Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
We move now to the members' business debate on motion S1M-304, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament is concerned that aspects of the Immigration and Asylum Act will effectively amend Scottish legislation pertaining to social work, the health service, mental health, children's rights and housing; considers that the Scottish Parliament should, therefore, be consulted on this matter; believes that the cash payments to asylum seekers should continue in Scotland, and believes that the Scottish Parliament should consider supplementing financial resources provided to local authorities by the Home Office in relation to the Act's provisions and that the timetable for the Act's implementation in Scotland should be extended to April 2001 to allow time to address the specific problems which the Act poses for Scotland.
This debate is a good opportunity to examine a number of issues in relation to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
I thank the 50 MSPs who signed the motion that I lodged and the organisations that have organised a petition around the issues in the motion, including Amnesty International, the Scottish Refugee Council and the Association of Churches Together in Scotland. Those organisations have done a wonderful job of highlighting some of the problems.
I did not lodge the motion as an academic exercise on the constitutional settlement. I recognise that there are problems because Westminster legislation has effectively amended what has been legislation in Scotland for many years. My main motivation in lodging the motion was a concern for the welfare of people who come to live in this country. The matter was brought to my attention at a meeting last year of the co-operative party, of which I am a member.
At that point, people were expressing concern about several of the proposals in the consultation document on the future of asylum seekers and refugees. Concern was also expressed by a number of organisations at the coalface, working with people who had come here as refugees and asylum seekers, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, a number of housing organisations and Church groups.
Other members will talk about some of the legal and constitutional issues, but I will consider some of the changes that will affect how we deal with
refugees and asylum seekers. I will keep my remarks short, to allow as many members as possible to speak.
Scottish legislation that has been changed as a result of the act includes the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Those changes will mean that refugees and asylum seekers coming to this country will have less choice on where to live in the UK. That is a result of the dispersal policy, which has created 10 regions, including Scotland.
The new rules will take effect from April 2000, despite early indications from the Home Office to the various organisations that were lobbying that there was indeed a good case for delaying the introduction of those rules in Scotland, because of the way in which things had operated here in the past and the need to put in place new initiatives.
There is concern that many of the local consortiums in the UK are not ready to deal with the changes or to offer the services that they must provide under the new legislation. The latest figures show that 13 local authorities have signed up to be part of the Scottish consortium, but that only seven of them say that they can provide accommodation, now or on 1 April. Those authorities are also concerned that the method of financing means that there is no up-front additional funding to help them to renovate properties and to furnish them or to bring empty properties back into use. However, I know that there are continuing discussions about that, and I hope that the minister will reassure me on that point.
We are well aware of the situation in Glasgow. Glasgow City Council has been able to come to an arrangement with the Home Office to take 600 families prior to 31 March under the existing system, which will allow the council a sum of £300 per family per week to look after those families. The council will continue to make cash payments to the people for whom it is providing services.
In one of the South Ayrshire Council areas that I represent, there are concerns about a rumour that a private firm is interested in buying a property with a view to setting up a centre to house 325 people. The basis of the concern is that the site is close to Prestwick airport. If people come to this country and have to remain here for some time, we should ensure that people are housed in decent accommodation rather than in centres such as that. They should be housed in local communities, to which they can make a contribution as well as receiving hospitality.
South of the border, the Local Government Association has expressed concerns. It has been told in writing that if there is no agreement on a voluntary dispersal scheme, there may be direction. That is the last thing that we want. Traditionally, Scottish people have been hospitable towards people from other countries who are in difficulty. There is strong support for refugees and for local communities assisting in that process. The last thing that we want to do is to find ourselves in a situation in which areas feel that they are being forced to deal with refugees without the proper resources and back-up.
I find it difficult to come to terms with the system for paying benefits to refugees living in the United Kingdom. Rather than receiving cash payments at income support level, people who are coming here under the new scheme will receive a sum totalling 70 per cent of the income support level. Only the first £10 of that will be in cash; the rest will be in vouchers. I have campaigned for many years to stop local authorities using clothing vouchers and other vouchers for the children in their care. I know from first-hand accounts that a stigma was attached to such schemes for the young people who used them.
Let us think about vouchers. How would we feel if we were in a strange country, without particularly good language skills, without all the necessary support, and were given a voucher for going shopping? We would be treated differently in the local shops, which might not stock the type of food that we were used to buying, and we might not understand the currency. I am sure that we can all see the difficulties that might arise.
It is my understanding that voucher schemes such as the one that is proposed have been discredited in other countries. Switzerland tried one and found that it did not work. The problem of administration costs has already been flagged up.
