I suggest that we write to the Law Society of Scotland, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council to seek their views on the action that the petition calls for, including on the potential resource implications for medical professionals.

Has reasonable consideration been given to the key reasons for the failure to deliver the project by 2025 resurfacing?

I do not have any other questions.

We should also write to island community councils to get them involved.

Have I got the papers mixed up?

Yes, I have.

Sure. I will repeat what I said earlier. I suggest that we write to the Law Society of Scotland, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council to seek their views on the action called for in the petition, including the potential resource implications for medical professionals.

People who require to use NHS services will go through a process of dealing with non-clinical staff before seeing a medical professional. Many of those patients may be neurodivergent or require tailored communication. It is important that staff can identify needs and transmit medical information in a way that is effective and appropriate for neurodivergent patients. How often does the Scottish Government monitor and review the type of safeguarding training that is required for non-clinical staff with regard to such specific needs?

To ask the Scottish Government what safeguarding training NHS boards are required to provide to non-clinical staff who are handling interactions with members of the public. (S6O-02983)

Recent hostile UK Government policies have contributed to Scotland being painted as a country that does not welcome refugees. Those policies have encouraged hostility and bad feeling towards the most vulnerable in our society. The “fear of the other” rhetoric stokes racism, puts immigrants in danger and deprives the UK of the benefits that migrants bring.

Just this week, there were reports that a far-right activist had posed as a Home Office inspector to get information about a Dumfries hotel that was housing refugees. Even more shockingly, the Scottish Refugee Council has reported that suicide among asylum seekers in Home Office accommodation has doubled in the past four years. That is due to a series of UK Government asylum policies that seek to address migrants as a horde of illegal people coming to the UK, instead of safeguarding the wellbeing of migrants who are already in the country.

As Miles Briggs mentioned, the CPG on Bangladesh recently visited the Cox’s Bazar refugee camp—I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. It was great to see the positive impact of foreign funding for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. It is disappointing that that has not been reflected in the Home Office’s recent asylum policies.

Labour wants to see an end to the costly and unacceptable asylum policies set out by the Home Office. Despite being a reserved matter, UK Government asylum policy directly affects Scotland and many devolved areas of competence within it. Under the recent UK hostile crackdown on migration, many asylum seekers in Scotland will be required to seek legal aid and to seek housing and help from Scottish local authorities. That is not to mention the potential for Scotland’s only immigration detention centre, Dungavel house, to be overwhelmed.

The minister, Emma Roddick, outlined that 80 per cent of Scots want a well-managed approach to asylum. Labour wants the immigration system to work for all parts of our country. We want a fair, controlled asylum system that supports refugees fleeing persecution while keeping our borders secure and ensuring that all accepted claims are legitimate. Currently, the Tories are outsourcing border security to criminal smuggler gangs. That is why a UK Labour Government will reform and strengthen the Migration Advisory Committee with appropriate input from across the UK so that the visa system works for all its nations and regions, including Scotland.

Kaukab Stewart outlined how, as it stands, the Illegal Migration Act 2023 can disapply the power of the Scottish Parliament. When the UK Government announced the act in March last year, the Scottish Government promised action to mitigate the damage that it would do in Scotland. We are close to a year from then, and JustRight Scotland, among others, continues to warn of the danger to unaccompanied minors and victims of trafficking in Scotland under the act.

The UK Supreme Court recently ruled the so-called Rwanda plans to be unlawful. However, strict rules around asylum and leave to remain have left many asylum seekers in Scotland in limbo—not being removed but unable to access concrete help. The UK Government continues to career down a path of policies that strip refugees of their rights and ship them to third countries—a move that, as Alex Cole-Hamilton rightly observed, bluntly laid aside key aspects of our human rights legislation. Karen Adam spoke of how the UK Government does that instead of investing in tackling the asylum backlog.

As Paul O’Kane mentioned, the report by the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee recommended that the Scottish Government use powers within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to improve the lives of asylum seekers in Scotland. The harm caused by UK Government asylum policies can be mitigated in Scotland.

However, the decade of underfunding of local authorities has put the vital service that is provided to refugees at risk. The Scottish Government’s future refugee strategy must seek to protect refugees in all devolved areas and ensure that help is provided with housing, transport, employability, access to healthcare—including mental health care—and protection from organised crime.