 I call on Emma Roddick to speak to and move the motion up to eight minutes, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Scottish Government condemns the UK Government's abhorrent illegal migration bill, as does this Parliament, which voted overwhelmingly to reject the bill on 25 April. The Joint Committee on Human Rights at Westminster has stated that the bill is currently incompatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Scottish Government has written to the UK Government on multiple occasions, requesting that it withdraw the bill. We will continue to write to it, including at the second meeting of the interministerial group on safety, security and migration, which the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and the UK Home Secretary will attend in July. Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government's view is that this bill overreaches into devolved competencies by altering the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Scotland Act 2015, passed unanimously by this Parliament. Clauses 23 and 27 of the bill are a restriction on the power of Scottish ministers under the 2015 act, altering the executive competence of ministers and impacting our powers to support and assist those excluded as a result of this UK legislation. The Scottish Government therefore prepared a legislative consent memorandum. As we firmly believe, the illegal migration bill is a relevant bill under rule 9B of the standing orders. The Presiding Officer has of course concluded that the bill does not meet the criteria in rule 9B and the Scottish Government has not therefore been permitted to lodge that LCM. The Presiding Officer is of course entitled to reach the conclusion that she did, but I am disappointed by the decision and this disappointment has been amplified given the Senate just voted last week refusing consent for what they called a callous bill that would allow children to be removed from the care of Welsh social services. The Scottish Government's view is that the consent of this Parliament should be required for Clauses 23 and 27 of the UK bill. I will outline to Parliament the reasons for this. Clauses 23 of the bill disciplines specific provisions within the Human Trafficking Act in relation to support and assistance for potential victims in Scotland. Clauses 27 of the bill directly amends sections 9 and 10 of the 2015 act to make clear that they are subject to clause 23. The provisions are to be supplied in respect of persons to whom the Secretary of State is under the duty to make removal arrangements in clause 2.1 of the UK bill and who are in receipt of a positive reasonable grounds decision that the adult is a victim of an offence or of human trafficking or a competent authority is in the process of determining if there are reasonable grounds. The 2015 act requires Scottish ministers to secure such support and assistance as they consider necessary for an adult where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the adult is a victim of an offence of human trafficking. The duty exists during what is described as the relevant period, which begins on the date that it is determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the adult is a victim of human trafficking and ends on the earlier of the end of the period specified in regulations currently up to 90 days or the date on which there is a conclusive determination that the adult is or is not the victim of an offence of human trafficking. The 2015 act also enables the Scottish ministers, via a discretionary power, to secure support and assistance for an adult trafficking victim in certain circumstances. Scottish Government crisis support for potential victims of human trafficking is currently delivered through grant funding arrangements of over £7.45 million from the Victim Centred Approach Fund between 2022 and 2025. Those funds are shared between the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance, which supports women who have been trafficked for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation, and Migrant Help, which supports all other adult victims. Support can include accommodation, assistance with day-to-day living, medical advice and treatment, including psychological help, language translation and interpretation, counselling, legal advice, help accessing other services and, if the victim wishes, repatriation. The UK Government's illegal migration bill will prevent delivery of the support to people within scope, other than in a very narrow selection of cases where there are compelling reasons for an individual to remain in the UK to provide co-operation with a public authority in connection with an investigation or criminal proceedings related to their exploitation. Indeed, the UK bill has been amended to ensure the Secretary of State must assume that it is not necessary for a person to be in the United Kingdom to provide co-operation. I hope that all of us in the chamber today will recognise that victims of trafficking are some of the most vulnerable people in society having suffered unimaginable trauma through the experiences of exploitation. They should be afforded the correct support and protection not vilified for seeking safety. Last Thursday, alongside the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, I hosted a summit with stakeholders across Scotland and beyond to assess the bill and discuss reasonable mitigations. I thank the minister for taking an intervention. At the summit last Thursday, we heard very clearly from third sector and other stakeholders their concerns, particularly around the non-derogable obligations that they and we have under international human rights