 The next item of business is a debate on motion 8680 in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville on a legal migration bill. I'd be grateful if members who wish to speak in the debate could press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Shirley-Anne Somerville to speak to and move the motion up to 15 minutes, cabinet secretary. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I move the motion in my name. I welcome the opportunity to open this very important debate on the UK Government's illegal migration bill. I want to be very clear at the outset that the Scottish Government condemns the cruel and inhumane provisions in this bill, and has written to the UK Government to urge them to scrap it entirely. The UK Government's view is that this bill is entirely reserved. However, by their own admission, the impact of this proposed legislation is UK-wide, with specific effects on local authorities for which responsibilities are devolved. The Scottish Government was given no opportunity to comment and consider these proposals properly before their introduction, given the subject matter and the pace at which this bill is being rushed through the Commons. It is an important debate for this Parliament to be having, so that we can take this opportunity to debate the bill and the consequences of it. The bill will also amend the powers and duties of Scottish ministers to provide support and assistance to victims and potential victims of human trafficking under the Human Trafficking Exploitation Scotland Act 2015. Clause 23 and 27 of the bill, for instance, clearly changed the powers and duties of the Scottish Government. Clause 19 of the bill is also aimed at having an effect on devolved services to care for looked-after children. Any regulations that would amend, repeal or revoke any Scottish legislation on any devolved matter should be subject to the consent of Scottish ministers or, at the very least, the consultation of Scottish ministers. Therefore, I can confirm to Parliament that we will lodge a legislative consent motion shortly on this bill and I will be writing to the UK Government today to inform them of her intention to do so. The UK has international obligations that it must uphold. The 1951 UN Refugee Convention, to which the UK was a founding signatory, requires the UK Government to ensure the rights of refugees are respected and protected. The UN Refugee Agency has stated that the UK's Government's illegal migration bill would be a clear breach of the Refugee Convention and would undermine a long-standing humanitarian tradition of which the British people are rightly proud. I would agree with that statement. Countries have both an obligation to offer a place of safety to desperate people fleeing conflict and persecution because it is enshrined in international law and a moral obligation and because it is the right and the fair thing to do. Not only does the bill run counter to the Refugee Convention, it also risks breaching the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. As is well known, Sir David Maxwell Fife, who was instrumental in drafting the ECHR, was a Scottish MP and an eminent lawyer. He was also Home Secretary under Winston Churchill and it was Churchill's... We seem to be experiencing some technical difficulties with your microphone if you could just bear with me for a moment. The cabinet secretary can ask if you would mind just continuing and let's see how we go. Okay, we shall try. I'm happy to move seats if required, Presiding Officer, but we'll give it a go for now. As is well known, I have no idea actually how much the chamber has heard, but I'll carry on from where I think I left off. As is well known, Sir David Maxwell Fife was an instrumental individual in drafting the ECHR and was a Scottish MP and an eminent lawyer. He was also Home Secretary under Winston Churchill and it was Churchill's Conservative Government that ensured the United Kingdom was the first signatory to the convention in 1951. Yet here we are in 2023 and the current Home Secretary has enabled to provide an assurance that her proposed legislation complies with that same convention. That is quite frankly an appalling state of affairs. The rights established by the convention are written into Scotland's devolution settlement and have been fundamental to the work of this Parliament for more than two decades. The convention's rights provide fundamental constitutional safeguards which ensure the executive powers cannot be abused. Scottish ministers, for example, have no power to act in a way that is incompatible with the convention rights. Legislation passed by this Parliament is not law if it fails the same test. Thanks to the Human Rights Act, which, of course, the current UK Government remains intent on repealing, similar constraints apply more widely to all public authorities. It is unlawful for any public authority to act incompatibly with those same convention rights and, crucially, human rights breaches can be directly challenged in the courts. The reality is that the Home Secretary and her colleagues are intent on depriving us all of the protections enshrined in the Human Rights Act and in Scotland's constitutional settlement. It does bigger belief that destitute migrants who are fleeing war and repression together with victims of human trafficking may be the specific target of the illegal migration bill. I'm very grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for taking my intervention. She's absolutely right. The vast majority of those people who are forced to take to the small boats across the channel have in large majority a genuine claim to asylum on the shores and a fleeing unimaginable atrocity. Does she agree with me that the nomenclature of the bill that is being debated by the UK Parliament, the illegal migration bill, suggests that this is otherwise? This is actually people looking to come to this country for reasons other than persecution and fleeing death and tyranny. I very much agree with the point that Alex Cole-Hamilton makes. The narrative that this is giving on this entire issue around immigration, migration and refugees is something that is deeply concerning. There is a deliberate attempt by the UK Government to confuse terms and confuse the British public on our responsibilities. I also think that the British public's desire to continue for all of the UK to be a welcoming nation. I very much associate myself with his remarks. The Scottish Government has repeatedly raised concerns about the UK Government's Nationality and Borders Act and new plan for immigration. The illegal migration bill deepens the already significant damage to the UK's reputation as a place of refuge and further denies our credibility with international partners. It is clear that this new legislation will not achieve the change that is desperately needed in our asylum and immigration systems and that is to make it more humane and to make it fit for purpose. The UK Government's illegal migration bill also applies to the most people who will claim asylum and criminalise some of the most vulnerable in our society. However, the inhumanity of this bill is most evident in how it mistreats children, denying them the right to feel safe and the right to live a happy, full childhood. Under the bill, the Secretary of State is not required to make arrangements to remove any accompanied child from the UK until they turn 18 years old. However, there is the power to do so. It does not provide the safe uncertainty that children require so that they can rebuild their lives in the UK. It effectively reverses the ban on childhood detention, implemented under the UK Coalition Government in 2014, and will potentially give the UK Government powers to imprison children in immigration centres and deport unaccompanied children to a third country where they have no connections or family. That is shocking, and not something that anyone should support. The UK Government does all that it can to mitigate whatever possible harms the bill causes. It highlighted the UNCRC as one area where we need action on that. Does the cabinet secretary recognise the importance of the incorporation of the UNCRC in relation to the bill and other areas and when the bill will be brought back? I very much welcome Pam Duncan-Glancy to her new role and I still hope that we will still be having discussions like this across the chamber because there are areas of great interest and UNCRC is one of them. I recognise the importance of it. Clearly, we are at a position that we require, as the Scottish Government, to work with the UK Government to see if we can find amendments to that bill that will cause no other concerns and issues with that. As we move forward to our reconsideration stage, that work is on going with the UK Government. There is no one more impatient than me to get that in front of the chamber once again and get that moving, given that I also have responsibility for that and the human rights bill that I am keen to be working on as well. I share her frustration in this issue, but it is important that the Governments work together to see if we can make progress. Amendments tabled by the UK Government on Friday will see age disputed young people automatically considered an adult if they refuse to undergo contentious scientific age assessments. We are seriously concerned about the ethical implications of subjecting children to these techniques and also about their capacity to accurately assess age. Those methods have no place in Scotland. Like all children, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children should have access to the full care, support and protection of children's legislation. We continue to scrutinise what the bill will mean for vulnerable children and victims of human trafficking who flee to the UK for a place of safety. We fear that it will place these already vulnerable children at further risk of trafficking and exploitation. We are aware of acute pressures on accommodating unaccompanied asylum-seeking children across the UK, and the Scottish Government is working with the Home Office, COSLA and operational partners to work through solutions to the acute pressures being faced. Let's be clear that the UK Government's bill is not part of that solution. Scottish local authorities have consistently shown their willingness to assist vulnerable young asylum seekers who arrive in the country alone. As of the end of March, almost 290 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children have been transferred to Scotland through the national transfer scheme since July 2021. We are committed to providing the safety and security that young asylum seekers need to rebuild their lives, and in April launched the statutory independent child trafficking guardianship service to support unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who may have been victim of or may be vulnerable to becoming a victim of human trafficking. The bill from the UK Government also punishes innocent families, children and victims of human trafficking. The bill will restrict access to support for many refugees and victims of human trafficking without even having the dignity of having their case heard. Those people are the most vulnerable in the world and should be welcomed, supported and protected. To remove their ability to access vital support to assist with recovery from their horrific experiences is utterly inconceivable in our systems, surely. Trafficking victims are often suffering from severe trauma. They have little choice about their movements and are frequently unaware of their location or even how they entered the country. Removing existing protections based on how they entered the UK is irresponsible and will make the victims much less likely to seek help, therefore tightening the grip of perpetrator. The Scottish Government remains committed to providing support and assistance to those who identified as potential victims of human trafficking and residing in Scotland. That is why we are providing the trafficking awareness, raising alliance and migrant help with funding to support their very important work. We also need wholesale reform of the UK Government's silent system. It is needed because it should be built on principles of fairness, dignity and respect. The UK needs a silent system that is effective, efficient and delivers for people who are highly vulnerable. That system needs to ensure that silent claims are assessed on whether people meet the criteria for recognition as a refugee as set out in the refugee convention. That is someone who is outside the country of their nationality because of a well-founded fear of persecution and is unable to avail themselves of the protection of their country or nationality. The UK Government must also urgently provide clarity on the funding available to local authorities and other partners who are providing vital support on the ground for asylum seekers, including children. As part of a reformed asylum system, safe and legal routes must exist in the UK for people in search of safety and protection from war and persecution. That is the only realistic way to disrupt the business model that human traffickers use to exploit already vulnerable people seeking refuge. However, the bill proposes to cap the number of people who can come to the UK on any safe route while going further to push people that need protection into exploitation and destitution. Other resettlement states from Canada to Finland to New Zealand are adding growing targets to already large per capita programmes. There is strong policy and funding support by the European Union for all third country pathways with multiple projects, each generating new, mutually reinforcing networks. At the very least, the UK Government should expand UNHRC-referred resettlement routes and add additional legal pathways, focusing on education, employment, humanitarian corridors, family reunification and community sponsorship. I have had the opportunity today to highlight some of the grave concerns that this Government has over the bill. Scotland is stronger for our multiculturalism and non-UK citizens are an important part of our country's future. That is why we condemn unreservedly the UK Government's illegal migration bill as cruel and unnecessary. We will continue to urge the UK Government not to progress the bill but instead to deliver a humane, flexible asylum and immigration system. That is what I think the British people expect. It is certainly what the Scottish Parliament I hope would expect following our debate this afternoon. Members will wish to be aware that there will be time given back where interventions are taken this afternoon. I now call on Paul O'Kane to speak to and move amendment 8680.19. In opening this afternoon's debate on behalf of the Scottish Labour, I want to state our clear opposition to the UK Conservative Government's illegal migration bill. That is a pernicious piece of legislation that strips vital protections from some of the most vulnerable and further tannises the international reputation of Britain and diminishes our standing in the world. Compassion, tolerance and support for human rights are the values that I recognise for Britain in a global world, not this. That legislation has rightly been condemned in the House of Commons by my colleague, the Shadow Home Secretary, Evette Cooper, who described the bill as a con that risks making the chaos worse. Labour voted against the bill in the House of Commons, as well as trying to pass amendments to block the passage of the bill to its next stage. It is clear that the bill is not a solution. It is an ideologically motivated