Chamber and committees

I do not think that there is time; I am sorry.

People are therefore already eligible for and in receipt of free bus travel through national concessionary travel schemes. I encourage any person in Scotland who is seeking asylum to ensure that they submit their claim.

In addition, the Scottish Government is supporting people seeking asylum through the new Scots refugee integration strategy. The Scottish Government is working collaboratively with partners, including local government and the Scottish Refugee Council. The new Scots strategy delivery plan outlines specific actions that partners will take, and when they will be undertaken, with the aim of ensuring that new Scots live in safe, welcoming and inclusive communities, are able to access well-co-ordinated services, and understand their rights, responsibilities and entitlements in Scotland.

Guided by the strategy’s principles, communities across Scotland are already providing support to refugees and asylum seekers so that they can rebuild their lives and actively participate in society. That is happening well in Dumfries and Galloway, where the local authority has co-ordinated a refugee support network that comprises local people who have stepped up to offer support, clothing and help to refugees in the area.

As migration and refugee policy is reserved to Westminster, it is important to point out the Westminster Government’s failings when it comes to its legal obligations in relation to refugees. Asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants are being shamefully demonised to mask Westminster’s failings. Causing division between different vulnerable people is absolutely deplorable and should be called out. It is time for the UK Government to step up, get rid of the legacy of the Tories’ hostile environment and hostile immigration policies, and support those who will come to Scotland and contribute to our society.

One practical way that that could happen is by allowing asylum seekers to work and contribute to society, so that they have meaningful activity. The Scottish Government will always do its best with the powers that it has, but they are simply not a substitute for independence and determining our own policy in relation to migration and asylum.

With the powers of independence, Scotland can finally deliver a fairer asylum and migration system that meets our values and needs as a progressive, forward-thinking nation. Having independent, progressive policies in this place is what we need to do for all our vulnerable people.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I appreciate what Maggie Chapman outlined in her opening speech and her examples of what people face, including in relation to GP or health appointments.

Scotland is pursuing its ambition to be a good global citizen by hosting vulnerable people who have fled war and persecution in adherence to the United Nations refugee convention and the European convention on human rights.

All levels of government need to work together and provide tangible improvements for refugees and people seeking asylum in the UK. The Scottish Government, unlike the UK Government, has demonstrated that. We need to build consensus. Faced with renewed austerity and brutal Westminster cuts to public services, the Scottish Government is having to make very difficult decisions to deliver a balanced and sustainable spending plan for the 2024-25 financial year.

As a result of being forced to make £500 million of direct cuts, Scottish ministers found that it would be unaffordable to progress piloting free bus travel for asylum seekers in Scotland at this time. That doesnae mean that they do not want to do it; it is just that, at the moment, it is not possible.

The cabinet secretary mentioned that many people seeking asylum in Scotland, including those under 22 and over 60 years of age, as well as those with disabilities, are already eligible.

Good morning. I am interested to hear whether youse are still in support of a national care service.

Last week, the example of delayed discharges in East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire was raised in evidence. There is one health board but three local authorities. One local authority is doing really well in addressing delayed discharges. Is the support of care boards not part of the reform of creating a national care service, so that we can identify why something works really well in one area but not in the other two? That is only one example, but other local authorities struggle with delayed discharges. Is it not part of the reform to look at what is working in one area but not in others?

Good morning. My initial question is, what are your thoughts on the proposed amendments to the bill?

I have a wee supplementary question. Sweden has a senior alert programme, which includes an assessment for risk and prevention of falls, malnutrition and pressure ulcers. That is done before people even get to the point at which they need care. It is co-ordinated through a national programme that the Swedish Government introduced in 2010—14 years ago. It works; it has been shown to keep people out of hospital. We talk about preventing admission to hospital, but we also want to care for people when they come out of hospital.

In Scotland, we might be seen as a nanny state if we assess people when they turn 65. However, should the national care service aspire to have a programme that supports people to be at their healthiest in their home—or in a care home, which would become their home—for as long as possible, so that prevention runs alongside care?

You talked about direct funding, children and the removal of members from IJBs. In your negotiations with the Scottish Government—in the tripartite agreement that came to be the way to move forward—what additional reform would you like? What fundamental changes need to happen now?

Okay. You are all members of the expert legislative advisory group. I am interested in hearing about how your experience of working together in order to shape potential proposed amendments has been.

I am finding it really difficult to understand that you had one hour to look at amendments but then had June, July, August and September before you walked away. We have marked-up pages of amendments, with lots of additions in blue and strikethroughs in red. I am trying to understand why that one hour is so significant when no decisions were made about the amendments.

What is the impact of COSLA walking away? Has that caused damage?