laws, including the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking. Can the minister provide some comfort to those people that we believe that they should continue to fulfil their non-derogable obligations under international human rights laws even if the bill is passed? Nobody should be in any doubt that the Scottish Government is committed to continuing to do anything that we can to make sure that we are meeting our international human rights obligations. We encourage any public authority to do the same within the bounds of the law. Fundamentally, we simply think that the Westminster Parliament should remove its amendments to our trafficking legislation. On the summit, which Maggie Chapman attended, we are considering many of the views that were put forward by stakeholders, and I will share key thoughts with relevant committees of the Scottish Parliament. The summit heard, for example, from the former independent anti-slavery commissioner, and perhaps the most striking contribution was provided through a video created by the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance. The video was voiced by a female survivor of human trafficking for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation and appealed to lawmakers to reconsider this horrific bill. This powerful statement starkly highlighted how vulnerable people will be consigned to a fate of exploitation with no support entitlements or protections thanks to this bill. The UK Government's bill does not introduce any legal visa routes for people to claim asylum. There are no visa routes to enable people to claim asylum in the UK, which is why it will not stop the votes. What it will do is stop women across the UK who are victims of commercial sexual exploitation, who are being raped multiple times daily from seeking help and protection from authorities. It will negatively impact prosecutions, as victims will be fearful of engaging in the criminal justice process and attempts to eliminate human trafficking in Scotland if victims actively avoid identification for fear of being removed from the UK. It is a shocking indictment on the UK Government's values and demonstrates the real impact of this legislation. As the chamber has heard before, the bill also contains powers which seriously and significantly impinge on the rights and safety of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Make no mistake that this bill will force children into harm's way. Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government, this Parliament and many in wider civic society are united in our stance that this bill has no place in Scotland. Thank you. I now call on Donald Cameron up to six minutes, please. Presiding Officer, thank you. Can I begin with a couple of important procedural points about how we have got here? I make no apology for making these points, because this was meant to be a debate about legislative consent. But yesterday, the Scottish Government's motion revealed that this is not indeed an LCM debate, as we are used to having, but it has not been permitted to lodge a legislative consent memorandum, and the Minister's motion says as much. But let us be absolutely clear who has refused that permission, because it is not the UK Government, because lodging a memorandum is, of course, nothing to do with them, but the Scottish Parliament. Here I address you directly, Presiding Officer. I will. Minister. Just to point out that, at no point did I blame the UK Government around the LCM, but it is certainly the UK Government's fault that this bill includes clauses which alter our executive competence, which amend the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act, which the Scottish Conservatives backed in 2015. So could the member perhaps explain why the change? Donald Cameron. I will, but I will make the point that I was in the process of making that this does not affect devolved competence. The Presiding Officer, presumably having taken legal advice, has decided that this is not a relevant bill for the purpose of an LCM. The Presiding Officer is a guardian of the processes of this Parliament. The legislative consent process of this Parliament does not apply, so legislative consent is not required. In shorthand, the view of the Parliament is that this does not engage devolved competence. Migration is quintessentially a reserved matter. It is also a view that I too have expanded in the Chamber when speaking against a business motion and when speaking in the debate we had in this Chamber a few months ago. During that debate, there was no indication of the Government's views on legislative consent because no memorandum had been published. We had no formal documentation regarding the views of competence on the bill. I made the point that we did not know whether the Government thought that devolved competence was engaged, whether it believed that legislative consent was necessary, if it believed that consent was necessary. We did not know why or in what way. I note the Cabinet Secretary who I see sitting beside the Minister who said that she confirmed to Parliament that they will shortly lodge a legislative consent memorandum on the bill. I will write to the UK Government today to inform it of our intention to do so. It would appear that the Cabinet Secretary was ill-advised to make such a pledge because it turns out that the only people who think that devolved competence is engaged is the Scottish Government, not the UK Government and not the officials in this very Parliament who are of the same views. The question again is why we are here today. The fact is that this is simply another attempt after a full debate on this bill on 25 April, where