assault on the rights of people fleeing warfare, persecution and human trafficking. It is another example of this Government's cruel approach. It follows the Nationality and Borders Act, which led to the creation of the Rwanda scheme, a scheme that breaches international law and the refugee convention. Even by the Tory's own standards, the Rwanda scheme has been shown to be unworkable and a waste of taxpayers' money. The idea that you can offshore asylum claims to another country over 4,000 miles away is both cruel and absurd in equal measure. The impulse to travel, to cross borders, to seek safety and to establish a more peaceful and prosperous life has been a facet of human behaviour since the beginning of time. Indeed, for many of us in this Parliament, it is part of our own story, whether my own ancestors fleeing hunger or others who came to these shores leaving behind war, discrimination or violence. The Tories need to recognise that we do not exist in isolation. We are part of an increasingly interconnected world. Indeed, the world is becoming smaller as we become more connected. The reality is that we live in a world that is still deeply unequal, with persecution, violence and warfare being a very real threat for a significant percentage of the global population. People will seek to migrate and find asylum in safer, more prosperous nations. Like the many who have gone before us, placing all they have to the peril of unforgiving seas, risking everything for a place of sanctuary. We need a Government that is focused on solutions, not fixated on stoking division and playing a political game with people's life. That is why Labour has called on the UK Government to create more safe, legal routes for people seeking asylum and to provide additional resources to the Home Office to help process the backlog of asylum applications. The criticism of the UK Government's proposals has been widespread, with third sector organisations roundly condemning the plans as poorly conceived, unethical and impractical. The International Rescue Committee has stated and I quote, The bill will not stop small boats crossing the channel, it will only add to the trauma of the people in those boats, while further damaging Britain's global reputation for fairness and compassion. Amnesty International has concluded and I quote that there is nothing fair, humane or even practical in this plan, whereas liberty have described the bill as a shocking attack on the rule of law. Here in Scotland, the Scottish Refugee Council has described the bill as being a tool to dehumanise asylum seekers and IPPR has described the plans as impractical and unethical. To Ella Braverman, the Home Secretary herself has acknowledged that there is a more than 50 per cent chance that the provisions break international human rights law. Really? Is that how low we have stooped? It is outrageous, Presiding Officer, and the Conservative Party should be utterly ashamed. It seems that crashing the economy wasn't enough for the Tories. They feel compelled to drag Britain's international reputation through the mud and they seem happy to act with a total disregard for the laws and treaties that govern international relations. In the assessment of Enver Solomon of the Refugee Council, the bill is and I quote, an unworkable, costly and nasty piece of legislation that treats refugees like criminals and would see the UK cast alongside Russia and Belarus as countries who show no respect for international law. To be blunt, the Government's approach is reckless, breaching Britain's international obligations and diminishing our status in the world. As we already heard it, it is important to remember that the right to seek asylum is a fundamental human right, as outlined in the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention. The UK has always welcomed those who are fleeing persecution, regardless of whether they come through a safe and legal route. As it stands, we are shutting the door and victims who are being trafficked into slavery here in the UK. If they have come here illegally, they would not be supported to escape their slavery. Those are not my words, Presiding Officer. They are the words of former Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May, who is hardly renowned as a liberal on issues of immigration, but who has been critical of the Government's approach with the bill. She is right to raise the issue of human trafficking and modern slavery, because the bill will drive a coach and horses to protections for people, particularly women who are trafficked to Britain as victims of modern slavery. In October 2019, that nation was given a profound reminder of the enduring prevalence of human trafficking. When 39 people from Vietnam were found to have died in the most horrendous of conditions locked in the trailer of an articulate refrigerator lorry, that was a harrowing case that reinforced the urgent need for both our Governments in Holyrood and Westminster to redouble efforts to protect people who are victims of human trafficking. It is true, Presiding Officer, that immigration is a reserved issue. However, this Parliament should also use its powers to help those who are fleeing persecution and who face a heightened risk of human trafficking. In that respect, the Scottish Refugee Council has called on the Scottish Government to use its powers under section 9 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Scotland Act to create an end-to-end anti-trafficking protection process by passing the UK national referral mechanism to stay compliant with the convention on human rights. I would urge the cabinet secretary to explore how the Government can most effectively use those powers to ensure that the national referral mechanism that is operated by the UK Home Office is not the only identification process for trafficked people. I would also ask the minister to update Parliament on the work that is being done to help communities to face the challenges of welcoming refugees into local communities, particularly those who have come from Syria and Afghanistan and who are living in communities across Scotland and need more support. Indeed, our local authorities clearly need more support to be able to offer the services that are required. In addition, I hope that she will update Parliament on the planning and support for refugees who have come from Ukraine most recently. I want to be clear in affirming my belief that that is a shameful, immoral and unworkable piece of legislation. I believe that it is motivated by a political calculation that plays into the worst instincts of stoking fear and division. Our amendment seeks to add to the Government's motion to highlight the assessment in recent days of the Equality and Human Rights Commission that the bill will risk undermining the universality of human rights and protections for victims of trafficking and modern slavery, as well as breaching those UK obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. That is being no doubt, Presiding Officer. The Tory's illegal immigration bill in its current form will do real harm. It will remove the protections for victims of modern slavery, it will seek to abandon Britain's international obligations and it will reduce our standing in the world. It is not the way that we should choose. There is another way in which we can offer safe and legal routes to those who are fleeing persecution, violence and war. Let us, with one voice in this chamber, say that the refugees are welcome here, that there is a place for them, that they will be safe and that this bill is pernicious. It is unworkable and it is wrong. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I know Paul on Donald Cameron. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I welcome in particular today Emma Roddick to her post as Minister Responsible for Migration. It's always good to see a Highlands and Islands MSP assume ministerial office, so can I offer these benches? Congratulations in that regard. The issue that we are debating today, Presiding Officer, is undoubtedly a serious one and I will address some of the themes raised by the Cabinet Secretary later on in my remarks, but I must say that we have seen the SNP Government this week accusing others of disrespecting devolution, but that takes some brass neck with respect when we are today debating an issue that is entirely reserved to the UK Parliament. We could instead be debating why, under this Government, any waiting times hit their worst level on record or why cancer waiting times are their longest on record. We could instead be debating why the education attainment gap is widened, not narrowed or why, after 16 years of SNP rule, there are now fewer teachers in our schools compared to 2007-2008. Fulton MacGregor. I wonder if he thinks that this line that he's taken is in any way appropriate when we are dealing with such a serious issue. Donald Cameron. I think that it's entirely appropriate. The issues that I am outlining that fall within devolved competence are also deeply serious issues. We could instead be debating why, after eight years and nearly £500 million later, ferries remain in dockyards on the Clyde rather than serving their island communities. There are so many pressing issues, serious issues, that we could be debating. And yet, in the early weeks, I'd like to carry on for a moment, and yet in the early weeks of this Government, we are debating a UK Government bill about a matter entirely reserved to the UK Parliament. That is a matter for the processes of this Parliament, and I'm glad, Presiding Officer, that you are still in the chair, because this is debate time set down for Scottish Government business. And the UK Parliament has debated this bill, continues to debate it. MPs from all parties have debated it. Now, there are plainly very differing views across this chamber on migration, but until today, can I just make a little bit of progress? Till today, we have had no indication of the Scottish Government's views on the bill, because no legislative consent memorandum has been published or made available to the public. We've had no formal documentation regarding the Scottish Government's views of the competence of this bill. Until today, and the cabinet secretary gave an outline in her speech just now. Well, frankly, with all due respect, it is not acceptable to turn up to the chamber before a substantive debate on an issue and expect MSPs to answer those issues. If that's not disrespecting Parliament, Presiding Officer, then I don't know what is. Cabinet Secretary, I wonder what Donald Cameron thinks of the fact that the Scottish Government was not aware and not given any previous warning of what was in this bill. Until it was actually published and one deed before. If we're talking about showing contempt for the Scottish Government, or more importantly, I think the Scottish Parliament, which has the right to debate any subject it so chooses in the interests of the people of Scotland, then I think the people of Scotland care about how we care about the most vulnerable in our society. Donald Cameron. Well, if the cabinet secretary was serious about that point, she would know, of course, that Angus Robertson, her cabinet colleague, wrote to the UK Government in March this year, and yet it's only today that she has turned up and given the Scottish Government's response in outline on these issues. We still do not know whether the Scottish Government thinks that devolved competence is engaged. We still do not know whether the Scottish Government believes that legislative consent is necessary. If it does believe that consent is necessary, we do not know why or in what way. We do not know what areas of devolved competence the Scottish Government argues are affected. We know none of that, and the brief comments that the cabinet secretary made in his speech do not make up for the formal processes of this Parliament. That makes a mockery of this Parliament and its processes. I'm not naive about the politics of this, Presiding Officer. No doubt we will hear more in this debate about not just illegal migration but migration in general. That is important, and in that respect I turn to the substance of the Bill. The UK Government has made it abundantly clear that the Bill seeks to address the growing instances of people smuggling and to reduce unsafe migrant crossings. It is about illegal migration. It is about an issue that, as we all know, affects the south of England in particular. I'm going to keep going, please. It aims to break the people smuggling networks and stop the criminal gangs who exploit the most vulnerable and ultimately ensure that lives can be saved. Too many lives have already been lost as a result of these practices. It is right that the UK Government does everything within its power to tackle this issue head on. I'll take Maggie Chapman. Donald Cameron likes to outline to the chamber what are the legal routes by which an asylum seeker can come to the UK? There are already safe and legal routes for entering the UK. There are schemes for Afghan citizens and Ukrainian refugees as well as routes for Hong Kong overseas nationals to enter the UK. That is on top of more general routes like the UK resettlement scheme for refugees who are in camps in neighbouring countries due to hostilities in their home country. We can all surely acknowledge and agree that illegal entry to the UK should be discouraged and instead improve access to safe and legal routes instead. Since 2015, the UK has offered safety to nearly 480,000 people from all over the world, including people from Syria, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Ukraine, among others. That is a positive thing and we want to continue to ensure that those who are in need and require refuge and sanctuary are welcomed, but it must be done in accordance with the law. We must also recognise that people arriving to the UK by illegal means ultimately puts a strain on our infrastructure and resources. In 2022, over 45,000 people arrived in the UK after crossing the English Channel by boat. That is a significant number. If repeated without any action, it could pose serious issues for the individuals who make such dangerous trips and benefit the criminals who seek to exploit them. I will give way to Alex Cole-Hamilton. I am grateful that I have listened to Donald's speech, which has been largely one about process and then secondary about delineating the problem. Can I ask him personally—I have listened to his contributions many times in this chamber—I am aware of his values in his moral compass personally—would he support this bill if he was an MP in the House of Commons? Donald Cameron. Yes, I would. I would debate these issues and I thank him for his question, because the bill provides new rights of legal challenge. That includes the ability for an individual who may be within the scope of the bill to challenge a removal. That includes an ability to make a serious, harm-suspensive claim, where a person will have a period of time to make a claim that their removal to a safe third country would result in a real risk of serious and irreversible harms. To answer his question, there are protections in this bill, which I think are entirely justifiable. They include, for instance, an ability to make what is called a factual, suspensive claim, where a person believes that there has been a factual mistake in determining that they were an illegal entrant subject to the duty to remove in the bill. I have taken many interventions that I am going to carry on and regret not to be able to. However, those are fully in keeping with the UK Government's international obligations and provide opportunities to ensure that all decisions taken are correct. To answer the point about the law, the Government is confident that this legislation will allow it to detain and swiftly remove those who enter the UK illegally, creating a deterrent for these small boat crossings while being consistent with our treaty. To conclude, there are so many things that this Parliament could be doing to debate and to improve people's lives, but we find ourselves debating a UK Parliament bill. The motion today will note our past, but all the while the pressing issues that we can attempt to endeavour to resolve falling within the competence of this Parliament will remain untouched. For those reasons, I ask members to reject the Government's motion today. