Dungavel (Detention of Children)
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S3M-5109, in the name of Sandra White, on the detention of children at Dungavel. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament expresses serious concern over figures obtained from the UK Border Agency that show that, between October 2008 and September 2009, 103 children were detained at Dungavel in Scotland; notes that, in the last five years, 889 children from 488 families throughout the United Kingdom have been held for over 28 days, thus requiring UK ministers to personally approve continued detention; considers that these figures show that, despite the welcome commitment and efforts of the previous administration and the current Scottish Government to end the practice of the detention of children at Dungavel, children and families from Glasgow and throughout Scotland are still being subjected to this unacceptable practice, and would welcome further efforts from all political parties in Scotland to ensure that this practice is ended.
It is with a certain amount of disappointment and sadness that I find myself revisiting the issue of child detention. Despite previous debates on the subject and overwhelming support from all political parties for an end to such practices, they continue. I will not quote all the figures that I have—I know that other members will also have them—but the most up-to-date ones show that, shockingly, 884 children were detained at Yarl's Wood in England during the period July 2008 to July 2009. As for Scotland, 103 children were detained at Dungavel between October 2008 and September 2009. A total of 1,315 children were detained in three detention centres in the United Kingdom over a 15-month period. That is shameful and immoral in a society—not just Scotland, but the United Kingdom—that prides itself on justice, compassion and the protection of children.
I thank all those individuals and groups who have been working tirelessly, giving of their own time to help and highlight the plight of those children and their families. Without those groups, the needs of the children would not have been properly served, either at Dungavel or in the community.
I honestly thought that we had made progress in Scotland. In 2005 we called for a protocol to be established regarding the detention of asylum seekers and their families. In 2006 it was hoped that the agreement with the Home Office would begin to address concerns over the detention of families and their children. Although that was a welcome development, it has not removed those concerns. The pilot scheme that the Government brought in, which is running in Glasgow, is a start, and I congratulate the Government, but it is not enough. Even to this day, children in Glasgow are being taken to Dungavel, having been removed by the UK Border Agency.
The UK Government's removal of its reservation concerning the provisions in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child relating to immigration control is long overdue, and I would be interested to hear the minister's views on the legal implications of that reservation for our powers here in Scotland.
Last year's commitment to limit the detention of children in Scotland to a maximum of 72 hours appeared at the time to be a step forward. Unfortunately, the measure has simply resulted in children being taken from their homes to Dungavel, held for the maximum 72 hours and then transferred to Yarl's Wood in England after that period has expired.
Just the other day I was speaking about the fact that there were people who had been held in Dungavel for six weeks. Luckily, with the help of the groups that I mentioned, they were set free yesterday. We thought that that maximum period of 72 hours was progress, but it has provided a way to manoeuvre the figures. The lip service that has been paid to the agreement and the way in which the Home Office is getting round the commitment that it made is shameful and totally unacceptable. I urge the minister to take the issue up with the Home Office. As we know, the Home Office is actively directing its staff not to deal with MSPs, and it is encouraging MPs not to intervene, as that can halt the deportation process.
I and members from other political parties have been working with asylum seekers and refugees for the past 10 years. We have contacts, we know people and we do our utmost to help them. It is scandalous when people who are being detained are denied the basic right of having their case heard. Many families end up being wrongly deported—that can be life threatening. It seems that the Home Office and the UK Border Agency do not want people to know what is going on, and let us not forget that that is being done in our names.
What is it that is being done in our names? It fills me with shame and sorrow, but it gives me energy to continue to fight to end what are barbaric practices. It is the children who are the most vulnerable. Many of them fall ill as a result of their detention, and they are left scarred by the experience. Anyone who visits Dungavel, as I and other members have done, will never forget it. People get fingerprinted and photographed as they walk in. We are not allowed to give the kids sweets, and the guards, as I call them, take them off us and tell us that they will give them to the kids later. I will never forget the fear on the faces of the kids and their family members. I remember the sadness and hopelessness of it all when we could not even give the kids sweets. A five-month-old baby was admitted to hospital having fallen ill, due to being imprisoned at Dungavel. Babies have lost weight because their mums could not feed them, due to the stress of being in Dungavel. Would we allow that to happen to our children? Would we be outraged? Of course we would. We would be terribly outraged. What would we do about it?