the substantive issues were exhaustively canvassed to have another attack on UK Government migration policy, so far so predictable. As I said in that first debate, it would of course be better if the Government was using this time to instead debate the real issues facing Scots, issues that this Parliament actually does have competence over. NHS waiting lists, drug deaths, the widening attainment gap in schools, numerous transport failures, including the mismanagement of the delivery of new ferries to Scotland. I am grateful for the opportunity. Can the member suggest when he may wish to get on to discussing the very women that the minister discussed in an opening statement who are impacted by this bill, who were protected by devolved legislation that the member's party voted for and are frightened about what is and that is our responsibility as a Government and a Parliament to protect the most vulnerable in our society. It's a shame that he doesn't think so. Donald Cameron. I look forward to summing up in this debate because, frankly, that is no answer to the question that this bill is not within the legislative competence of this Parliament. I will turn to the issues that were raised. The UK Government has introduced this bill to make sure that the only route to asylum in the UK is a safe and legal one. Since 2015, I point out that the UK has offered sanctuary to over 580,000 men, women and children through safe routes like refugee family reunion and the UK resettlement scheme, as well as welcoming people through the country-specific routes for Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. I've taken two interventions so far, I'm not taking another. Ukraine, Hong Kong, Afghanistan and Syria. The UK Government has made it clear again and again that the bill is focused on illegal migration. It seeks to address the growing instances of people smuggling and to reduce unsafe migrant crossing. The number of people arriving illegally in 2022 was more than 45,000, a 60% increase on 2021. By restricting illegal migration, there will then be greater capacity to provide a safe haven for those at risk of war and persecution. The bill provides for the UK Government to commit to resettling a specific number of the most vulnerable refugees from around the world every year. The UK Government has been responsive to concerns raised during the bill's progress in the House of Parliament. It's made a number of amendments at report stage, including enhancing the safeguards for unaccompanied children by setting out limited circumstances in which removal of children will be exercised, such as the purposes of family reunion or removal to a safe country of origin. Amendments were also made to the bill's detention powers for unaccompanied children, which will now only be permitted for purposes prescribed in regulations made by the Scottish Government. For those reasons, we will be voting against the Scottish Government's motion at decision time. I rise in support of the Government's motion in opposition to the UK's illegal migration bill. My party has been steadfast in her opposition to this bill, voting against it in the House of Commons, and in April, when we debated the bill in this Parliament, articulating clearly our opposition to it. Let's make no mistake. The illegal migration bill is brutal, pernicious and totally ill-considered. It challenges the fundamental human rights to seek asylum, which is enshrined in the 1951 United Nations refugee convention. When conducting its legislative scrutiny of the bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as we have already heard, comprised of across-party politicians from the House of Commons and the House of Lords, concluded that the bill breaches the UK's international human rights obligations, including the European Court of Human Rights. Indeed, even the Home Secretary herself has acknowledged that there is a more than 50 per cent chance that this legislation will break international human rights law. Even today, we have seen that the Government doesn't even know how much their absurd and cruel plans will cost. It's clear that the legislation will, despite repeated warnings, remove the safeguards for victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, exposing people to a greater threat of harm, or, as is too often the case, death. The modern slavery act gave hope to victims. This bill, the illegal migration bill, removes that hope. I genuinely believe that if enacted as is currently proposed, the bill will leave more people, more men, more women and children in slavery in the UK. Those are not my words, Presiding Officer. They are the words of former Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May. That is emblematic, I think, of how far and how quickly the Conservative Party have lurched to the right on those issues. I would urge the Conservative members in this chamber, because I believe that the front-bench spokesperson to be a man of integrity and a good man to use his voice and to use their voices to oppose this immoral piece of legislation, even at this late stage, as it concludes its parliamentary process at Westminster. How can they justify supporting a bill so lacking in such basic compassion, empathy and humanity? Of course, Presiding Officer, as we've heard already, this debate is focused on the impact of the legislation in a devolved context, so I will turn to that in my remaining time. The Government motion highlights that this bill will have a profound impact on devolved legislation, amending the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act 2015, which was agreed across this Parliament. I accept that the Scottish Government cannot