Dungavel Detention Centre (Welfare)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government about the welfare of people held at the Dungavel detention centre in light of recent protests held there. (S4T-01048)
The operation of Dungavel immigration removal centre is reserved and is the responsibility of the Home Office. However, following reports of a hunger strike at Dungavel, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights wrote to the Home Secretary on 26 March 2015 to raise his concerns about the situation and a range of other issues, including indefinite detention, living conditions and the level of contact with immigration case work. A response was received from a Home Office official, as it was during the pre-election period. That response was not satisfactory, as it did not address the points that were raised.
The cabinet secretary therefore wrote again to the Home Secretary on 28 May to urge her to reconsider the issues. A response to that letter has not yet been received. The cabinet secretary will advise the member and other interested parties when a response is received and will pursue the matter further if necessary.
I thank the minister for that very interesting reply.
The minister will be aware that the Scottish Trades Union Congress and political and religious leaders have asked to meet detainees; in fact, they have written to Dungavel, as well. Although the manager was willing to facilitate that, the Home Office refused the request, which caused great concern—the minister raised that in her answer. Will the minister raise the fact—perhaps when she has looked at the reply when it has come—that those groups cannot gain access to the detainees in Dungavel, and will she pressurise the Home Office or whichever officer is available there to ensure that they gain access to the detainees?
I very much agree with the member. The Scottish Government very much supports those groups getting access to the facilities at Dungavel and talking to those who are detained there. That was one of the issues that the cabinet secretary raised in his letter. He pointed out that the delegation had asked for permission to meet the detainees and urged that permission be granted for the visit. Permission was refused in the letter that he received back from the Home Office official, as the member rightly said. The official said that, under normal circumstances, access to immigration removal is limited to organisations exercising statutory duties, social and legal visitors, and other visitor groups. That is not satisfactory. In the letter of 28 May, the cabinet secretary again urged the Home Secretary to reconsider her decision and to allow permission to those groups to enter Dungavel.
That is very encouraging. The minister talks about statutory duties. To my mind, any group, religious or otherwise, that goes to look after the welfare of detainees is carrying out a statutory duty. I look forward to that answer.
The minister will probably be aware that the United Kingdom is the only country in the European Union that detains people indefinitely. Will her department therefore support the recommendation of the Westminster all-party parliamentary groups on refugees and migration that there should be a time limit of 28 days for anyone to be held in detention? Does she agree with the 500 people, myself included, who demonstrated on Saturday because Dungavel is no fit place to detain anyone?
I very much agree that Dungavel is not a fit place to detain anyone, and I support the 500 people who demonstrated on Saturday. I appreciate that Sandra White has long campaigned against Dungavel.
The Scottish Government is deeply concerned about the indefinite length of time for which people can be detained in Dungavel, and we absolutely understand that that causes anxiety, stress, fear and health issues for people who are simply exercising their right to seek a place of safety in which they are free from persecution.
The Scottish Government supports the recent recommendation of the all-party parliamentary groups on refugees and migration that there should be a time limit of 28 days on the length of time that anyone can be held in immigration detention, and we believe that the presumption should be in favour of community-based resolutions and against detention. Again, the cabinet secretary raised that issue in his letter to the Home Secretary.
As the minister said, representatives of the Scottish Parliament have been refused any information at all about Dungavel for many years, even though it sits in Scotland. Is she aware of any local service involvement, for example by NHS Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire Council or Police Scotland, in relation to the state of health and wellbeing of those who are held at Dungavel?
The member makes a very good point. She illustrates very clearly that we have a situation in Scotland that is not in the control or the power of the Scottish Government. Therefore, it is almost isolated with its own rules and regulations that are not those of the Government.
We have been told that health services are provided but are commissioned by the Home Office. There is no direct link with the Scottish Government; any commission of service is simply between the Home Office and the service provider. Linda Fabiani will probably be aware of that. It is a situation that is not satisfactory and I know that it is one that she has campaigned on for some time. We can raise the issue again with the Home Office, but we have not had a great deal of encouraging responses on it so far.
Annual Climate Change Targets
To ask the Scottish Government how it is responding to the “serious risk” of “international disrepute” if it continues to miss annual climate change targets. (S4T-01049)
Scotland has set itself stretching international targets on our pathway to a 42 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, and we have been open and honest about the challenges that we face in achieving the reductions that climate science tells us are necessary. However, we are making progress, and our efforts have been widely acknowledged, such as by the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change in its most recent progress report.
The member will be aware that the greenhouse gas emission statistics for 2013 will be published next Tuesday—a week from today—and the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform will deliver a statement to Parliament that afternoon that sets out the Government’s response.