We have to give those children a voice. They have witnessed terrible, unimaginable horrors—mutilation, rape, the murder of family members and even whole communities—but what do we do? We lock them up and for many children those nightmarish images recur. Night after night they relive the events that they experienced, without getting the support that they need and deserve. I can only begin to imagine the dreadful effect that that must have on children and I am ashamed that children are still in detention.
I will leave members with some quotations from children who have been detained: "You're locked in when you eat"; "It looks like a jail"; "There's jagged glass over the bricks"; "There's a big door to let cars in and a wee door to let the people in"; "There are jaggy bits here and jaggy bits there"; "You can't get out to play"; "If you want to get out to play, you've got to ask these people, ‘Can I get out to play?' You've got to wait till they tell you you can go out"; "I'm sad". On and on and on it goes.
We should all be not just sad but ashamed that that is happening to young children in Scotland in this day and age. We would not let it happen to our children. I beg the minister to get in touch with Home Office ministers and tell them that enough is enough, for the sake of the children who are suffering terribly and should not be locked up in Dungavel.
We move to the open debate. The debate is fully subscribed, so I will stop members after four minutes.
I thank Sandra White for securing the debate.
The cross-party group on asylum seekers and refugees was one of the first cross-party groups to be set up in the Parliament. It was established in 1999 because we had news of the dispersal of asylum seekers in Glasgow. The group was indeed cross-party and members will excuse me if I name a few folk who were active in it: Sandra White, of course, James Douglas-Hamilton, Donald Gorrie, Elaine Smith and Tommy Sheridan. There were others, and Patrick Harvie is the group's current convener.
Not just those members but most members, including the previous Executive, felt the same way about the issue. The current Government feels the same way. I remember that an attempt by Jack McConnell and Nicol Stephen to establish a protocol on dawn raids was scuppered by the then UK minister.
To that group of people I can add civic Scotland, churches, voluntary support groups, people who worked at Dungavel in various roles and even the locals in Strathaven, where I live. People came from all over the country to take part in vigils at Dungavel.
Scotland cares about the detention of children. Concern about the issue is not the preserve of a single person, group or political party. There is consensus: it is wrong to lock up children. It is wrong to lock up someone who has done no wrong, whatever their age, but locking up children is much worse. It is immoral, unethical and brutal to lock up a child, whether they are with one parent, two parents or unaccompanied—and to add to that experience the experience of seeing a parent in handcuffs.
The evidence of the effect on children is there for anyone to see, as a result of the pilot study at Yarl's Wood. I experienced particular horror when I read that one child reported the re-emergence of post-traumatic stress disorder. I have seen the effects of PTSD on someone close to me. How on earth can we justify inflicting such horror on a child in this country?
We all care and I suspect that we are all frustrated that despite the existence of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 there seems to be a little piece of Scotland—wherever an asylum seeker family happens to be—that is not Scotland and over which we have no jurisdiction.
Many people have tried to tackle the issue and there has been progress, but the last resort or exceptional circumstance criterion is not being applied. According to Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People, more than 100 children have been detained at Dungavel during the past year, so the detention of children is not an exceptional occurrence but a normal part of the process of deporting a family. The detention of children at Dungavel is limited to 72 hours, but a stay in Dungavel is often a precursor to a move to detention elsewhere in the UK. We send children who have been part of our community and sometimes have been born in Scotland away from Scotland and the people they know, to be locked up.
There is no doubt that the UK Government is wrong to detain children. It is right that Scotland stands against the detention of children. As I said in Parliament four years ago—the same was said five, six, seven, eight, nine and 10 years ago—we must all get together and keep shouting about how wrong the detention of children at Dungavel is. Four years and one week ago, I said:
"We all want the practices to stop, because such treatment offends us and it offends the people against whom it is meted out; it offends those who have come to care for those people in their community and it offends everyone who has dignity."—[Official Report, 23 November 2005; c 21005.]
That still stands.