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer, and I also welcome Emma Roddick to her place. I am very grateful to speak for the Scottish Liberal Democrats on this important debate. This debate is timely and it connects directly to the anguish that we see played out on our television sets for those seeking to find passage out of Sudan right now as Khartoum potentially falls. It offers an understanding of what those who risk the open sea in craft are sometimes not even watertight and what they are actually fleeing. Because, Presiding Officer, we know that the majority of those who take to the boats have a legitimate claim to be here. They are fleeing unimaginable atrocity in places like Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia. They have a right to find safe harbour here. They are only deprived of the safe and legal routes so to do. Gary Linnaker spoke for many of us when he stood up to the inhumane approach of the Conservative Home Secretary. Ella Braverman sought to stoke public animosity towards those vulnerable people when she claimed that 100 million people worldwide could qualify for protection under our current laws and, in her words, they are coming here. Presiding Officer, that kind of replacement rhetoric was being used in Germany in the 1930s. Linnaker was not wrong. The British people have a long and proud history of providing sanctuary to those who need it most. In the 1600s it was the Catholics and Protestants alike fleeing religious persecution in Europe. Indeed, the word refugee was coined for the Huguenots who were sheltered in a building called The Refuge in London. In the 1800s it was political thinkers being hounded out for revolutionary ideas. We heard in the cabinet secretary's own remarks that it was Churchill's second government that first brought us into line and saw the UK as one of the first signatories to the convention because of the reality of the displacement of people by the Second World War. It was nearly a century ago, hard to imagine, that 50,000 Jewish refugees sought shelter in this country after being subjected to one of the worst atrocities in the history of humankind. We saw that tradition again evident in the kinder transport in Biafra, in the homes for Ukraine scheme. This is the Britain that I recognise, one that is tolerant, internationalist of outlook, one that is compassionate and recognises the need of the persecuted and the dispossessed. The British tradition has provided some of our greatest politicians, our business people, writers, the name but a few, our much-loved fish and chips were thought of to have originated from Jewish refugees in the 1500s. Conservative Government is currently seeking to squander this tradition, to sully this reputation. Experts are resounding that this bill will have a detrimental effect to those seeking asylum, which include giving the Government the power to detain adults and children indefinitely, preventing victims of modern slavery from accessing vital support, making almost implausible for families torn apart to be reunited, leaving children and young people alone and vulnerable. In short, all this bill will do is harm those vulnerable people. However, not only does this bill display a starting lack of compassion in humanity, there is also sinister undertones within it for our democracy. If pass this bill would severely restrict the justice process, courts would no longer be allowed to review or intervene if a detention period or removal is inappropriate or unlawful. In other words, this bill takes away power from our justice system and places it unfettered into the hands of UK Government ministers. This should all give us grave cause for concern. Our democracy is only as safe as the mechanisms that hold it together, that hold those in power to account. Our courts play a crucial part in this, providing a check on the power of the executive branch. As the proposals in this bill illustrate, our Conservative Government seems intent on chipping away at those safeguards. It is no wonder that this bill has been decried by so many, including by the United Nations, who have stated that the bill would breach the 1951 refugee convention, risking a contravention of international law. The Home Secretary cannot even confirm whether the bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. There are clear standards that those in government must adhere to. Introducing legislation that is not in keeping with international law surely falls well beneath those standards. Despite the bill being a catastrophe and waiting for the Conservatives to write about one thing, our asylum system is broken and woefully inefficient. I will go one further. The Home Office is not fit for purpose. Is the Conservatives who bear the responsibility for both of those things? We should not forget that the Scottish Conservatives continue to defend the legislation. Despite the hugely damaging consequences that it will have for human rights for Britain's international reputation, Douglas Ross, who sits in this chamber, voted for it at Westminster, alongside every other Scottish Conservative MP. Showing once again that the nasty insular streak is still alive and well in the Scottish Conservatives. I pity those on the Tory benches, many of whom are here in this room today, because it is once again a party—I do not believe speaking in their name—who is punching down on the marginalised, presiding off so they are demonising the desperate. Instead of penalising those in need of safety, we must help them. That is why the illegal migration bill, the poorly named illegal migration bill, needs scrapped immediately. The government must provide safe and legal routes for refugees, and they should do that by expanding and properly funding a refugee resettlement scheme. Liberal Democrats are also proposing the establishment of a new dedicated unit for asylum, one that can make decisions fairly and quickly, unlike the Home Office. In concluding, we ought to remember that it is a random lottery of luck that decides whether you are born into a country of peace and safety or war and destruction and persecution. We live in a world that is volatile. It is at times fragile. As the events in Ukraine of the past year have taught us, it could very suddenly be us fleeing from danger. If there were ever us or our children to put in a vote to venture to troubled waters and travel to lands unknown, we would pray for kindness and welcome with open arms when we get there. It is therefore our moral duty to extend that same courtesy from one human to another. The poet Varshan Shire said that nobody chooses to leave home unless home is the mouth of a shark. Presiding Officer, we must do everything in our power to ensure that both Scotland and the UK remains open to those who seek sanctuary within our shores. Mr Cole-Hamilton, we move to the open debate. I encourage members wishing to speak in the debate to make sure that their request-to-speak buttons are pressed. If you have made an intervention, you will need to repress your button. I call First Co-Cab Stewart to be followed by Pauline McNeill for a generous six minutes. I proudly represent one of the most diverse constituencies in the country. Many of those who live in Glasgow-Kelvin are first- or generation migrants, as am I to this country from Pakistan. Our diversity is far from a weakness. It is our strength. It is part of Scotland's rich tapestry. Scotland, like the UK in general, is an ancient migrant nation. The contribution of those who pay Scotland's ultimate compliment by choosing to call our country their home is our past, our present and our future. Those who get to do so are currently at the mercy of a remarkably cruel UK Government. The name of their game is to keep people out. I for one, Presiding Officer, cannot see any reason for this UK Government's blind resentment for displaced, disadvantaged and desperate people. Everything they do seeks to hammer the vulnerable, and this is no different. It is in part disguised as an attempt to thwart organised criminals looking to make a quick and easy money from those who are desperately seeking safe sanctuary. In reality, it creates criminals out of those escaping war-torn nations. Underpinning the whole thing is an outright ban on claiming asylum in the UK. That is how serious this is. Unless you are lucky enough to be from a nation with a specific refugee scheme set up by the UK Home Office, there exists no route for you to make a claim for asylum within these islands. With what the Tories are proposing here, if you come to the UK seeking asylum, you face being detained indefinitely, left in a permanent state of uncertainty with the threat of being deported. In fact, included in the bill, is the removal of court oversight, giving the Home Secretary free reign to lock up people who are seeking asylum in the UK including children, leaving the most vulnerable in the world people detained, destitute and actually dying. I remind the chamber the provisions within the bill will power up a Home Secretary who dreams of deporting refugees to nations with questionable record on human rights itself. Just last year, Rwandan police arrested, detained and charged the women for what they labelled as the shameful dress at a concert in Kigali. The police and government are in Rwanda frequently pursue and persecute journalists who speak out. We should not be outsourcing our human rights obligations. We live under an uncaring, unfeiling and, in my opinion, ever extreme government that we in Scotland did not vote for. During recess, I met with the Women's Integration Network in my constituency and heard from a number of refugee women and asylum seekers who are faced with the many challenges the current UK's immigration system presents them with. Asylum process is taking far too long. Those who are appealing decisions are served eviction notices. Where do they go? And some of those people who have been served the notices actually leave prior to that deadline. Where do they go? That is, in my opinion, enforced destitution. In addition, those seeking asylum are not permitted to work in the UK at any point, unlike in other countries, USA, Canada, Germany, Australia and many other nations. They have to live off £6 a day. How many of us in this chamber spent that very shortly after leaving the house probably? That is all part of the Tory Government's hostile environment approach to how they deal with people who arrive here from elsewhere. This morning, Presiding Officer, I convened my first meeting of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. We heard compelling and very grim evidence from refugee support at Red Cross, the Scottish Refugee Council, Just Right Scotland and the Simon community in Scotland, who deal with the grass-roots effects of those terrible bills. Their message was clear. This bill undermines the power of the Scottish Government, including our obligations towards children. Paul Suni, I thank the member for giving me a very powerful speech. She makes the point of some of the absurdities such as the prohibition on working. Does she recognise that there are 1200 refugee doctors, asylum-seeking doctors, registered with the British Medical Association? Surely that would be a surefire way to immediately improve the capacity in our national health service. It only costs £25,000 to train an asylum-seeking doctor to practice in the UK as opposed to £200,000 to train a medical student from scratch. I thank Paul Suni for that intervention. I absolutely accept that every single human being has skills to offer. In this country, we can make full use of them, as in any country across the world. The illegal migration bill does not speak for Scotland our values or even our needs as a nation, as Paul Suni has mentioned. I will join colleagues today and any other day in calling for immigration to be devolved, but I think that we all know very well the UK's attitude towards devolution and devolved powers. It is clear to me as it should be to everyone that the only way that Scotland can exercise its values in the world, making our nation a welcoming home to those who need it, is through full control of our finances. We can invest in a fast and fair system of proceeding applications, rather than the current profit from people in a perl model that is being perpetuated by the UK Government. The bill that we are debating today is happening now, and it must be stopped now. I am glad to hear from the cabinet secretary that the Scottish Government will be doing everything it can to challenge this bill. It breaks many of the UK's obligations under the EECHR rights, as well as the UNHCR Refugee Convention. It would be more suitable, as I said earlier, if it was actually just called the illegal immigration bill. To finish, I make this plea directly to the Tory benches in this place. Make your voice heard. You know this bill is wrong. It is morally wrong, it is legally wrong and it is ethically wrong. So don't sit there meekly and nodding along to what your London bosses are doing. My challenge to Douglas Ross is to whip your MPs to vote against the bill when it comes to the Commons for its third and final reading. To all other Tory MSPs, speak out, encourage your colleagues south of the border to put a stop to what is proposed in this legislation. To do nothing is to support this bill, and your silence gives consent. Send a message that this place does not consent to this illegal immigration bill. Pauli McNeill, who joins us remotely, will be followed by Bob Doris, a generous six minutes. I want to begin by expressing my concern for the people of Sudan and those UK nationals trapped there, which highlights the fact that we have around 70 doctors trying to get back to the UK who are part of our diverse workforce, and if any of them had tried to get to the UK under this bill to seek asylum from war-torn Sudan regime, then they would have failed. The legal immigration bill is, in my opinion, morally unacceptable. I join with others who have said that, but it is also practically unworkable. As with immigration deterrence policy, it is very likely to fail in its own terms and not achieve its stated objectives. As we have heard already in this chamber, the bill intends to effectively abolish the asylum system for almost all people who currently use it and need it, and instead the UK Government will detain people, remove them to either Rwanda or another so-called safe third country. It will grant unwarranted and unaccountable powers to the Home Secretary and enable huge public monies to be lost to private profits, in detention and institutional accommodation. The bill entirely abolishes, effectively direct to seek asylum or have trafficking support or protection for all those who arrive irregularly. And such unofficial arrival is necessarily and solely due to the UK Government refusing to create safe travel arrangements, especially in those countries for whom we do have a legal obligation to help due to British involvement in war and conflict and thereby abandoning people to acute risk. Tragically, as other speakers have said, we know people have lost their lives at sea or in the back of lorries or in unsafe conditions where hunters have already lost their lives. Even the most hard-linked and servitive Governments in the past would never have attempted to set out an immigration policy in such a draconian way. The policy, in my opinion, is the centrepiece of a party in government who is completely out of ideas and they are trying to stir up hostility against the most vulnerable and marginalised people in our society. Suella Braverman has been allowed to continue a hostile immigration policy from Boris Johnson to Rishi Sunak's Government and even though it is the case that has been significant attacks on immigration centres across England and it further highlights how cruel the bill is. For those who saw Suella Braverman's appearance at the select committee, where she attempted to answer a simple question for one of her colleague Tory MPs, Tim Louton, when he asked how a 16-year-old African, basing persecution could make an application to come to the UK, could do so legally, Braverman and her officials stumbled over the answers. Eventually, they had to concede that it was not possible to do so from some countries and that is acutely embarrassing and a complete failure of the policy. The bill also gives the Home Secretary the priority to take charge and the care of unaccompanied children rather than sitting rightly with the child protection experts and local authorities. That is despite 222 lone children that we know of who recently went missing from home office hotels, many of whom have been most certainly trafficked for exploitation and many other members have pointed this out today. It is one of the most devastating things about the bill, how Britain proposes under this bill to treat children coming to this country. There is no doubt that the human consequences of the bill are utterly devastating because it means that a family fleeing from the Taliban in Afghanistan or women fleeing violence from the Iranian regime or a child escaping forced labour incident, none of them would have their claims for asylum considered. