The crime that Meghan Gallacher describes is absolutely disgusting and appalling, and I totally condemn it. She went on to say that people who are raising concerns should not be tarnished or categorised. Does she also accept that we should not tar asylum seekers and refugees who are fleeing war and persecution with the same brush and that we need to be very careful to use our positions of leadership to calm the tensions? Will she give me an example of how the Conservatives are doing that?

This afternoon, we have heard of the failings of UK Home Office policies. However, that must not undermine our continuing moral and legal commitment to refugees and people who seek asylum. I am deeply concerned about some of the rhetoric that is being used across the UK, which should, of course, have no place in our society. No one should have to fear that they will be targeted just for being who they are. It is critical that every citizen feels safe and welcome in our communities.

As the cabinet secretary made clear in her opening remarks, we all have a responsibility to be mindful of the language that we use. Scotland’s Parliament can choose to reject the deliberate use of divisive and inaccurate language, which does nothing to address community concerns or the impact of austerity. It has been disappointing to hear the echoing of divisive language in the chamber. However politely it is said, it is still inflammatory.

As the MSP for Glasgow Kelvin, I have the great honour to represent one of the most diverse constituencies in Scotland. I understand—of course I do—that people feel left behind after a decade of austerity and mismanagement, and Westminster is literally working against them. However, I have also had the pleasure of visiting many local grass-roots community groups that are bringing people together to share conversations, food and culture in order to get to know each other and learn that we have more in common than what divides us. New Scots have the same hopes and dreams, and their stories and laughter are weaving the very fabric of our rich, diverse and welcoming nation.

Mr Gulhane mentioned council leader Susan Aitken. Her direct quote was actually:

“It is not asylum seekers and refugees that are the cause of this problem. It is around policy and the lack of funding that flows to local government.”

She went on to say that those are the direct consequences of decisions

“implemented elsewhere, specifically in Westminster.”

We know that local authorities are not accommodating people who seek asylum; it is the Home Office that is entirely responsible. Will Mark Griffin join us in calling on the Westminster Government to properly fund local councils, instead of paying private companies that are making profit out of peril?

In the spirit of the fact that language matters, would Douglas Lumsden accept that there is no such thing as illegal migration, due to the 1951 convention, to which this country is signed up, and that he would be better advised to use the language that is appropriate, which is “regular and irregular routes”?

I absolutely accept that the majority of people in Scotland will rise up and protect everyone in our communities. However, in direct contrast, some of the pressures that are arising from the UK’s asylum system are a consequence of overly restrictive policies, such as the policy on the right to work. Such policies prevent people from contributing to our economy or supporting themselves, and they erode their skills by minimising opportunities for integration. I welcome the fact that that was also raised by Jamie Greene and James Dornan.

Sadly, and to our increasing frustration, asylum and immigration decisions are reserved to the UK Government. I welcome Paul Sweeney’s support in working with us to pursue the right to work, safe regular routes and the expansion of visas. I am deeply concerned that asylum hotels are now being turned into targets of the far right. For the safety of all, we need the move-on period to be extended back to 56 days.

I am conscious of my time.

Furthermore, local authorities need to be properly funded for the work that they do when pressures are identified, as is the case in Glasgow City Council. We need the UK Government to recognise the impact on public services and to engage with us to develop those solutions.

I hope that the new Home Secretary and Home Office ministers will engage with the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities on how we can best deliver asylum and immigration systems that are based in compassion, respect and human rights for all.

Does the member recognise that, in fact, the previous Conservative Government deliberately put a hold on processing claims to allow people to seek asylum and that, now that Labour has come into Westminster, it is processing those claims? Does he recognise that there are vast numbers of claims that have not been properly funded in order to enable people to move on in dignity?

Improvements are being made to the availability and analysis of equality data across the Scottish Government through the equality data improvement programme and the equality evidence strategy for 2023 to 2025. That includes improvements to the collection and analysis of disaggregated and intersectional data across policy areas. Good progress has been seen across the strategy as of July 2025. Of the strategy’s 45 actions, 17 are complete, 20 are in progress and officials are supporting the remainder to be delivered within the strategy period, where possible.

An evaluation of the current equality evidence strategy to examine its impacts, including how the work has improved outcomes, will commence shortly. Work is under way to begin the development of the next equality evidence strategy, which will be done in collaboration with analysts, policy makers and external organisations that are interested in improving equality evidence.

I will come in on that. During my previous appearances in front of the committee, I have emphasised my personal commitment to provide support and challenge across portfolios. As I said in my opening remarks, I have had 14 ministerial meetings so far, and we are now working differently. Governments are set up with departments, and everyone has subject areas while, in the chamber, we have shadow ministers to cover portfolios. It is also about cultural change. As I have said, there needs to be a will to change. We need to take people with us in order to make the change by demonstrating the positive effects that it can have.

That is part of my challenge. If we undertake impact assessments earlier, it will lead to better decision making in the future, especially in these times of fiscal challenge when serious financial decisions must be made. Money is not infinite. Therefore, we need to ensure that we look after the most vulnerable people, as the cabinet secretary says, and see the intersections in how a decision in one portfolio area can affect another.

There is much more to do. That is why having a vision and a bold ambition is important. It gives us a clear trajectory to aspire to. The journey is long and complicated but I assure the committee that we are making good progress along that way.