Sandra White has been dedicated in her work campaigning for the removal of children from Dungavel detention centre. I am happy to support her motion. Although I did not get around to signing it, I endorse it and put on record my whole-hearted support for it.
I am sure that many of us will repeat each other's points, but that does not matter. What matters is that we speak with a common voice. As Linda Fabiani said, there is a consensus—the practice of detaining children at Dungavel must come to an end. The detention of the children of asylum seekers has been a central topic of debate for the Parliament. The practice is not acceptable and it must be changed forthwith, because all of us believe that, as far as is possible, children should be shielded from the harsh and difficult process of our immigration system. To some degree, adults who are fleeing from persecution or who simply want a better life can weigh up the risks of coming to a strange country and all that that entails, but children tend not to have a choice.
As Sandra White outlined, the detention of children can be severely damaging. Being confined in grounds surrounded by barbed wire is disconcerting, and we know that it can affect the emotional development of a young child. Similarly, the tactic of dawn raids, which are alarming to adults but especially disconcerting for children, should be brought to an end. We must argue for the adoption of a child-centred approach in everything that we do. It does not matter how the detention came about or whether the adult who seeks asylum has a sound case. It is our duty to try to avoid the impact that being imprisoned behind barbed wire has on young minds.
I am certain that the pilot project that this Parliament argued for as an alternative to detention is still a stressful experience for the families who may benefit from it, because it is bound to be followed by deportation, but I am sure that it is far less stressful for the child if the environment is normalised to an extent. The former First Minister, Jack McConnell, tackled that issue head on and the current First Minister has continued in that vein.
The motion highlights the fact that high numbers of children continue to be detained at Dungavel, and that requires some explanation. We need to get to the bottom of that and find out why it is still the case, despite the existence of a consensus among members of this Parliament, the Secretary of State for Scotland and, to an extent, the UK Border Agency. In October 2008, Jim Murphy announced the pilot that would be run with Glasgow City Council, which has provided houses for families to live in. The Scottish Refugee Council pushed for that to happen and should be congratulated.
There is a new duty on the UK Border Agency that compels it to resolve the issue once and for all. The policy that we adopt is symbolic of the kind of society that we want, so we must obtain a resolution as soon as possible. There is cross-party support for doing so, so it is achievable.
I thank Sandra White for securing a debate on such an important issue. In theory, the issue is reserved, but it is of vital importance to us because it concerns the rights of children, responsibility for which has been devolved to us on the grounds of health, welfare and education—and in any case it is the duty of us all to stand up and be counted if a wrong is being done to a fellow human being, particularly a child. As has been said, there is cross-party consensus on that.
If a child is locked up for a potentially indefinite period without automatic oversight by the courts and without any crime having been committed, a wrong is done to that child and, by extension, to all children and to society as a whole. As Sandra White and Linda Fabiani said, the detention period in Dungavel has been limited to 72 hours. That is bad enough, but that period is in most cases a precursor to transfer to Yarl's Wood or another detention centre. It is known that that approach is used to cause maximum disruption to claimants' maintenance of full legal representation.
All members will know that stress is one of the greatest medical complaints of the 21st century. If members think that they have known stress, they should think about what I am about to say and consider what they would think if the children involved were theirs. What would be the impact on them of a dawn raid at home followed by transportation in a van by people they did not know, while their parents and siblings were terrified by the prospect of an imminent return to a war zone or into the hands of an oppressive regime? That is stress. It should be remembered that the impersonal approach allows all that to take place; the people are not known and it is not known where they came from or what they are going back to. There are attempts to keep it that way because if the people involved are not known they are unlikely to be empathised with.
Earlier this year, I secured a members' business debate to congratulate the youngsters of Knightswood Youth Theatre on their well-deserved winning of a Philip Lawrence award, which they won exactly a year ago today. Knightswood Youth Theatre brings together young asylum seekers, refugees and local Glasgow children. Through hard work and just by being together, those people learn that they have many more things in common than things that separate them. They are fine young people with intelligence, determination, good manners and a lively sense of humour. Given a chance, those young asylum seekers and refugees will grow up to contribute greatly to their adopted homeland of Scotland. That they or others like them should be subjected to arbitrary detention in a prison setting is unconscionable.