The language that has been used and quoted in the press from the internal audit report on the Scottish Government’s climate change programme is deeply worrying, and not just because of the suggestion that the real concern is international repute, which I hope that we can all agree should not be our primary focus. There is also language that implies an acceptance that the climate change targets are unreachable, such as:
“the current Programme’s inability to achieve targets year by year”.
Elsewhere, there is reference to the
“currently unachievable annual statutory targets”.
Does the cabinet secretary believe that the annual climate change targets are achievable?
We recognise that the targets have to be achieved, and we are taking every step possible to achieve them. When we put the innovative and trailblazing Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 through the Parliament, I think that we all accepted that the act’s early years were going to be particularly challenging in the context of having annual targets, which are unique to the Parliament.
We are finding the annual targets challenging, but that is against a backdrop of the baseline data having been revised. Had the targets also been revised or had we measured them against the baseline that was used when the act was passed, we would have achieved the annual targets that we were supposed to each and every year.
We recognise that there are challenges, but we are making good progress. International commentators still think that Scotland is leading the way in reducing emissions and tackling climate change. As I said, when the statement to Parliament is delivered next week, we will make available more information about our future plans.
I question how convincing it is to describe legislation as “trailblazing” when it has not in fact blazed a trail. It has not been accompanied by the transformational policy changes that are necessary to achieve the targets, and we are now falling further behind. We are likely to hear next week that we have fallen further behind still.
The 2009 act requires the Government to begin to focus on consumption-based emissions. Just a couple of months ago we heard that, when we take those emissions into account, Scotland’s carbon footprint is going up, not down. Does the cabinet secretary accept that, when the failure is acknowledged next week, it will have to be accompanied by a transformational policy agenda if we are to have the remotest chance of getting back on track in the foreseeable future?
The long-term trend shows a substantial emissions reduction of just under 27 per cent since 1990. We are also leading as far as the majority of countries in western Europe are concerned. Therefore, it is the case that Scotland is trailblazing, and we are showing international leadership. That is accepted but, as we were frank enough to admit, the early years of the annual targets have been challenging, for the reasons that I outlined in my initial response.
The Parliament and the Scottish Government in particular are giving a great deal of attention to the policies that are required to ensure that we meet our targets. The new Cabinet sub-committee on climate change has met a couple of times over the past few months to ensure that we are focused on developing the new policies and proposals that are required to meet the very ambitious targets.
Mr Harvie referred to energy consumption, but the report from the UK Committee on Climate Change suggests that energy consumption in 2012 was 8 per cent below the 2012 target level and only 1TWh below the 2020 target level. Does the cabinet secretary have any further comments to make on the need to reduce energy consumption?
The reduction of energy consumption is the focus of our policies and proposals. When they are not delivering, our objective as a Government is to bring forward even more ambitious policies and proposals that will achieve at least the equivalent of the aim of those that are not delivering or exceed that. That is where we are devoting a lot of energy.
Rod Campbell highlighted a couple of statistics. I reiterate that we are making good progress and showing leadership. We are ahead of many other countries in western Europe and across these islands.
Will the cabinet secretary reassure us that he is still committed to achieving the targets? When does he expect us to achieve any of the annual targets? When we hear the statement next week about 2013’s target, will he announce new policies or new investment to meet the targets? They were agreed by the whole Parliament—there is complete cross-party agreement on them. As the SNP is now a majority Government, it has the opportunity, through its leadership, to take new action.
I assure Sarah Boyack that we want to demonstrate such leadership. As the audit report to which Patrick Harvie referred highlights, the annual targets have not been met so far because the baseline against which they are measured was revised. Most reasonable people understand the challenges that we face in achieving the annual targets in the early years.
This time next week, the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform will deliver a statement to Parliament in response to the greenhouse gas emissions statistics for 2013, which will be made public at that time. She will outline the Government’s response to those statistics and the policies and proposals that we are considering or are already taking forward.
I share the concern that the Scottish Government’s credibility with other countries will be on the line if it continues to miss the annual targets. Reducing the waste from heating homes must continue to be a priority. What more can ministers do to ensure that all homes in Scotland are properly insulated?
Jamie McGrigor highlights an important factor in the reduction of emissions in Scotland—the reduction of waste heat. We have already taken steps to improve energy efficiency, and the Government has produced ambitious proposals in the past few years. However, the conversations continue among ministers, and the specific issues of energy efficiency and tackling waste heat are high on our agenda. We agree that, as Jamie McGrigor highlights, tackling waste heat not only is good for household bills, people’s pockets and cutting the cost of energy usage but will help us as a country to reduce our emissions and achieve our targets.
Previous
Time for ReflectionNext
Scotland Can Do