross when she talked about the particular inequity of the way in which the current system sees women have to stay with abusive partners so as to avoid that immigration trap. Presiding officer, if you will permit me, I will make a number of observations on the committee's recommendations and considerations that I hope will inform the chamber still further. On the asylum process, we were given a clear message that destitution is built into the UK asylum process. Newly arrived asylum applicants are vulnerable to exploitation, including sexual exploitation, to fund travel to access the asylum process in Croydon. It was particularly gratifying to hear Annie Wells call on her own home office to change practices so that asylum cases can be heard here in Scotland. If it happens, it will answer the challenge outlined to us by David Torrance. I will indeed. Alex Cole-Hamilton agreed with me that it is very disappointing that no member of the UK Government could come to committee to give evidence. Alex Cole-Hamilton? It was an indictment of the UK Government that no member of that department was forthcoming. I think that there were some very searching questions that still need to be answered by the UK Government, but we will persist in putting those to them. It was also nice to hear Sandra White recognise that Annie Wells' call on the home office to change processes in that way. We know that people arriving in Northern Ireland do not have to travel to Croydon to make an initial claim, and it is unacceptable that destitute vulnerable people arriving in Scotland are forced to continue in the UK. What will have already been a very difficult journey. Asylum seekers are most at risk of experiencing destitution when their claim had been refused and they had no recourse to public funds. Even those who had been granted refugee status are required to vacate their asylum accommodation after 28 days and find themselves homeless. They are without access to support because of delays in accessing benefits. Another significant theme in the disparity between the dispersal system and the vulnerable person's resettlement programme. 31 out of 32 councils were taking part in the Syrian vulnerable person's resettlement programme. Many of the witnesses held up the resettlement programme as a gold-sanded approach. I think that, as Ross Greer made the point, it gives the lie to the UK Government's suggestion that there is a lack of capacity in UK local authorities to take vulnerable children as per the Dubs amendment. In contrast, local authorities were apprehensive about taking part in the wider asylum dispersal, as they do not currently have experience, knowledge or resources—a point taken up later by Jeremy Balfour, when he referenced the lack of training, information and use of guidance in local authorities at a grass-roots level. I should point out to Mr Balfour, however, that he expresses concern that the legal advice to asylum seekers is still concentrated in the central belt. I hope, therefore, that he will very much come in behind Annie Wells' call of the Home Office to change the rules and processes around hearing asylum outside of Croydon and perhaps in Scotland. We are concerned that a two-tier system as such is being created, which will seriously damage the prospect of integration for those left destitute. Furthermore, the committee learned of the historic disparity of how various local authorities and social workers in terms of the application of looked-after children's status to young and accompanied asylum seekers who present to local authorities in Scotland. That was a theme that was picked up in her closing remarks by Pauline McNeill. We need to be absolutely clear in guidance and training that those young people who appear on our shores should immediately afford a status of being in care and, with it, the after-care that this entails, particularly important to victims of child trafficking, who, as we know, face being re-trafficked if they are not given adequate support. My time is very short, so I will conclude by saying, Presiding Officer, that today's debate has shone a light on a hidden crisis in our society. I trust that members of the Scottish Government will reflect on the committee's evidence and our recommendations, and to see the debate as a turning point, if you like—a watershed moment. We look forward to considering the Government's response to the committee's report. I wish to emphasise that we are committed to monitoring progress throughout this parliamentary session so that we can confirm that there has been a positive shift from hidden lives to new beginnings. I commend the report and the evidence that the committee has gathered to the Parliament. Thank you. That concludes our debate on hidden lives and new beginnings. We turn now to our next item of business, which is decision time, and there is one question to be put as a result of today's business. The question is that motion 5802, in the name of Christina McKelvie, on behalf of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, is agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move to members' business in the name of Jackie Baillie. We will just take a few moments for members to change seats.