I whole-heartedly support the Parliament's work in promoting the welfare of children in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom through increased engagement with the UK Border Agency to consider how it deals with children. I also whole-heartedly support our continuing commitment in the Parliament to alternatives to detention, which will see an end to children being locked up at Dungavel. It should end now.
I, too, congratulate Sandra White on securing this debate, which is important. I respect and acknowledge her sincerity and recognise and sympathise with the widely held concerns that have been powerfully expressed by her and many others of all parties over the years and by many elements of civic Scotland. That includes the Church of Scotland. The Rev Liz Gibson of Dalmally, who is a constituent of mine, is a member of its church and society council, which has worked hard to highlight the issues involved.
In general, the Scottish Conservatives believe that the UK Government and Parliament must retain reserved powers over asylum and immigration so that a consistent approach is taken throughout the UK. However, a civilised approach must be taken.
The detention of young children is the problem that surrounds Dungavel. Surely nobody is comfortable with young children being detained in detention centres, especially for long periods of time. They should be in detention centres only while they await deportation or for an initial check. The fact that families spend so long in such centres is indicative of the chaos that the UK Government has created in the asylum system. I hope that, if we are fortunate enough to win the next general election, a Conservative Government will tackle the problem effectively.
The motion correctly refers to
"efforts of the previous administration and the current Scottish Government to end the practice of the detention of children at Dungavel".
I look forward to the minister updating members on the situation. The Scottish Government has, of course, been exploring alternatives to detention, including the three-year pilot in Glasgow that is aimed at reducing the number of children who are held in Dungavel, and encouraging and assisting the voluntary return of families, which has been mentioned. We all hope that the pilot is successful.
I recall the debate that we had in the chamber on the subject in September 2005, in which my friend James Douglas-Hamilton, who famously declared an interest in Dungavel as a former resident, albeit in completely different circumstances, spoke extremely well. He correctly said that it is important that children's issues are addressed with sensitivity and that the views of our Scottish experts in the education and social work inspectorates are listened to. He concluded:
"The Home Office must be reminded of the key point, which is that, whatever the parents may or may not have done to cause them to be in Dungavel or in reception centres, children are there through no fault of their own."—[Official Report, 22 September 2005; c 19377.]
The needs of the children and their welfare are paramount. The detention of children should be exceptional and for the shortest period possible. We really must have some progress on the issue.
I congratulate my colleague, Sandra White, on securing the debate and recognise the work that she has done on the issue for several years.
Just half an hour ago we completed a debate on domestic violence and there was cross-party consensus on the need to protect victims, yet a week ago last Friday I found myself sitting in Dungavel comforting Florence and Precious Mhango as they waited to be deported. Florence is a victim of her husband's violence. Precious, in witnessing and living with the consequences of her father's violence, is his victim too. He—the perpetrator of the violence—is living and working in the UK, but they are to be deported. Ten-year-old Precious is a bright, articulate, clever and artistic little girl. What messages are we giving her by sending her away? What are we doing to her young mind by locking her up in a place such as Dungavel?
I can tell members the effect that just visiting Dungavel had on me. I was made to wait between heavy, locked iron security gates for a guard to accompany me into grounds that were surrounded by a high perimeter fence complete with barbed wire. Being fingerprinted for the first time in my life and being accompanied by a guard into a locked room was not a pleasant experience. I was only visiting and the staff were perfectly nice, but I felt that I was doing something wrong. Of course I knew that I was doing nothing wrong, but I am a grown woman who is able to rationalise and can tell the difference between how I feel and what I know to be true; I am not a 10-year-old child who is not yet emotionally equipped to understand anything other than how she feels. Research that was carried out this year at Yarl's Wood, in Bedfordshire, found that the experience of detention is damaging to children's physical and mental health.
