���˿���

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.

Again, it is the Home Office that holds overall responsibility for the delivery of interpretation and translation services. However, asylum seekers living in Scotland have the same access rights to interpretation as refugees do. It is provided at the point of need, so I appreciate that there will be differences, because funding is sourced in different ways. I am more than happy to look more closely at the evidence that the committee has gathered.

Absolutely, convener. Such conversations have been happening in the long term, and they are on-going. We have been particularly keen on applying the right to work to asylum seekers, alongside removing NRPF, because such measures would allow integration, as is set out in our vision whereby people would be allowed to integrate from day 1 and, as you say, be economically active during their time here.

The powers that we would need sit within the wider asylum and immigration power that the UK Government holds. We have requested more power over the rights and entitlements of asylum seekers and other migrants, and we will continue to pursue that.

On bus travel, I point out that our existing approach has not been exclusive of asylum seekers. As it stands, our concessionary travel scheme allows for asylum seekers who meet the current criteria, including being aged under 22 or over 60 or being disabled, to acquire free bus travel. We estimate that around a third of asylum seekers in Scotland are currently eligible for it.

I will bring in Aileen Harding to say a bit more about the current pilot on bus travel. Once we have further information about how it is being used by asylum seekers and the types of journeys that are being carried out, we will be more than happy to explore how much it would cost the Scottish Government to extend the scheme and what justification there could be for extending it to one cohort other than simply on the basis of age and disability.

First, we are in the process of widening the dispersal of asylum seekers to other local authorities but we have been clear that, although a lot of work has been done and experience and knowledge has been built up among those who work in partnership in Glasgow to support asylum seekers, a lot of work also needs to be done to ensure that the support and the services are there once the dispersal is widened. Local authorities will have many different reasons, depending on which council it is, for hesitating to accept asylum seekers. We will learn a lot from the pilot. Transport in a city is very different to transport in a suburban or rural area, but the pilot will inform us of the cost that is likely to be inflicted.

I will bring Alison Byrne in to say some more about asylum dispersal.

I have been very interested in the evidence that the committee has gathered on hotels—keeping in mind that placement of asylum seekers in hotels—or, rather, temporary accommodation—is a decision that is wholly reserved to the UK.

It is important to go back to my answer to the convener’s previous question. Asylum seekers not having the right to work and not having recourse to public funds makes their placement in hotels very different to how it would be for other cohorts. We are clear that there is a time to use hotels and that there are appropriate circumstances for that. However, we do not see asylum seekers waiting for a decision on their immigration status as appropriate circumstances.

I completely agree about use of the word “temporary”: if we are providing people with temporary accommodation, it needs to be clear that it is temporary. Given the length of waiting times for decisions around immigration status and the uncertainty that asylum seekers face, I think that it is not fair to use the word when we place asylum seekers in hotels in Scotland.