rewrite that legislation, or indeed opt out of the worst clauses of the UK legislation. However, I do believe that we now have a responsibility to those who will be most impacted by the legislation to do everything in our power to find solutions to mitigate the worst aspects of the legislation. I would strongly urge the Government and offer to work with the Government in that vein to explore every avenue to ensure that we are maximising our legislative competency to provide support for trafficking survivors and unaccompanied children. I think that there are ways that this could be done, a greater focus on exploring how we enhance monitoring, inspection, regulation of accommodation that is used in the asylum system to ensure that provision is of good standard. I think that we can work with various partners who have been supplying important information and briefing throughout this process, who is not least the Scottish Refugee Council. The legislation will also result, more people being destitute in Scotland. It is imperative that the Government explores how it can provide additional resources to local authorities to ensure that we have necessary resilience to cope with increased demand for support services. In considering the various policy initiatives that could be explored further to mitigate the aspects of the bill, we are calling on the Scottish Government to publish a comprehensive, Scotland-wide mitigation plan by the autumn. As I have said already, we will work with the Government in that regard. That plan should outline how Scotland will continue to remain compliant with international human rights law, including the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe's convention on action against trafficking. In drawing my remarks to a close, we all have a responsibility as legislators, as elected representatives and as human beings, to do everything that we can within our powers to defend, protect and enhance the rights of the most marginalised people in our society, in our country, who come to our country and in our world. I am clear that this bill is cruel. It is inhumane. It is unjustifiable as a piece of legislation. The reality is that it is not going to work in terms of what it seeks to do. It cannot be used as a cover or an excuse for the UK Government's bigger agenda. I urge the Scottish Government to work with partners to ensure that we mitigate, that we do all that we can. For now, I allow me to add my support to the voices that are calling this bill out for what it is and opposing it clearly here in Scotland. Thank you. I now call on Alex Cole-Hamilton up to five minutes, please. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I deeply regret the circumstances that brought us together this afternoon. Before I start, Presiding Officer, it is regrettable that Donald Cameron was not able to take my intervention. I have known and liked Donald for seven years. I know his values and I struggle to see how this bill is compatible with those values, or indeed values are most of his party in this chamber. I am happy for him to intervene on me to tell me why. When we discussed this only two months ago, I had very much hoped that, since it would have prevailed, the appalling excuse for a piece of legislation would have been prevented from making it to our statute books. Today, we stand on the precipice of that happening as the Conservatives are making our country a far less kind and a darker place. Therefore, I ardently agree with my colleagues from across the chamber that this bill is far more harm than good. There are so many reasons why it should not be passed into law. Presiding Officer, I very much echo the sentiment of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who put it best, I think, when he said, and I quote, that this bill has too many problems for just one speech. The biggest and overarching problem, however, with this bill is that it will do nothing except hurt the most vulnerable who are seeking safe harbour in our shores, those who have fled the most unimaginable atrocities, those who are in desperate need and utterly deserving of our compassion and our protection. Presiding Officer, this country has a proud history of offering sanctuary to those escaping such horror, and it is because of refugees and migrants that our society is far stronger, our tapestry far richer and more vibrant. However, the Conservative Party seem intent on trashing all of that legacy. Just some of the effects of this bill include giving the Government the power to detain adults and children indefinitely. It is a bill that restricts victims of modern slavery from accessing life-saving support. It is a bill that makes it impossible for torn apart families to reunite easily, leaving children and young people alone and exposed. The United Nations has stated that, if pass this bill would breach the 1951 refugee convention and therefore more likely be in contravention with international law, there are basic standards of governance in our society that must be adhered to. Presiding Officer, surely breaking international law falls well beneath those standards. Although we are increasingly learning from recent events that appears our current Conservative Government does not appear to know much about those standards. Furthermore, not only does this bill pose a huge risk to some of the most vulnerable people in our planet, the Liberal Democrats also remain very concerned about the risk that this bill poses to our democracy. It takes power away from the courts. It strips them of their ability to review and intervene if a detention period or removal is unlawful. Instead, it places such decisions unfettered into the hands of