However, let us not rely on my experience or the little research that has been carried out. In August, Precious Mhango was taken to Dungavel, then Yarl's Wood, with her mum—this is the second time it has happened to her. When they were released, after legal and political interventions, Precious, who is a keen writer, was encouraged to write about the experience. Here are some of her own words:
"I saw 5 or 6 giant men officers … It was like we were in the court and had been found guilty of killing someone … my whole body was numb. … I was in a different world … No friends, no good fun and no smiles from my mum. … People were sad like they'd had someone die … I am so scared … it's haunting me at night."
A recent report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons regarded Dungavel as the jewel in the crown of British detention centres, but the fact that we continue to incarcerate children there is not a badge of honour. Rather, it is a badge that Scotland should be ashamed of. As we have heard, the detention of children is not being applied as a last resort, as is required by international law; more than 100 children have been detained in Dungavel over the past year, so it looks as though we are locking children up in prison as part of our standard removal system. The UK Government cannot hide from that, but it can stop it. It can direct resources towards alternatives such as the family return project that is being piloted in Glasgow.
On 2 November, a new duty on the UKBA to
"safeguard and promote the welfare of children"
under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 came into force. On 18 November, 10-year-old Precious Mhango was taken to Dungavel again. Given the trauma that she experienced the previous time, of which the UKBA was well aware, I would like to know how that decision was made while having regard to the UKBA's duty to
"safeguard and promote the welfare"
of that child.
Linda Fabiani is right to call the practice brutal. It is brutal. No so-called civilised society should tolerate it, and the UK Government must end it now.
I, too, thank Sandra White for raising this important issue. How do we, as a society, treat some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, who have done no wrong and whose only crime is to have parents who seek refuge in the United Kingdom? That is an important question for all of us in the chamber. Let us be clear: children in detention centres across the UK and in Dungavel detention centre in Scotland have done absolutely nothing wrong, yet they are locked up and treated like criminals. As we have heard, the impact on them can be horrific. As a society, we fail a fundamental test of civilisation, democracy and common humanity. In the 21st century, we should not lock up the children of asylum seekers and neither should we have dawn raids to remove children from their homes.
There has been a great deal of concern about Dungavel over recent years. There have been inspection reports from HM chief inspector of prisons, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education and the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care, and there have been outspoken comments from Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People and from the churches.
One of the reports that members might expect to defend the Government is worth having a look at. It is the follow-up report from the chief inspector of prisons in England and Wales, who is responsible for inspecting Dungavel. She says:
"the detention of children in itself is a cause for concern, and, in spite of efforts by centre staff, there was still little evidence that children's welfare was taken into account before a decision to detain, nor was it independently reviewed immediately after detention. Now that the UK has indicated that it will remove the immigration reservation to the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, the whole policy and practice on detention of children needs to be reviewed."
That report is dated December 2008. Why, then, has that not happened? Why are children still being detained at Dungavel?
The start of the report contains these chilling words:
"Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre … has always received good inspection reports: indeed, at the last inspection, we described it as the best IRC we had inspected."
We must remember that, even though the issue is being tackled in Scotland, there remain great issues to be resolved in other parts of the UK, and we should be concerned about that as well.
In short, our procedures—today, in Scotland, in the 21st century—create fear in the hearts of innocent children. That is badly wrong. The key, however, is the attitude not of this Parliament but of the UK Government. I have witnessed how difficult and frustrating it can be to try to get the UK Government to move on this issue. We have got to keep up the pressure and maintain a cause that is right and just. Our simple message to the UK Government should be: not here, not in our name; put a stop to the detention of children in Dungavel now.
Like many others, I congratulate Sandra White on securing tonight's members' business debate. As others have said, her commitment on this issue over the lifetime of the Scottish Parliament has been considerable.
Although there has been some progress in recent years to prevent the detention of children at centres such as Dungavel, as well as an improvement of the conditions in those centres, considerable work still needs to be done
The detention of children must always be the last possible resort. However, as Linda Fabiani and others have pointed out, the reality is that it is not an exceptional circumstance. The figures show that more than 100 children have been detained at Dungavel over the past year and that, across the UK, around 1,000 children have been detained. The vast majority of those children are under 11 years old.