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has already said this bill is a clear breach of the refugee convention and they said that the bill would amount an asylum ban distinguishing the right to seek protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly and no matter how genuine and compelling the claims may be when no consideration of their individual circumstances. Most shockingly perhaps is the fact that the Home Secretary has confirmed that she cannot declare the compatibility of this bill with human rights obligations are really incredible reality. The bill is derived of a both constitutional and international not nearly because of the European Convention on Human Rights and of domestic legal principle and it's worth it appears to purposely seek conflict with the European Court of Human Rights and also the independent judicial system. The Home Secretary has basically suggested that legal rights, the due process and decisions of independent courts are in some sense an illegitimate impediment to government attempts to respond to irregular migration. I say this to the Tories, how can Britain possibly set an example in the democratic world when we won't accept the rule of law itself, even the most hardline Tories must reflect on how this diminishes Britain's standing on the international stage. So let me be clear, we don't need laws to prevent people from taking dangerous journeys, we simply need to provide safe and dignified and legal routes from all countries in the world and for those who are survivors of oppressive regimes and also organised crime. We desperately need a compassionate alternative at UK level. In Scotland we can't merely stand by and watch the UK government strip vulnerable people of their human rights and dignity and I certainly will not. Labour UK have voted against this bill at various stages and we will join with others in voting against this bill. We will also join with the cross-party efforts to campaign against this humanity. I call on the new First Minister to live up to the promises that were made by the Scottish Government for those refugees and asylum seekers who are already in Scotland to make their lives better and give them hope of a better life by living up to much better standards. I now call Bob Doris, who will be followed by Alasdair Allan again in a generous six minutes. I really want to know what the UK's cruel and immoral illegal migration bill is about. It would do well to look at a refugee council briefing from January 2020. It does everyone to read it. On the very first page of that briefing it offers a breakdown of the men, women and children who crossed the channel seeking asylum in 2022. Remember the people that we are referring to will pretty much automatically be considered for deportation in short order to Rwanda or potentially elsewhere, virtually irrespective of their circumstances. They will be deported without any meaningful judicial oversight and in contradiction of a series of international human rights obligations which the UK Government seemed to be quite happy to flout almost as a badge. What price is the 1951 refugee convention left in ashes at the hands of a UK Government? However, there is nothing honourable about the UK Government's illegal migration bill. It shames the UK. In 2022, 45,746 men, women and children crossed the channel in small boats to reach the UK. As the refugee council rightly says, each of those people have had their own experiences before, during and after making that crossing, many will have been very traumatic. In 2022, at least six out of ten of those who made that crossing would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government got round to actually processing their applications, six in ten at least. 8,700 children made the journey in small boats, nearly 20 per cent of all who made the crossing. Four in ten who crossed the channel came from just five countries, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Eritrea and Sudan. Three of those nationalities currently have an asylum grant rate if the decisions ever made, of course, of 98 per cent and two are 86 per cent and 82 per cent. The reason I give those statistics is that it is quite clear from them that the real agenda is not to tackle illegal immigration, human trafficking or to protect the exploited individuals. That is not the purpose. Rather, the purpose of the illegal migration bill is to use UK law to reclassify those vulnerable men, women and children, not as vulnerable refugees, but to reclassify them as illegal immigrants, wrongfully, wilfully and immorally and to deny them their most basic human rights. The UK Government makes great stock in stressing that they only accept asylum seekers from safe and illegal routes. However, they repeatedly fail to explain what those safe and legal routes are and have been unable to demonstrate that where such routes do exist that they are able to be accessed by asylum seekers in any meaningful numbers whatsoever. Figures from last year clearly substantiate that position, Presiding Officer. If we look at the first nine months of 2022, there were almost 25,000 men, women and children crossing the channel from seven countries to claim asylum in those countries, Presiding Officer, Albania, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Eritrea and Sudan. From those same seven countries, only 867 people from those countries were resettled through a so-called safe route. That is a stark statistic and I want to explain why. Members will recall that the refugee council estimated 60 per cent at least of those crossing the channel putting their lives at risk would have their asylum claim approved if the UK Government ever get around to make a decision. 60 per cent is almost 15,000 asylum seekers from those seven countries that I mentioned earlier, 15,000 asylum seekers who would be granted asylum. So why do they put their lives at risk crossing the channel in boats? It's because they know that to say that they are safe in legal routes is a big lie. It's quite clearly completely disingenuous. It's a sleight of hand. It's a contract. Presiding Officer, as the MSP for Glasgow, Maryhill and Springburn, I see well integrated in the valued citizens whose families originally hailed from various countries across the globe, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Sudan and many more, often as refugees seeking places of safety. They've made their home in Maryhill and Springburn and across Scotland and I see wonderful organisations such as Maryhill integration network in Glasgow, Afghanistan United. Supporting many of that diaspora, but I'm also aware of a deep worry that many of those I've mentioned have that the illegal migration bill won't only have a devastating effect on those in profound need to seek asylum who still have to make it to our shores, but also have a corrosive and demonising impact for those who have made their lives here already as a result of both not just the reality of the legal migration bill, but the reality of the legal migration bill. It's a rhetoric that surrounds it. It will undermine their lives here in Scotland. This is absolutely relevant to the people of Scotland, I would say, to the Conservatives. Existing asylum seekers are still stuck in the system for many years. My constituents often forced into destitution as co-capture pointed out and denied the right to work. Something Paul Sweeney also pointed out could help our NHS almost at a stroke but denied by the UK Government. If the illegal migration bill is passed, others who have still to find their way to our shores will be in significant peril because they will still arrive, Presiding Officer, but they won't be able to step forward and make a claim for asylum. They will be vulnerable, exploited and exposed to the most sinister forces from those who would seek to abuse them. This bill won't end modern savoury. It will institutionalise it. It's a deeply sinister bill that will have the most vulnerable people in our shores, lurking in the shadows, scared to step forward, shaming the UK Government, shaming the UK Government, shame on the UK Government. Alasdair Allan, to be followed by Maggie Chapman, again in a generous six minutes. Presiding Officer, today's debate is an opportunity for this Parliament to say without apology that Scotland welcomes refugees, but specifically, as others have indicated, it's also a chance to make clear that we reject the notion that the legal obligations this country has to offer shelter to people fleeing war and persecution should be abandoned. UK Government's proposed illegal migration bill is the latest move in a long line of actions that have damaged the UK's international reputation as a place of refuge, so it is worth reminding ourselves of why it is refugees come to the UK. According to the Red Cross, about half of the refugees coming into the country are doing so to be reunited with their families. It is very common for families to become separated as they flee from their homes or during arduous journeys in search of safety. Language and culture is certainly also a factor. At one point, of course, nearly a quarter of the world's population lived under the British Empire, and that fact created, along with some other less creditable things, cultural ties with countries around the globe, so it is only natural that people will seek shelter in countries with which they have some familiarity. Despite what certain publications would have you believe, refugees do not come here for a generous benefit system. A single asylum seeker gets £45 a week, less than in many other countries, like Germany. Asylum seekers cannot work or claim other benefits, they do not get a choice over where they get to live, and too many refugees in the UK end up exposed to poverty, homelessness and abuse. The UK also takes in fewer people than comparable European countries. Germany takes in two and a half times more refugees than the UK. France took in one and a half times more. Spain and Austria took in more. The UK takes proportionately fewer refugees than most EU countries, with the application per capita rate almost half the EU average. Against that background, it is difficult to explain the UK Government's focus on such an unworkable and inhumane policy as the one that it presently proposes. We have heard the Home Secretary stoke up tensions with talk of invasions and claims that arrivals are only here to game the system. Language like that makes it hard to escape the conclusion that the policy is being pursued as part of some fairly ugly political calculations, but let me put that to one side and keep our minds on the real lives affected by all of this. Open Democracy cites the story of a former police major in Iran. This police officer fled the country after refusing to act against fuel demonstrations in 2019. He fled Turkey after being found and harassed by Iranian intelligence agents, eventually arriving in Britain after crossing the channel on a small boat last year. He was held in an immigration detention centre privately run for the UK Home Office, living in constant fear of deportation. He is now in a hotel run by home office contractors. The point is that this man was one of 3,594 Iranians to arrive by small boat between January and September last year, according to figures from the refugee council. White spread unrest in Iran is going on continuously following the death in September of 22-year-old Gina Masa Amini. She was arrested by Iran's morality police for allegedly wearing her headscarf incorrectly. UN human rights experts have condemned the killings and state crackdowns on protesters, which have been alleged to include arbitrary arrests and detentions, sexual violence, excessive use of force, torture and enforced disappearances. Had refugees fleeing this regime in Iran arrived in the UK with this proposed bill enacted, they would have faced deportation to Rwanda, they would have been told that their method of entry was illegal and that they should have come via the official route. For some context, the official route over this time was able to resettle a grand total of nine people from Iran. That gets to the heart of the problem, as described by Mr Dorris and several others today. We have more than 4,000 people a year arriving, for example, from Iran. We all agree that this is a country with a repressive and dangerous regime. The vast majority of asylum claims, therefore 82 per cent, are granted at the initial stage and even more on appeal. Yet the official route managed a grand total of nine people over nine months. That is effectively no official route. The figures for channel crossings from other countries show a similar situation—Afghans, Iraqis, Sudanese, Eritreans—and the numbers coming by official routes for all those are tiny. It is this total failure to provide safe routes that allow the criminal people smugglers to prosper. It is forcing refugees into dangerous journeys and into exploitation. Instead of improving safe routes, we have a UK bill that will arbitrarily detain and remove victims of modern slavery and trafficking. Victims of modern slavery will be punished, while traffickers often continue to operate with impunity. Scotland's Parliament will take no lectures about what it can and cannot discuss. Today, it says very clearly that Scotland wants no part at all in this