Seòmar agus comataidhean

First, the resettlement of people from Ukraine was a reaction to a difficult event—the illegal invasion of Ukraine—but we were led there by decisions made at the UK level. Displaced Ukrainians in Scotland and the UK have the right to work and access benefits, so they are in a very different position to those asylum seekers from other areas or those who took different routes in. That is one of the reasons why we have been clear that there needs to be safe and legal routes into the country, because if you do not provide safe and legal routes, all that is left are unsafe and illegal routes.

I can completely understand why someone seeking asylum would look at the support that has been given to Ukrainians and wonder why it has not been extended to everyone else, but the unfortunate answer is that we do not have the ability to treat asylum seekers in the same way.

I know that integration into the community has been successful in relation to Ukrainians who are displaced here at the moment. For example, they have been able to get into work; I think that 85 per cent of those in Edinburgh, for instance, are in work. They have also been able to access services in Ukrainian due to the large cohort that have very similar needs and backgrounds.

We are discussing very different cohorts here, and we are simply not able to do things in the way that we reacted to Ukraine and Sudan in relation to expanding social security access to people with, for example, NRPF.

First of all, the Home Office is responsible for matching refugees to properties. On health and social care support, the Scottish Government has always been clear that asylum seekers and refugees have access to NHS services. They can register with a general practitioner. The same goes for other devolved services, including education: a child who is seeking asylum or who is a refugee has the right to an education, just like anyone else.

I go back to funding for local authorities. We have long highlighted that the UK Government’s asylum dispersal funding is inadequate. Having met partners in COSLA and local authorities, I know that that is being felt at the moment. There is a great deal of fear about increasing asylum seeker provision without having extra funding. If the committee were minded to back our calls for the UK Government to provide more funding and clarity around that, that would be very welcome.

We had the debate in Parliament, which informed our way forward. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice wrote to Robert Jenrick to reiterate the Scottish Government’s opposition to the bill on 25 April, then we led the political debate in opposition to the bill’s provisions in the Scottish Parliament.

On 30 May, we lodged our legislative consent memorandum in the Scottish Parliament. There will be an opportunity to discuss that in a parliamentary debate. The LCM recommends that consent not be given to clauses 23 and 27 of the bill, which are the clauses to which I referred in my opening statement. We believe that they would significantly alter the competence of the Scottish ministers and our ability to meet our international human rights obligations to support victims of human trafficking, including children. Officials and ministers have continued discussions with the UK Government to make it clear what we oppose and why.

That is the specific funding that was made available for local authorities to use only for empty and void properties. Once Ukrainians move out of those properties, they will be available for social use by the local authorities.

The full variety of accommodation options in which Ukrainians are currently living in Scotland is being used for those who are coming off the ship. We have had significant interaction with the private rented sector on what is on offer, in particular in Edinburgh.

Ukrainians have been matched with host families across Scotland, and there have been specific movements in relation to the £50 million that was made available to local authorities to upgrade empty and void properties. When the properties that we have managed to bring back into use have come online, Ukrainians who have been on board the vessel have been matched with them.

We have not managed to find a specific number for you, but we can definitely write back to the committee with the most up-to-date statistics.

Indeed.

Information is always coming through, and I recently had an interesting discussion, through Reform Scotland, about the routes that Hongkongers are taking and why people are moving where they are moving. That seems to be based very much on where there is particular information or an existing diaspora that says that a place works for them. We find with cohorts that are in Scotland and are continuing to move to Scotland that they are drawn here by people whom they know who came from the same country, and by their families who are living in a particular place.

Absolutely. Before I bring in an official to respond, I will just say that that is one of many examples, because we are also making sure that progress made on childcare and early learning is expanded to asylum seekers. It goes back to the principles of our new Scots strategy. Integration from day 1 is absolutely the goal, which is why we are expanding rights and services to asylum seekers as much as we can—and, indeed, we are looking to do more of that every day. For example, we are asking the UK Government to remove the Scottish welfare fund from the list of excluded benefits under NRPF. We are pushing for whatever we can to expand provision to asylum seekers.

I will bring in Aileen Harding to say a bit more about tuition fees.

It is certainly very challenging. I am aware that the current demand for ESOL services for people who are displaced from Ukraine is putting a lot of pressure on providers and increasing waiting times. We are looking at ways of supporting that.

I again point out that there is a funding issue here, because asylum dispersal is not specifically funded by the UK Government. We do not have control over what sort of, or how much, ESOL provision is needed, but we still have to provide it. There are challenges about where the funding comes from.

Absolutely. I am aware of the concerns that the member raises. Of course, the accommodation in Glasgow stopped being used as a mother and baby unit last year. The Scottish Government made representations back in 2021; it was before the election, so Aileen Campbell was the relevant cabinet secretary. Representations were made, and we have been clear that there are concerns about the provision with regard to how safe and secure it was for the people who were placed there.