Although care and facilities at Dungavel have improved significantly thanks to steps that were taken by Jack McConnell, in the previous Executive, and by the current Administration, there is no doubt that detaining children can cause considerable damage to their physical, emotional and social wellbeing. It is rare that the detention of any child will be in that child's best interests. The detention of a child, when that detention has nothing to do with the needs of the child, should be of concern to us all. Getting it right for every child must include getting it right for the children of refugees and asylum seekers, too.
I am sure that members have had the opportunity to look at the Scottish Refugee Council's briefing. It highlights the devastating impact on children of being detained, which includes physical health problems, depression and anxiety. It also highlights the worrying fact that although children are now detained at Dungavel only for a maximum of 72 hours, they are often transferred over a long distance to Yarl's Wood, and many families are moved between several different detention centres. I am sure that all members agree that that is an unacceptable position for those families to be in.
It is vital that the Scottish Government continues to work closely with the UK Border Agency to support measures to prevent children from having to endure the experience of detention, and to examine other available measures. In that respect, initiatives such as the family return project, which was developed as a partnership between Glasgow City Council, the Scottish Government and the UK Border Agency, are a welcome step forward.
Such initiatives help to reduce the need for detention and the enforced return of families in Scotland who have had their asylum claim refused; to safeguard the wellbeing of children at the end of the asylum process; to provide intensive family support that is aimed at encouraging families to make sense of their stay in Scotland; to enable families to confront the issues that are delaying their return and to help them to make positive plans for a voluntary return—plans that will help them to build a successful life back home.
I believe that projects such as family return will help to ensure that, in the future, there will be much less need to enforce the return of families and to detain them in centres such as Dungavel. There may still be a need for some families that are in Scotland illegally and fail to return voluntarily to be detained, but that should only ever happen in exceptional circumstances. I reiterate that that is quite clearly not the case in relation to today's debate.
With regard to detention, we must always, and in every circumstance, be reminded of our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and we must ensure that those rights are fully adhered to. The Scottish Government must continue to work with the Home Office and the UK Border Agency—
The member should wind up.
In conclusion, the protection and welfare of the children of asylum seekers is vital. There is a role for each of us as MSPs, as members of the Scottish or UK Governments, in local authorities and in the voluntary sector. By working together, we can end the shameful practice of the detention of children in those circumstances.
I congratulate my colleague Sandra White not only on securing the debate, but on the 10 years and more in which she has resolutely campaigned on the issue, along with Linda Fabiani and—as we have heard—members of other parties.
Since I became an MSP, I have been pleased to be able to add my voice to the voices of other members in deploring the on-going detention of children in Dungavel and other UK immigration detention centres. It is, of course, not only members of this Parliament who stand opposed to child detention: many groups and individuals throughout civic Scotland have spoken out against a practice that they regard as an affront to every basic notion about the welfare not only of vulnerable children, but of any child.
One such group is the justice and peace group in Lanarkshire and Ayrshire, which gathers regularly at Dungavel to demonstrate its solidarity with and support for those who are detained inside. Linda Fabiani and I joined the group in its annual mother's day vigil earlier this year, and on Sunday I was privileged to address its St Andrew's day gathering. The group's members live by the simple maxim that we should treat others as we would wish to be treated ourselves, and treat the children of others as we would wish our children to be treated.
Members should not be in any doubt that Dungavel is a prison: it has 20ft fences topped with razor wire. I am pleased that Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People has voiced his support for Sandra White's motion. He has a remit to speak up for all of Scotland's children, regardless of their—or their parents'—national origin, or the method by which they came to live here. It is therefore no surprise that he deplores the fact that a small group is singled out for such harsh treatment.
I am also encouraged that more and more voices from other parts of the UK are being raised in protest at the detention of children. I have been in contact with a recently formed citizens campaign group in England, end child detention now, which has impressively quickly mobilised Westminster MPs, including a number of principled Labour MPs, to make public their opposition to the UK Government's policy on detention. The members of that campaign aim to achieve in England the same media and public awareness of child detention that has been built up in Scotland. They are greatly encouraged by the Scottish Government's consistent opposition to child detention and its efforts to find alternatives.