awful, dehumanising piece of Westminster legislation. I now call Maggie Chapman to be followed by Fulton MacGregor again in a generous six minutes. I and my Scottish Green colleagues welcome this motion and debate. We do so, however, with deep sadness, visceral anger and a profound horror at what is being done in the name of the United Kingdom, a kingdom from which we have never longed more to disassociate ourselves. For this is, in reality, not a bill about illegal migration, but a bill that is, in itself, illegal. Not only in that, and I quote, specific and limited way, with which we already know the UK Government to be cheerfully comfortable, but in fundamental and far-reaching intention. It openly fails to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically excludes the proper jurisdiction of the courts and breaches the 1951 refugee convention, not in minor details but as its core objective. In human rights terms, in terms of its solemn obligations under international law, in terms of the deep moral imperative to compassion and justice which prompted the refugee convention, the UK is now, let us be blunt, a rogue state. We've become accustomed over the past months to use the word unprecedented, but this is breathtaking in its utter annihilation of so much good that has gone before. As Human Rights Consortium Scotland and Just Rights Scotland have so accurately said, this bill constitutes a human rights emergency, the right to seek refugee protection, the right to liberty and security, the right to access justice, to freedom from torture and freedom from slavery, all are fundamentally violated by this shameful piece of propaganda posing as legislation. The situation for people currently seeking asylum in the UK is, as we know, bad enough already. They face huge delays in processing applications, inappropriate and often dangerous accommodation, contemptibly meager allowances and, for most, denial of the opportunity to contribute much-needed work. We heard just this morning in committee that many people who have fled traumatic and dangerous situations are stuck in institutional hotel accommodation with just £1.32 a day to spend for years. I wonder how many on the Tory benches think that that actually is okay. The system urgently needs reform, reform to make it fairer, more humane, trauma-informed, person-centred and more efficient in terms of time, of skills and of cost. But this bill is diametrically opposed to the direction of that reform. As the Scottish Refugee Council points out, it is morally repugnant, practically unworkable and will enable a vast further transfer of funds from the public sector to private profit. Of the £3 billion a year currently within the sector, most of this is funneled not to communities, not to asylum seekers themselves, not to the support organisations but to private companies, and this bill only exacerbates that. As human rights consortium Scotland and Just Right testify, it abolishes the asylum system for almost all people who currently use it and need it. Perhaps we should take a moment to let that sink in. It abolishes the asylum system, for there is no way for most people to apply for asylum before arriving here and no way to arrive that is safe or designated as being legal. The Home Secretary, under this extraordinary testament of cruelty, has not only the power but the duty to treat people seeking refuge as persons subject to removal. They can be imprisoned indefinitely with no court, normally able to review that incarceration. They can be deported to the country they are fleeing from. To Rwanda, a nation torn by colonial created conflict with a recent history of serious human rights abuses or to what has been described with bitter irony as another safe third country. And most can never return to live here. Their unborn children can never live here. This bill enables hereditary civic purgatory, as Just Right Scotland said this morning. The Home Secretary is given the power to take charge of unaccompanied children. Over 200 have already gone missing from hotels to which they were sent by the Home Office, and that same Home Office has no idea where they are now. The bill removes support for many survivors of human trafficking and exploitation, including that support and protection that the Scottish Government and local authorities are duty bound to provide. We already struggle to prosecute traffickers. This bill punishes the victims. It is a charter for those who deal in human misery and a life sentence for their victims. And there is no need for this bill. The UK does not, contrary to the toxic discourse of the Tory Government and the Tory press, take more than its fair share of refugees. In fact, by any measure, it takes much less. And if it's historic responsibility for division, for oppression, including of LGBTQIA plus people, for conflict exacerbating climate impacts, when all of those are taken into account, its contribution falls even further from a bare moral minimum. And there is more. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said that the UK's new approach, and I quote, undermines established international refugee protection law and practices and risks dramatically weakening a system that has for decades provided protection and the chance of a new life to so many desperate people. In closing, Presiding Officer, I want to use the words from Graham O'Neill of the Scottish Refugee Council, who told this morning's Equality, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee meeting. This bill is a betrayal of the refugee convention, which rose from the ashes of the community response to the Holocaust. That is what we are turning away from. Presiding Officer, wherever the UK leads, however dark that path, others I fear will follow. So it is our human responsibility to stand for the rule of law, for the protective duties of our administrations and most of all for those whom this bill would crush and break. They are not removable persons. They are our neighbours, our friends and they are welcome here, home. Thank you, Ms Chapman, and I call Fulton MacGregor to be followed by Clare Adamson, a generous six minutes, Ms MacGregor. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and yet again we have come to this chamber to discuss and object to another policy decision made by the Tory-run UK Government. The aptly-named illegal migration bill, as others have pointed out, will place the UK firmly outside of international law, putting us in direct breach of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, and completely eroding confidence that the UK are good-faith actors in upholding the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees. This brazen policy is not even trying to hide its contempt for international law. The Prime Minister has openly hinted at removing the UK from the ECHR. UK would therefore be in the esteemed company of the Greek junta of 1967 to 1974 and the current Russian regime as the only countries that have left the convention. Maybe we as a chamber should let that sink in for a moment, but perhaps mostly those on the Tory benches that perhaps have most influence here with their colleagues in Westminster. Freedom from torture ams the international, doctors without borders, the British Red Cross, the Simon community, Just Right Scotland, the Scottish Refugee Council, the UN and countless legal bodies are just some of the organisations who have grave reservations about this plan of legislation. Indeed, as others have already mentioned, the Equalities Committee heard some very powerful evidence just this morning from representatives from some of these organisations who spelled out in no uncertain terms the hugely immoral nature of this bill and the devastating impact it will have, ultimately, potentially leading to the loss of life. I would encourage all members to watch the rerun of that session today, because it was very powerful. With each new proposal that the UK Government makes, we isolate ourselves from the international community and slip further, seemingly, to appease the far right. As Alex Cole-Hamilton mentioned, Gary Linnaker received what I believe unwarranted backlash for correctly pointing out that the language used in this debate is similar to the language used in the 1930s Germany. That is because, in October 2022, the Home Secretary's Weller Riverman described the small boats crossing the channel as an invasion of our southern coast. The reason that this language is so dangerous is because it portrays migrants as if they were an enemy force that must be repelled with violence. The UK Government has also previously referred to swarms or marading migrants in dehumanising language that fully vindicates Mr Linnaker's viewpoint. To outline the current proposals, this legislation will make all individuals who enter the UK illegally permanently inadmissible to the asylum system. This ill thought-out policy means that the UK will arbitrarily detain and remove victims of modern slavery, exploitation and trafficking without any mercy. Those who are trafficked here will paradoxally be denied protections offered by the UK's Modern Slavery Act. It will introduce a legal requirement on the Home Secretary to detain and deport without discern for the consequences. The checks and balances against these new powers will be severely constrained as judicial oversight will be inhibited and the appeals process being reduced and restricted by the bill. Those fleeing persecution, prejudice, war or a host of other valid reasons that fall foul of these reclining laws will be returned to the country that they were fleeing from in the first place or Rwanda, a country that has been accepting unwanted migrants from other countries since 2014 but is certainly not known as a beacon for upholding human rights. In a time reporting from Rwanda, Irish journalist and writer Sally Hayden documented that Rwanda has little freedom of speech. Rwanda has granted accreditation for reporting on the migrant situation in Rwanda as authorities mistakenly believed that she would only report positive things about the system. Despite that, she was still not granted access to refugee camps to speak to migrants at India. Instead, she relied on sources outside of camps who spoke of an atmosphere of distress, abuse, exploitation and fear of reprisals if they were outed as informers on the human rights violations taking place. Mental, physical and sexual abuse were commonplace for migrants with victims receiving no justice. How can the UK be morally comfortable in sending people to a country that is such a blanket censorship on what happens to refugees sent to their care? Indeed, in her multi-award winning book, My Fourth Time We Drowned, Sally outlined the plight, tragedy and indeed resilience of ordinary people forced by circumstances beyond their control to flee their homes and search for better and safer lives. It is this point that we must remember, the people whose lives have been made just that bit more difficult by this proposed bill. Unapologetically and cruelly slams the door in the face of the gay men fleeing the death penalty in Iran, and the Somalian families wanting a better life for their children in a country where well over 1,000 children are confirmed to have been drafted as child soldiers. That is just to give two examples. Many other members have given many more. Let us not forget that, as we speak in the chamber today, the prospect of further violence and humanitarian tragedy in Saddam looms large. The bill must not be allowed to continue. I will assert that Scotland stands shoulder to shoulder with those seeking safety in this country. We must do all we can to show them dignity and respect. As I conclude, I want to highlight that last week I was proud to host a welcome afternoon and constituency information session for the many Ukrainian refugees who now call Coatbridge and Christ in their home. Although the circumstances of their arrival has been tragic, it was also inspiring to see the many local community groups and people come together to support our newest neighbours. If the current UK Government had even a fraction of the kindness, understanding and welcoming nature that my constituents have shown, we would not need to be discussing the repulsive proposal in the chamber today. On that note, Presiding Officer, I will conclude. Clare Adamson, to be followed by Paul Sweeney again around six minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am unable to make a statement to that. In my view, the provisions of the illegal immigration bill are compatible with convention rights, but the Government nonetheless wishes the House to proceed with this bill. Presiding Officer, that is a quote from the bill's explanatory notes by Soella Baverman, the lead architect of the illegal immigration bill. Ms Baverman followed up in a letter to MPs in March, which she said, That does not mean that the provisions of the bill are incompatible with convention rights, only that there is a more than 50 per cent chance that it may not be. As again, when we saw with the Northern Irish protocol, this is a Government paying fast and loose with international treaties it has signed. As many members have indicated, rarely has a bill been more aptly named. The illegal immigration bill is morally repubnant and illegally un-et. The Home Secretary has been heralding Rwanda as a deportee's utopia on our news screens, smiling all the while, insisting that Rwanda's very name should serve as a deterrent to people wanting to cross the channel. Should the Tory's utopian deterrent policy fail, they hope that this new measure to codify anti-refugee prejudice may say it's support base in the UK. The prejudice, the lies have persisted and we must combat that with compassion and with truth. I've heard people taken in by the othering of refugees ask the question, why are so many refugees coming to the UK? As Dr Allen and many others have indicated, in relative terms they are not. Of the people who do, the vast majority have good reason for doing so. Zirana Sann, advocacy director of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, outlined this in her evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights last year. Over 80 per cent of the refugees in the world will live in the global south. In other words, asylum seekers overwhelmingly seek refuge in neighbouring countries. In Europe, most seek refuge in France, Germany and Greece. And the Eurostat 2021 figures, which of course don't include the UK now, show that 53.6 of the European migrants were citizens of Asian countries including Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Does our recent policy in the Middle East, including military intervention, put no responsibility on the UK to honour its international obligations? In any case, the minorities seeking refuge in the UK, as has been said, often have family ties. A 2018 study of over 400 people in northern France found that over half who wanted to travel to the UK had a family member here. The other reason, as has been said already, is that their second language may well be English. Proponents of the bill casually overlooked the influence of British imperialism, which has made English the most widely spoken second language in the world. People are often fleeing conflicts that the UK has had more than a minor role in, either historically or presently. Ms Heson's testimony to the Westminster Committee was not rhetoric, it was not ideological, it was stats, statistics and facts. That is why the impetus behind the UK's Government's illegal migration bill is so manifestly unjust. It is based upon a false narrative. It is a concerted