ministers, potentially weakening our judiciary, upsetting that check and balance. Presiding Officer, this bill panders to the ugliest form of our politics. It is a classic populist move, straight from the playbook of the likes of Donald Trump. Even an empty three-word slogan delivered in staccato terms, deciding to incite anger and defensiveness, stop the boats whilst offering very little to actually solve the problem. Presiding Officer, if I was feeling especially cynical, I would use that this was a very deliberate tactic to distract from the fact that Conservative Government is unfit and incapable of running this country and looking to punch down once again on the vulnerable and the dispossessed effect that the British people are becoming increasingly aware of. It is therefore saddening that there are those in this chamber that support such cheap politics. We last debated this issue in this Parliament. Every single Conservative MSP in this chamber voted against the condemnation of this bill. Once again, showing that Douglas Ross and Rishi Sunak are one and the same, content with exploiting refugees fleeing death and victims of human trafficking to panda to the furthest extremes of their base. The Liberal Democrats have always believed that we have a moral duty to offer help to those who need it. That is why we condemn this bill in the strongest possible terms. It is also why we are calling for an expansion and proper funding of the refugee resettlement scheme, as well as the establishment of a new dedicated unit for asylum that can establish safe routes to this country, so that decisions are made with compassion and fairness, not ignorance and malice. To conclude, Presiding Officer, we must ensure that we honour the UK's long tradition of offering home and harbour to those who need it most. We heard Donald Cameron talk about the real issues, the issues that we have responsibility for. Let me explain for a moment what I think about that. We have a responsibility to victims of human trafficking. We have a responsibility to unaccompanied children in this country. Iain said that we have a responsibility to protect and enhance human rights for all. It would be lovely if we lived in a world where we could rely on safe and legal routes into the UK. We cannot, in large part, due to the UK Government, but also because of the human trafficking trade. We are talking here about people who have undergone horrific treatment and unimaginable trauma, who often have no idea how they got here or where they are, let alone have any influence on what method of transport they use. It is insincere and cruel to approach this debate with an assumption that everyone has control over their entry here. What this legislation will do is prevent people with legitimate claims to asylum from accessing it for the very same reasons that they need it. It will send a message to those under the control of human traffickers that it is not safe for them to speak up and ask for help. We are committed in Scotland to upholding human rights as far as possible within Scots law. It has been incredibly frustrating to say the least that our voice on this bill has been ignored. It is no surprise that the UK Government is rushing this legislation through to avoid scrutiny because it does not stand up to scrutiny. We are extremely worried by what this bill will mean for vulnerable asylum-seeking children who flee to the UK for a place of safety. We agree with the UN Committee on the rights of the child that the UK Government must repeal and violate children's rights. Unlike the UK Government, the Scottish Government is committed to giving children's rights the highest possible protection in Scotland. We are clear that unaccompanied child asylum seekers should benefit from the same rights, protections and safety afforded to any other child in Scotland. There are some issues that are so important and fundamental to our humanity that people expect and deserve cross-party agreement with them. Human rights should be one of those issues. Scotland's human rights-based approach to supporting victims of human trafficking should be one of those victims. Sorry, one of those issues. The Scottish Conservatives agreed with me on that when they voted, along with the rest of the Parliament, unanimously for the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act. They agreed that this was bigger than party politics back then. I hope that at least some of their members will consider standing for what they know is right here and backing our position that the illegal migration bill should not amend the act or limit our ability to help victims as laid out in the act that they supported. I will then, Presiding Officer, by saying that I have been grateful for the engagement of stakeholders to date on this bill and its impacts. It is a sad and difficult truth that under current constitutional arrangements we do not have the power to stop, amend or fully mitigate the very dangerous impacts of this bill. We remain committed to doing what we can with the powers that we have. I will continue to work with those who have an interest to seek out any mitigations that we can implement to make sure that Scotland, if not the UK, is a place of safety and support for those who need it the most. In the meantime, I hope that colleagues across the chamber will join the Scottish Government and key human rights organisations in Scotland in supporting our motion today and telling the UK Government that its bill and its hostile environment have no place here. That concludes the debate on a legal migration bill. UK legislation is now time to move on to the next item of business and we'll do so in a moment.