The assiduous efforts of all those who have campaigned against child detention in Scotland have had some effect. Children are now detained in Dungavel for no longer than 72 hours, and the UK Border Agency has been persuaded to partner the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments in piloting community alternatives to detention, although whether it is respecting the spirit or even acknowledging the existence of the initiative is a moot point, as Sandra White pointed out.
However, that is not enough—not by a long shot. Children and families are still routinely detained at Dungavel and then moved to Yarl's Wood, where detention can go on for much longer—sometimes very much longer, as we have heard. All the evidence shows that the cumulative effect of each day of detention on a child's emotional, physical and mental health is devastating.
I do not believe that the UK's immigration ministers are deliberately cruel or callous people, but, perhaps because they have become so wedded to a political rhetoric that emphasises toughness on asylum seekers and migrants, they persist in pursuing a cruel policy. It is true that it is discriminatory, unethical and violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but what most appals me and others is the inherent cruelty in the act of depriving children who have committed no offence of not only their liberty but almost every aspect of a decent childhood. Detention wrecks children's lives, pure and simple. No immigration or asylum policy justifies it, and it must end now.
I congratulate Sandra White on bringing the detention of children at Dungavel to the chamber for debate. It is not the first time that she has done so; she has been a doughty fighter on the issue. I also congratulate every other speaker in the debate who has passionately advocated the overturning of a wrong that continues to be perpetrated in our name and in our country. The sooner we can remove the stain on our reputation as a civilised country, the better.
The Scottish Government remains fundamentally opposed to the detention of children in Dungavel and to dawn raids. We have made it clear that asylum seekers and refugees must be treated fairly and humanely, and must be welcomed and supported while they are in Scotland. The Scottish Government believes in the integration of asylum seekers from day one. We firmly believe that that policy is in the best interests of not only asylum seekers but the settled community.
We have heard many examples of the contribution that asylum seekers make to their communities and the void that is left when they leave. Although we understand that not everyone can stay—I am sure that members understand that there are people whom we would not want in Scotland—we firmly believe that the detention of children in Dungavel is totally unacceptable.
As members know, the Scottish Government is committed to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and to promoting and supporting the rights of all children in Scotland, no matter what their country of origin. That is why we have been working with partners, including Glasgow City Council, the Scottish Refugee Council and the UK Border Agency, to improve the experience of children who are seeking asylum in Scotland, where we have the power to do so. That includes giving young asylum seekers equal access to further and higher education, and we are working with Glasgow City Council to ensure that the children of asylum seekers can access free nursery places.
We are doing what we can within our powers, but we are unable to decide which families can stay in Scotland and which should leave, nor can we decide what should happen to families with children when they have been told that they cannot stay. At present, families whose asylum claims have been refused and who are not willing to leave voluntarily are forcibly removed and may be detained in Dungavel. Although we understand the principle that a child should not be separated from a parent who has reached that stage in their asylum application, we do not agree that Dungavel is an appropriate place for a child.
However, we are not just content to criticise. We have been taking a constructive approach to exploring alternatives to detention for families. For example, the family return pilot project, which has been developed in a partnership involving the Scottish Government, Glasgow City Council, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the UK Border Agency and the International Organization for Migration, provides a range of support to up to five families at any time and is aimed at reducing the number of children who are held in Dungavel and at encouraging and assisting the families' voluntary return. The pilot project, which is the first of its kind in Scotland, was launched on 12 May and will run for three years.
Voluntary return is widely recognised as being by far the best option for asylum seekers who have reached the end of the asylum process and have failed in their application. It is a more humane approach that enables families to prepare themselves more effectively for return. The project offers additional support to assist families in making the transition to ensure that, even if they do not choose to return voluntarily, they will be better prepared for their return.
Our opposition to the detention of children at Dungavel has been consistently expressed to the UK Government by the First Minister, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and the Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution. The latter did so as recently as 9 November.
We in the Scottish Government will continue to do all that we can to ensure that the experience of these children is as positive as it can be. We will also ensure that as they wait for their claim to be considered—or, if the application fails, as they have to go through the process of leaving the country—these families are treated with humanity and dignity during their time in Scotland.
Meeting closed at 17:47.