attempt to weaponise asylum seekers and frame them as a homogenised mass responsible for the UK's inexorable decline under a conservative rule. Brexit, trust quartangs, the disastrous budget, PPA scandals, fact strikes for Tory donors, do not look their folks. Look to the poor soul that needs sanctuary over there or, as bravermen would have put it, look to the invader. Lord Dubbs, who arrived in the UK from Czechoslovakia as a child fleeing the Nazis, had described swell of bravermen's likeny of refugees to invaders as deeply and personally upsetting and a low point of a half century in his career in politics. Of course, the Dubbs amendment to the Immigration Act of 2016 served as an example of actually creating a safe route for unaccompanied child refugees. The urbans, they should be urbans as soon as they seek to claim asylum in the UK. The bill is the most insidious form of populist driven irrational policy and yet another example of the Westminster system working against Scotland's markedly different needs. We have an aging population, we have population decline, we need to encourage more people to come here and our refugees should be allowed to work when they come here. We have increasing recruitment pressures across the public and private sector compounded by Brexit but they saddle us with a hostile immigration system that is unfit for our different population needs. They bemoan the cost of housing asylum seekers but steadfastly refuse to allow asylum seekers to make an economic impact and work in our country. How can that be justified? I will stand with everyone in the chamber today who is against the bill and is fighting for the rights of refugees. Paul Sweeney will be followed by Karen Adam again in six minutes. I rise to support the amendment name of my friend and member for West Scotland Mr Rucanian to thank the Government for tabling their motion for debate this afternoon. The illegal migration bill is arguably one of the most grotesque pieces of legislation that has ever been introduced in this country. It has received widespread almost universal condemnation from what is operating in the field and it will criminalise human beings for having the audacity to try and reach these shores looking for safety and sanctuary. Amnist the international say that it is a huge step towards the UK completely abandoning its responsibilities under international law to respect and protect the universality of human rights. The human rights consortium in just rights Scotland called its introduction on urgent human rights emergency. The Scottish Refugee Council condemned the legislation as morally repugnant, practically unworkable and state their belief that it exerts severe harm on women, men and children seeking safety. All of that begs the simple question, why? Why would the UK Government seek to introduce legislation that is so callous, so devoid of compassion and so clearly designed to sow division and incite hatred? The answer is quite simple, Deputy Presiding Officer. They do not have one single positive thing to offer this country, not one. This is the last desperate vestige of a Government that is flailing towards a massive defeat at the next election. All they have to offer this country is inflammatory rhetoric designed to fan the flames of culture wars that they hope might save them some seats by appealing to people's worst instincts. There is no clearer example of fanning of those flames than the Rwanda policy. Let's think about it for a second. You're a refugee, you're fleeing Perth-Saturn, genuinely fearing for your life, you're so desperate that you're willing to put your children into a rumoured dinghy and make the horrific journey across the channel. They are for legitimate reasons, family reunion, desperate to reunite with relatives, the fact that you might speak English, not French or German. When you get here, rather than being treated with compassion and dignity, you're detained without limit of time or charge, processed and shipped off to Rwanda, despite warnings about the country's human rights record, and it's indeed subject to a case before the Court of Appeal, as we speak. That is cruelty that I cannot even begin to comprehend. I'm not entirely sure why the Tory party think we will stand by and allow them to do this to some of the most marginalised and vulnerable human beings on the planet. Even the costs are absurd. A £120 million down payment works out at something like £600,000 to send one asylum seeker to Rwanda. That would cover the cost of making bus travel free for every asylum seeker in Scotland for a year. It would also pay for universal credit for one asylum seeker for 149 years. It is absolutely ridiculous on its own terms as well. The reality is that the Tories have ravaged their asylum and immigration systems 13 years of austerity, have hauled out of public sector to the extent that we are now unable to do something as simple as process asylum claims. It's an atrocious waste of human life, but also an atrocious waste of public money. I'm very grateful to Paul Swinney for taking my intervention. I'm loath to interrupt him on what is a typically excellent speech. Does he agree with me that a solution to part of the cost issue, the delay issue and all the other problems that he's identified in the existing asylum process would actually be to allow asylum seekers to work and therefore many of whom want to pay their way while they're waiting for their claim to be assessed? Paul Swinney, I can give you the time back. I'm very grateful for making such a typically student intervention. Every case that I dealt with as a member of Parliament involving immigration broke my heart. The waste of life, the desperation, the feeling that they were in an open prison, the psychological torment of not knowing what your destiny was going to be absolutely appalled me at every turn. Young children are not able to progress alive. Deeply angry young people have spent 18 years in that form of purgatory and its costing is all £1.5 billion per year. A waste of life, a waste of money. Particularly when you look at 75 per cent of initial asylum decisions being made last year resulted in a grant of asylum. When you add in the fact that half of the appeals of their balance work out at an overall success rate of 87.5 per cent, this is not a problem that we need to fix. It's a problem of the system failing these people. They are not the problem. We are arbitrarily punching down on some of the weakest people in our society and I have nothing but contempt for what the British Government have done in this matter. However, it is always the case with the Tories. It is never their fault, of course. Their modus operandi, like populace have gone before them, is to point the finger of blame at minorities rather than accept their own shortcomings. I really think that it is important, Deputy Presiding Officer, to remember the context in which this is all occurring. There are no legal, safe routes to asylum in this country. Other than one or two country specific schemes such as the Afghan scheme, which has already cruelly failed people, including people who have helped our own armed forces in Afghanistan, are now suffering the threat of death, torture as a result. Of those limited schemes, every one of them has failed. Was it any wonder why people try to reach these shores via unofficial routes? The bill itself is full of disgusting provisions, but I would like to quickly reference what I think to be the worst. The criminalisation of victims of human trafficking and modern slavery, the criminalisation of survivors of torture and the criminalisation of survivors of domestic violence and domestic slavery. This is just the thin end of the wedge. I had to deal with a case of Duke Mewn in the north of Glasgow, who was arrested because the police raided the cannabis factory. He discovered him and was imprisoned in Dungavel, and he was moved out of Scotland to deny him access to justice. He was almost deported if it hadn't been for his local church intervening to get him legal representation. Before the bill was introduced, there were already provisions in place to protect victims of human trafficking and modern slavery. He was a victim of human trafficking and modern slavery. He was already detained and punched into the labyrinthine system of detention at the Home Office. I'm in my final minute, is it possible? You can get the time back, Mr Smith. Bob Doris. I thank Paul Sweeney for taking the intervention. It's a really powerful case. I'm aware of what you mentioned there, Mr Sweeney. My concern is that vulnerable men, women and children, asylum seekers and refugees will still come to our shores. Many will not seek to present for asylum. They will disappear into the darkness to be exploited by the very slave trade people that we are trying to protect them from. That will institutionalise slavery for an underclass of vulnerable people fleeing destitution elsewhere in the world and being let down by the UK Government. Paul Sweeney. The member for Mary Ellen Springburn makes a very important point there that if we cannot provide a basic interface with people, they will disappear into the black economy, further vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. We have a legal responsibility and obligation to those victims and survivors that were just referenced. For example, this place has passed legislation that obliges the Scottish Minister to provide support and assistance to survivors of trafficking. The Unisgrotesc illegal immigration bill modifies the very legislation passed by this place, which places those obligations on the Scottish ministers and his legislators elected to this Parliament. We should reject that unreservedly, regardless of our political affiliation. Deputy Presiding Officer, there are countless reasons for rejecting this rotten bill. I can stand here all day and pick apart the potential illegalities that it presents and the dog whistle politics that it represents. I am conscious of the time. We have a chance today to stand as one and to send a resounding message to the UK Government at this bill. This Parliament wholeheartedly rejects this bill and I urge colleagues across the chamber to join us in that call. Thank you Mr Sweeney. I just take the opportunity to remind the chamber that those speaking in the debate need to remain in the chamber for at least two speakers after their own contribution as well as to be here for the opening and closing speeches. I now call Karen Adam to be followed by Fergus Ewing for again around six minutes, Ms Adam. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. So reads article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a declaration the United Kingdom helped to draft and voted for at the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 in the wake of the deadliest conflict the world had ever seen. Three years later, 1951 Refugee Convention, again which the United Kingdom helped draft and voted for, is to clarify the status of refugees and would set out the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum. Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention is clear. The contracting state shall not impose penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence on refugees. Let there be no ambiguity on this matter, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said that if passed, the UK Government's proposed illegal migration bill would amount to an asylum ban. Extinguishing the right to seek refuge protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly. At the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, which I sit this morning, we heard very powerful and compelling evidence. There was a number of third sector organisations who support refugees in Scotland and they called this proposed legislation an anti-human being bill and called on members of all parties to oppose it. I want to echo that call here in the chamber on their behalf but I can't say in all honesty that I am holding my breath. Only a few months ago, the Conservative Home Secretary referred to migrants risking their lives to cross the ice cold waters of the channel in Dingys as an invasion. It should come as no surprise that it was after all the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, often touted as a moderate Tory who referred to desperate asylum seekers at Calais as a swarm. It was then Defence Secretary Michael Fallon who said that our towns and communities were being swamped by huge numbers of migrant workers. It was Lee Anderson only a few months ago who called refugees illegal immigrants and saying that giving sanctuary to asylum seekers left a bitter taste in his mouth. This is the true and ugly face of the hostile environment, foisted on us by a Conservative Government that Scotland did not vote for. I must say that I was deeply saddened to hear the Labour shadows chancellor calling for more deportations last year but I am really glad to see the rejection of this bill by Scottish Labour and I align myself with the words of Pam Duncan-Clancy on Equality's Committee this morning. I'll give way. Paul O'Kee. She will, I'm sure, want to recognise, as I did in my opening remarks, the opposition that the Labour Party has shown in the House of Commons to this bill. Indeed, sharing the lobbies with SNP MPs in order to put forward an amendment to remove the stages of the bill and then of course to vote against it. I'm sure that she will want to recognise the UK Labour Party's position on that. Karen Adam. Yes, I do. I was just coming to that and just hopeful that there would still be pressure on UK colleagues. Just to say the words of Pam Duncan-Clancy, your colleague, this morning, were very powerful and she expressed her anger and disgust at this bill and I align myself with her words. The only response to the tactics of dehumanisation that we've come to expect from the Conservative Party is fierce opposition and I ask of colleagues cross-party here today that party pressure at the UK side of things must happen and we must all reject the rhetoric that they spew also. Scotland has a long and proud history of welcoming people of all nationalities and faiths and we will always stand shoulder to shoulder with those seeking refuge from war and persecution. We want nothing to do with this vile bill that seeks to punish some of the most vulnerable people in the world. As the UK Government dehumanises and punishes vulnerable asylum seekers, I want you to hear first hand from a young LGBT plus Afghan who, despite the odds, made it to these shores after Kabul fell. When my office spoke to him this morning, he said, We found an impossible but legal route. It took a great deal of time, favours, money and months of terror, hiding and hard work. We did not expect it to work and we can't make it work for anyone else. I have other friends who are stuck in Afghanistan and I don't expect them to survive. It's very hard-hitting and it takes a while for that and the reality of it really to sink in. There are people around the world whose lives are in peril, many of whom with social, cultural or linguistic ties to the United Kingdom who are unable to seek asylum here. Why? Because there is no system for applying for asylum from abroad. To make an application for asylum, you have to be on British soil. You will be refused entry onto a plane or a ship without the appropriate visa. Safe and legal routes are limited at best. I want to conclude today by echoing once again the poignant words of the LGBT Afghan who spoke to my office this morning. I have other friends who are stuck in Afghanistan and I don't expect them to survive. Heed the call of the