I absolutely agree that we all have a responsibility across this Parliament to ensure that our leadership and language are factual and respectful. Now more than ever, it is vital that we continue to stand in solidarity with all communities across Scotland against exclusion and division.

Tess White raises the important pressures faced by councils. However, and as I think I said in answer to a previous question, she will be fully aware that immigration is a wholly reserved area. Local councils do not fund hotel provision, which is meant to be temporary. We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to provide funding directly to local authorities, which we believe are best placed to provide all the services required to ensure that we have full integration.

We have seen examples of that. We had the Afghan relocation scheme, and one for Syrians. We have stuff that works and I urge the UK Government to give serious consideration to the examples that we already have of good practice that supports local authorities.

As I said in my opening remarks, the Scottish Government completely rejects the language and proposals of Nigel Farage, who has threatened mass deportation for people who have rightfully come to the UK and have established their lives, work and families here as part of our communities.

I suppose that new Scots integration—I am sorry, Presiding Officer, but I have lost the thread of Marie McNair’s question, although I am doing my best to answer the substance of it. Is it okay if she repeats the question for me?

Thank you.

As I said, the new Scots integration plan has been widely acclaimed and acknowledged as an example of good practice. It is shared equally—we worked with third sector stakeholders and with COSLA—and is multiportfolio, covering areas such as health, transport and education. We believe that it is an excellent example that the UK Government could learn from.

I am hopeful. We have worked to build cohesive communities, which have been hard fought for and hard won, and this Government will do everything that it can to protect our cohesive communities and reject any kind of negative narrative. Communities are our allies. Working in partnership with our delivery partners and communities is core to the approach that we have already taken, and it will underpin how we will use the additional money to support work among all our communities, so that they can come together and be connected. Our approach to cohesion is built on that solid foundation of equality, inclusion and human rights.

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for the question and for taking the opportunity to highlight one of the Liberal Democrat policy areas.

The UK immigration white paper set out policy intentions that aim to reduce the levels of net migration to the UK. However, our demographic evidence makes it clear that Scotland’s population growth and its working-age population growth rely wholly on sustained positive net migration to Scotland continuing. The UK immigration system is focused on sectoral approaches, but we have argued for visa routes that are differentiated by geography rather than sector or work status, such as the rural visa pilot or the Scottish visa.

Although our Scottish graduate visa proposal looked to extend the duration of the visa for two or three years for graduates in Scotland, the UK Government opted to reduce it. In a similar vein, we argued for the move-on period to be 56 days as a matter of permanency, but the UK Government has gone for 28 days. Any measures that get people through a system that fits the needs of Scotland sound good.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no.

I have listened very carefully to all the contributors in the debate. I will not be able to refer to everybody individually, but I will try to address as many of the points that were raised as I can.

The Scottish Government has consistently made it clear that it accepts the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish ministers in relation to the definition of the term “woman” in the Equality Act 2010.

Since April, we have been taking forward the detailed work that is necessary as a consequence of the ruling. That work is on-going, and it is being co-ordinated by a senior-level, cross-Government working group that is convened by the permanent secretary.

Our approach is—

I cannot give a timescale for that. There are so many different areas that the judgment may or may not cover, and the work has to be done in a methodical way.

I was going on to address the point that our approach is focused on co-ordinating Government action in the context of legal complexity, ensuring accuracy and clarity.

I would also like to make it clear that the decision of the Supreme Court does not remove trans people’s protections from discrimination. That point was made explicitly by the Supreme Court in its judgment. We have been clear since the Supreme Court ruling that we accept that. We are taking forward the work that is necessary as a consequence of it. Every key area of Government that is or may be affected by the judgment is carrying out those assessments.

The Scottish Government has always said that we accept the ruling of the Supreme Court in its judgment—that is not a contentious issue, and we are working at pace to review and implement guidance as necessary. That is not in question.