charities who gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament's human rights committee this morning. They work in the front line with refugees in Scotland. Please put pressure on our colleagues UK wide and reject this anti-human bill. I think that the final speaker in the open debate will be around six minutes. Thank you. I have never claimed to be a biblical scholar and, of late, my bible studies have been somewhat infrequent and knowledge rusty. Underlying the theme of the debate today, we can look no further than the Gospel according to Saint Luke, which narrates the parable of the Good Samaritan. That spirit of providing help, arms, sanctuary, refuge to a stranger is the essential message of that parable. It has been the underlying theme of many speeches, interesting speeches from time to time, starting with the cabinet secretary and including others. I won't have the time to rehearse them, but I was particularly struck by Alex Cole-Hamilton's speech, which was replete with historical illusion, among which was the reference to the Kindertransport programme. That led me just to refresh my memory of that particular programme and perhaps draw a comparison between how it was conducted back in the late 1930s and what is now happening. The Kindertransport programme began with the deputation of British Jewish people in Britain, Jewish leaders, Quakers, who went to Neville Chamberlain five days after the Christon act pogrom. Chamberlain saw them and the next day his cabinet discussed the issue, not three months later after a policy paper, the next day. At six days later, the Home Secretary, I think Sir Samuel Whore, came to the House of Commons and brought forward the programme called the movement for care of children from Germany. He set about turning that great idea of being a good Samaritan into practice, and he did so with extreme rapidity. There are complexities and ins and outs, but he reached out on the radio for people to take these children to their home. Immediately he got 500 people volunteering for that. That programme was carried out swiftly and efficiently. It seems to me that that spirit, that effort, that project and the delivery of it is entirely in keeping with what I perceive to be the finest qualities of the people in England. I have always been an anglophile. I think that those qualities include patience, tolerance, politeness and consideration with the emphasis. Yes, certainly I will. I am very grateful to Fergus Ewing for giving way. He will share my view that that good will, shown in the kinder transport in that very rapid project, was again reflected in the dub scheme, which was set up to bring children over from the war in Syria. He will also recognise that it was process, it was bureaucracy and a lack of fundamental political will from the Government, which saw that scheme failed to bring as many children as it had anticipated over. Fergus Ewing, I think, will give you the time back as well. Yes, I am aware of the dub scheme and I very much regret that the UK Government, as I understand it, and I am no expert in that, is moving away from that. I do hope that it will reconsider. Thank you for Mr Cole-Hamilton raising that point. The essential point that I am making is that the approach that was taken then was in keeping with English character. If I may just add a little humorous note, I was reading about the English character and the American author Bill Bryson who said that it was unfortunate that the experiment of communism was undertaken in Soviet Russia because the people in England would have been far more capable of implementing it properly because they are prepared to queue endlessly. They accept rationing with fortitude. They are prepared to wait months and months for items not to be delivered. Whilst they mutter under their breath about the ills of their Government, they very rarely do anything about it and they were prepared to accept the dictats of Mrs Thatcher without apparent demure. I think that the serious point that I want to make is that I do not think that the conduct of this migration bill matches the spirit and the character of the people in England. They certainly do not represent the people in Scotland. I do want to say this and I hope that I am not offending colleagues although perhaps I have managed to do that occasionally from time to time. However, I do not personally think that the Conservative members care any less about people who are true refugees than anybody else. I think that that should be said. I do also think that the Conservatives could play a big role in turning down at least some of the extremities of this bill, particularly in relation to children because, according to the briefings that I have read, that will mean that children accepted before 18 will have to be deported when they get to the age of 18. How can that be right? Particularly—I am sorry, I would love to, but I just don't have time—I must come to a close quite soon. I just make that general point, but I think that it is important to say that all of us care about these issues. No one has got a monopoly, surely, and no party has got a monopoly on care or virtue for that matter, and I certainly would not claim any particular strong credentials in that regard. In conclusion, if I may, I think that the spirit of the good Samaritan is something that we should bear in mind at the end of the day. I very much hope that the UK Government will listen to those voices here in Scotland, and I think that we are speaking for Scotland, but also in England that represent the true, the considerate and the caring character of the people in England. In closing this afternoon's debate on behalf of Scottish Labour, I reaffirm our position to this Affirm Bill. The UK Government's illegal migration bill paints a picture of irresponsible refugees who seem to delight in travelling to Scotland. The UK Government's illegal migration bill paints a picture of irresponsible refugees who seems to delight in travelling to the UK in dangerous small boats. This is simply not the case. This bill could actually achieve the opposite of ensuring safe passage of asylum seekers across the channel by forcing many vulnerable asylum seekers into the hands of human traffic. My colleagues today in the chamber have already addressed the dehumanising and immoral proposal within this bill. However, as the Cabinet Secretary's motion addresses, there are also deep concerns that the bill is not consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Home Secretary, Sheila Bernan-Man, herself cannot even guarantee that this bill does not bridge international human rights law. As my colleague Paul O'Kane addressed, the UK Government should be focusing on creating more safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum instead of verifying those who arrive via alternative means. As many have already mentioned, the right to seek asylum is universal human rights, and shared with the 1951 refugee convention. I write that all those interning and living in the UK should have access to it. This bill takes that right away from some of the most vulnerable people in Scotland. The UK Government's bill has received widespread criticism from numerous third sector and international organisations. All condense the immoral and unreasonable proposal within the bill. Amnesty International UK have predicted that the bill is expected to reach into various devolved areas of competence. Most worryingly, around child protection and entry trafficking legislation. The trafficking provision within this bill are incompatible with the entry trafficking obligation under Article 4 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Article 12 of the Council of European Trafficking Convention. The scope of this duties requires the involvement of Scottish ministers, Police Scotland and Lord Advocate. This bill will not only directly impact this profession and their commitments within Scotland, but specifically undermine the protection contains within the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act, Scotland 2015. The Children and Young People's Commissioner in Scotland has advised that the bill gives the Home Secretary the power to disapply existing Secretary duties in Scotland, owned to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children under the Children's Scotland Act 1995. My colleague Cochamp Stewart has already mentioned that local authorities in Scotland have a responsibility to provide children in need with support and accommodation, regardless of their current immigration status. The Scottish Refugee Council has advised that this bill removes the right of survivors of trafficking or modern slavery to seek asylum in this country, when entering by what the UK Government has termed illegal means. It also removes the right to safety assistance and recovery of the prospect of temporary leave to remain. My colleague Donald Cameron commented that we should not be debating this issue as a matter reserved to the UK Government. However, as I have already addressed, it will have ramification in Scotland that are likely to be overwhelmed many of Scotland sectors. The number of asylum seekers that will need pro-vono assistance in expected to be very high. That has the potential to overwhelm Scotland's legal aid service, not to mention the impact that could have on the Dunguble Immigration Detention Centre. This centre is the only immigration detention centre in Scotland and currently has the capacity to detain 130 men and 12 women. Although legal professionals are monitoring the situation, they suspect that the consequences of the bill will be very likely over whom the centre and the neighbouring community. If provisions aren't put in place to support the centre, it is likely we will see asylum seekers being shipped elsewhere in the UK with little regards to personal or family ties. This bill not only contains immoral and inhuman plans that will endanger thousands of vulnerable people trying to seek asylum here in the UK. It seeks to shut the door of those who have entered this country as victims of human trafficking and who will receive no compassion or protection from the UK as a result. But it will also directly impact a number of devolved areas of competence. It is likely to contradict commitments made by the Scottish Parliament and have a serious impact on sectors here in Scotland. We should remain committed to the international agreements by which the UK is bound. I hope that Scotland will remain committed and welcoming of those entering this country seeking asylum. Brian Whittle I and the Scottish Conservatives believe that neither Scotland nor the UK can survive without people from other nations choosing to live, work and raise their families here. We wholeheartedly back efforts to offer refugees fleeing war, famine and persecution a safe home and we are in no doubt that the United Kingdom as a major developed nation has a serious and important role to play in protecting people around the world. I would have hoped that the chamber might have recognised that the UK Government also has a responsibility to ensure that it takes forward the points that I have just set out in a way that effectively deters and hinders those who try to exploit that system. I would have hoped that the Scottish Government and others in this chamber might have recognised that in the face of people trafficking, putting desperate people into overloaded boats and launching them across one of the world's busiest shipping lines, we must do more to prevent lives being lost. I thank the member for giving way. I think that we can all agree on the point that he has just made about the evils of the people traffickers and the people who run the small boats. The Conservatives have not yet given us a real opportunity in this debate, however, to assess their reaction to the complaint that exists that there are essentially virtually no legal routes to take. So what are the legal routes that these people are supposed to take? Brian Whittle. I would refer you back to the answer that my colleague has already given you to that particular question. Perhaps he weren't in the chamber and he replied to you. Well, he gave you the answer to that. Deputy Prime Minister, this whole debate is an exercise in posturing in the absence of policy. I have listened intently to the contributions of members across the chamber. I have listened to the fury that they display at the legislation. I have listened as they sort of are taller peaks on the moral high ground, but through it all not once have I heard any member put forward a better solution to this problem. Not once have I heard an explanation of how it can be possible to reduce illegal migration while doing nothing to make sure that it is less attractive to those seeking to come to United Kingdom legally. I think that the member was up first. Bob Doris. I thank the member for giving way. The refugee council has made it clear that last year, over 60 per cent of those in small boats from the 40,000 or so that sought to get to our shores were asylum seekers who would have their status upheld in the given refugee status. Now, if we want to stop those people having to come to the UK in small boats, would you agree with me that I'd be delighted if the UK Home Office would go to France and process their claims in France and put them directly into quality accommodation here in the UK? Brian Whittle. The member makes a very interesting observation. I would say that if I was part of the politicians who were looking at this bill, I think that there's a lot of things that personally I would put forward in terms of trying to negotiate and amend the bill, but that's not my gift. Can I just make a little bit of progress, please? There are many reasons for migration. We've talked about those in search of work and economic opportunities. We've talked about those who want to join family members. We've talked about those who want to come here and study. The ones that I'm really focusing on are the asylum seekers and refugees who are moving to escape conflict, to escape persecution, terrorism or human rights violations. There are also those who are environmental refugees who are moving in response to adverse effects to climate change, natural disasters or other environmental factors. They're all different and therefore all must be assessed individually. I did note that there are some 54,000 asylum seekers in the UK currently in temporary accommodation. I would also note that the UK had a net 500,000 inward migration last year, the most on record. We should also note that those who choose to make their home in Scotland were disproportionately low. The Scottish Government has never answered that problem. I'll give a way to read it. Paul Sweeney makes the point about the cost of accommodating asylum seekers. Surely giving asylum seekers the right to work would allow them to pay for their accommodation, pay their rent and their own way using their skills, give them a bit of dignity and dramatically reduce the cost of the immigration system from the current £1.5 billion a year that costs us all. Brian Whittle makes a very good point. All those people still have to be assessed individually. You can't get away from that fact. One of the impacts of some of the Scottish Government failures that I wanted to highlight is that only two weeks ago a Ukrainian family staying in Fife was told that they would have to relocate more than 130 miles away from their new home where they had lived for the last two years due to a shortage of suitable housing in Fife. That family feared such a move would separate them from their elderly grandparents who were settled with a different sponsor. The family also worried that the lack of stability for the children will impact their schooling negatively. Miles Briggs led a debate earlier this year around Scotland's housing crisis, with some 100,000 houses short in the past 14 years. That is the problem with this Government debate. In reality, the Scottish Government cannot meet the housing needs of the current Scottish population. Our schools, hospitals and dentists are all under extreme pressure, yet they bring this manufactured debate without resolving all the issues that are required to enable inward migration. That is a major factor that so few migrating to the UK choose to come and stay in Scotland. That is something that we have to actually deliver on. The challenge for me in saying all this is that I know full well that other parties in this place will have made up their mind. They have no interest or desire in having a genuine debate on those issues. This is a point-scoring exercise and nothing more. That is why we are spending an afternoon debating legislation brought forward elsewhere in the UK when we could be debating any number of issues that are today right now proving to be utterly unsolvable by this tired, massive Government, as my colleague Donald Cameron highlighted, from island ferries to education to health to transport. The Scottish Government has no answers, so it is left with no choice but to cloak its ineptitude and avail of indignation about things over which it need not consider policy and hope that nobody notices. We could have had a constructive debate this afternoon, instead of an exercise in performative anger, where the Scottish Government may be content to use their timing office to shout at the UK Government. The public are increasingly asking whether all the SNP-Green coalition is capable of. Sadly, I think that the answer is becoming obvious. I thank all those members who took the time to welcome me into post. I have been really lucky the last couple of years to have built strong working relationships with people in other parties. While I expect very strong scrutiny from them, I hope that we can move forward continuing that discussion and building towards consensus. I welcome the many contributions that were made during this important debate. I want to thank members for their engagement in a wide-ranging discussion on the UK Government's illegal migration bill and particularly to those who shared our condemnation of it. I want to highlight comments from MSPs such as Colcab Stewart, who talked about Scotland's rich tapestry and the strength in our diversity. Maggie Chapman recognised that those are our neighbours and friends that we are talking about, and I challenge anyone not to be moved by Clare Adamson's contribution in which she rightly recognised child refugees as our burns. Unfortunately, we did hear comments in stark contrast to those of hope, compassion and positivity. I have been quite taken aback at the readiness of some here to pin their colours to the UK Government's mast on this issue, particularly any suggestions that the Scottish Government should not be focusing on issues such as human rights. Human rights are everyone's business. It is a devolved matter and certainly a matter for the Scottish Parliament to consider. I was glad to hear Foisal Chowdry recognise our responsibilities to refugees, including unaccompanied miners and human trafficking victims, under devolved powers. Those responsibilities are not something that we are willing to desert. It is a matter for the UK Government's conscience that it would rather opt out of its international obligations and duty to uphold the rights of other human beings. The UK Government has relentlessly pursued a hostile environment policy towards migrants in the UK, with no regard to the consequences. That led to British citizens being caught up in the Windrush scandal, where many were refused jobs, denied access to vital public services, detained by the Home Office and even removed from the UK the only country that they ever knew as home. The Scottish Government repeatedly raised concerns about the UK Government's new plan for immigration and the Nationality and Borders Act passed in April 2022, which led to significant differentiation on how those who arrived in the UK by small boat and sought asylum would be dealt with and risks criminalising people who should be protected. The Scottish Parliament at that time withheld consent on two clauses on human trafficking and age assessment, which, of course, did not lead to any changes in the UK Government's policies or attitude, despite the clear views of this Parliament. The UK Government's plan to offshore asylum processing to Rwanda is a total abdication of the UK's moral and international responsibilities to refugees and people seeking asylum. The plan will make it even more challenging and prolonged for people to seek safety for war and persecution, and we reiterate our fundamental opposition to the Nationality and Borders Act and the plan for offshoring people seeking asylum. It is clear that the measures that the UK Government has set out previously will not achieve the change that is desperately needed in our asylum and immigration systems to make them humane and fit for purpose. The addition of this illegal migration bill to the UK Government's perverse collection of inhumane migration policies is likely to increase people's risk of exploitation and destitution. The bill extends the subhorrent treatment of refugees and victims of human trafficking by restricting their access to vital support without even having the dignity of having their case heard. Victims of human trafficking and exploitation are amongst the most vulnerable people in society and removing their access to support that they deserve following horrific experiences is utterly inconceivable. Let's be clear that the bill will exclude from help victims who are currently being controlled and exploited in our cities, towns and villages, victims who are entitled under articles 12 and 13 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking and Human Beings to a period of recovery and assistance in their moment of crisis. Victims need reassurance that this country will support them in order to exit the dreadful situations that they find themselves in, not threats of removal. I thank the minister for taking an intervention. You talk about what this bill will do to victims of trafficking and others. Do you agree with me that that is in stark contrast with what Brian Whittle said earlier that this bill will improve things for traffickers and improve the situation in our ability to tackle organised crime? What struck me is that Maggie Chapman has talked about victims of human trafficking and how that bill may impact the many others have as well, and I will come on to that. That was very much backed up by evidence and support from third parties and their statements. I'm not sure what Brian Whittle is basing his claim on, but we'll leave it there for now. Paul O'Kane referred to the reaction of the Scottish Refugee Council earlier, and I want to share a little bit more of what they've said. He said that the human consequences of this bill are devastating. It means a family fleeing the Taliban in Afghanistan, or a woman fleeing violence from the Iranian regime and sexually exploited as she fled, or a man escaping forced labour in Eritrea, none of them would be able to claim asylum or seek protection as a survivor of trafficking. This proposed law slams the door on vulnerable people, including survivors of oppressive regimes and organised crime. The Scottish Government has seen no evidence to support claims from the UK Government that the national referral mechanism is being abused on any significant scale. That unhelpful rhetoric ignores the key fact that potential victims of human trafficking cannot self-refer. A referral can only be carried out by a first responder organisation on the basis of the information that they have before them. In 2022, over 87 per cent of adults who received a conclusive decision were confirmed as victims of human trafficking. The figure for children was 92 per cent. That does not support the accusations of a system being abused. I'm not surprised that, having had a wee look at what they were discussing this morning, there's been such a strong showing from the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee today. Anyone who hears the representations that Karen Adam made must surely recognise how abhorrent and damaging this bill would be if implemented. I'm very grateful to Emma Roddick for giving way and I agree absolutely with what she's been saying. When she talks about children who are seeking asylum, does she also recognise that the hostile environment policy that she's already alluded to in her remarks extends to the working practices that the UK borders force operates on an atmosphere of disbelief when it comes to assessing the age of asylum seekers who are children? They have to go through sometimes very degrading treatment to have that age ascertained. Absolutely, that's something that the Cabinet Secretary touched on in our introduction. I know from his contribution earlier that the member understands what an impact it has when people use terminology that is aimed at othering asylum seekers and refugees and making them seem less than. I completely agree with him and I think that we can't underestimate the impact that attitude change at the top can have on the rest of society. Alasdair Allan and Paul Sweeney made the point, as did Maggie Chapman, pointing out what she called the abolishing of the asylum system altogether, that safe and legal routes are extremely limited as it is. The removal duty in this bill applies to those thought to be in the UK illegally, regardless of whether they've made a protection claim or a human rights claim, whether they claim to be a victim of slavery or human trafficking, or have made an application for judicial review. There are very limited means to challenge removal and they fall way short of the protections that the bill openly removes. To Donald Cameron on the matter of this being relevant to Scotland, relevant to this Parliament and people in this country, I would say that there was a record number, 621, of human trafficking victims in Scotland in 2022. Those are real people. I certainly care and I certainly feel a duty as a Scottish Minister to do what we can to support those victims of crime and speak out against a bill that would deny them access to that much needed support. I'm very grateful to the minister for taking intervention and I do welcome her to her role as I forgot to do that in my opening remarks. I wonder if she would also reflect, like I have, that this isn't just a political debate, this has been a debate across civic society where there has been huge support against this bill. Our churches, our faith groups have spoken out as well, so this isn't solely about a political debate, this is about what's happening in wider society as well. We go back to the mark of a society being how we treat the most vulnerable and we have to do better by asylum seekers in the UK. In 2022, over 45,000 migrants crossed the channel in small boats to the UK. While it's been reported in the media, nearly 5,000 migrants could have made the same journey so far in 2023. The number of asylum seekers waiting for a decision on their case in the UK has soared to record levels with about 166,000 people in the backlog. Almost 110,000 have been waiting for six months or more according to home office data published in February. This crisis is growing exponentially despite the UK Government promising to address it before. The UK asylum system is broken and the proposals outlined in the illegal migration bill will not solve the crisis or protect those seeking refuge. The Scottish Government was given no prior notice of the bill as the UK Government wants to rush the legislation onto the statute book. The bill will already move to the House of Lords tomorrow, just 23 sitting days after its introduction. The only opportunity for the House to consider the provisions was two days in committee of the whole House, which makes it clear that the UK Government is deliberately hustling through this bill to limit the scope for meaningful scrutiny. The lack of opportunity to comment and consider these proposals properly before their introduction once again fails to recognise Scotland's distinct social, economic and demographic needs. But let us make no mistake, the UK Government's wider agenda is to roll back and remove the rights of every member of society. Measures that restrict access to the courts and try to prevent victims from challenging unjust decisions and the actions of government ministers are unjust and unacceptable. They undermine the rule of law. They are the thin end of the wedge and they place us all at risk. It is therefore essential that we take a stand. Scotland is an open and welcoming country in total contrast to the hostile environment that characterises the UK Government's approach of its own immigration and asylum systems. I am proud that Scotland has become home to people from all over the world seeking safety and I want to make clear to anyone that has sought refuge in Scotland that, regardless of where you are from or how you got here, you are welcome here. Safe and legal routes must exist in the UK for people in search of safety and protection from war and persecution. That is the only realistic way to disrupt the business model that human traffickers use to exploit already vulnerable people seeking refuge. The bill does nothing to achieve that and merely criminalises the victims. The introduction of the illegal migration bill has resulted in widespread condemnation from UNHRC, human rights experts and organisations across the country providing support and assistance to refugees and asylum seekers. Today we asked the Parliament to endorse the motion and to support our rejection of the UK Government's illegal migration bill. That concludes the debate on illegal migration bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, point of order, Bob Doris. Earlier in this afternoon's debate, Conservative MSP Brian Whittle said that there had not been a genuine debate on the illegal migration bill. I would ask the Presiding Officer what provisions exist, understanding orders, that you have to ensure that the Conservatives get fair debating time, given that only one opening speaker and one closing speaker, Mr Whittle himself, were the Conservatives disinterested in the debate. Were they denied speakers in the debate or were they unable to defend the indefensible? I thank Mr Doris that however it is not a point of order and it is a matter for each party to decide how they will respond to their allocation of time in any given debate. We now move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. I asked George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motions 8699 on committee membership and 8700 on committee substitutes. The question on these motions will be put at decision time and I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders that decision time be brought forward to now and I invite the Minister for parliamentary business to move the motion. The question is that decision time be brought forward to now, are we all agreed? We are and there are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that amendment 8680.1 in the name of Paul O'Kane, which seeks to amend motion 8680 in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville on a legal migration bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.