I understand that a French company has been awarded the contract for dealing with the vouchers, but that it has no previous experience of running a voucher system. I hope that the minister will give me information about this matter, but I understand that no information or guidelines have yet been issued on how the vouchers are to be redeemed or how they will be used in practice.
The voucher scheme was intended as a short- term measure when it was set up. However, the reality is that many refugees and asylum seekers coming to this country stay for longer than the six months envisaged when such schemes were drawn up.
Again, the problem is whether we can say in all honesty that we are on target to meet the requirement to deal speedily with applications for asylum. At the moment, the facts and figures suggest that we are not; they also suggest that people are likely to remain in this country for a much longer period than was intended originally.
Our treatment of asylum seekers seems to go against the grain of the social inclusion objectives that we are trying to achieve under this Government, whereby we want people to be integrated into local communities, to be involved and to have a say. We seem to be saying that we will not afford the rights that we give to our own citizens to people who are here temporarily.
I welcome Donald Dewar's indication that the system will be reviewed 18 months down the line to find out whether—or how well—it is working. However, I am concerned because so many people who are involved in the process are flagging up so many difficulties that perhaps it would be better, if possible—even at this late stage—to delay implementation. If we have a bad system, why implement it badly? Why not take time out while we try to solve some of the problems? I understand that the possibility of such a delay has been denied until now largely because of concerns about whether the Benefits Agency would be able to manage separate schemes in Scotland and south of the border. I hope that some of those issues can be addressed.
For me, the fundamental question is human rights and how we treat people who are less fortunate than ourselves. I have been criticised by some people, who have reminded me that charity begins at home and have said that we cannot possibly take in everybody who comes to this country. I am not suggesting that we can, but we must consider the kind of welcome that we give to people who come to this country. Anyone who watched "Panorama" the other night will have seen what it is like for people with families who come to this country with no idea about what will happen to them. The most poignant comment was made by the woman who said that she could not even take her kids to the toilet, because she had no money, at that stage, to pay to get into the loo. That is not the welcome that we want to give.
I will finish on that point, because I want other members to be able to contribute. I thank members again for their support. I am sure that this issue will continue long after today's debate.
I remind members that members' business debates belong to the member who initiated the debate and the minister who will wind up. I will call the minister at 17.32, but no fewer than eight members want to be called. That is a triumph of hope over expectation, but the shorter the speeches, the greater the number of members who will be able to speak.
I welcome today's debate very much as the first, but by no means the last, opportunity to extract long-overdue answers to serious questions about the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
The motion has received support from 50 of the 107 non-Executive members across all parties. That should tell the minister something about the level of concern in the Parliament. Our concern is in addition to that expressed by the Churches, the Scottish Refugee Council and Amnesty International, among many others who are represented in the public gallery today.
Let us be clear: the matter is a question for this Parliament. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 amended no fewer than five pieces of devolved legislation without making any reference to this Parliament. What consultation took place between the Scottish Executive and the Home Office? What were the views of Scottish ministers, in particular on the proposed voucher scheme?
Dispersal of up to 6,000 asylum seekers and refugees to Scotland will impact on education, health, housing and other services. If such services do not receive the necessary resources and are not coping, the service providers will turn to ministers of this Parliament, who were not even involved in the design of the new system.
Does the minister acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed by service providers about the lack of resources and their fears that they will not be ready in time for dispersal?
When refugees, or local people who are concerned about the refugees coming into their community, visit members of the Scottish Parliament at their surgeries, we will not be able to hide behind the smokescreen of the ultra vires argument. We do not expect the minister to do that today either.
Can we change the situation in Scotland? Can we do away with vouchers and restore cash payments to asylum seekers? I have been asked that question many times. The honest answer is that I do not know. If the minister is honest, he will admit that he does not know either. There is no precedent; the issue will have to be tested in the Parliament. Where there is a political will, however, there is a way. I believe that there is a great deal of political will to do something about the issue. That will increase when members see refugees struggling with vouchers in the supermarket queue or have distraught people arriving at their surgeries.
The First Minister went some way towards acknowledging that the Parliament can change things when he said, in a reply to a parliamentary question, that the Executive would review the operation of the act after 18 months. We contend that, rather than implement a flawed system that is doomed to failure, we should get it right now. I urge the minister to consider delaying dispersal to
allow us to get things right in Scotland, so that we can live up to our reputation as a fair and tolerant society.
In a press statement today to mark the Executive's embarking on a research study to promote race equality, Jackie Baillie said that the study is part of the Executive's commitment to root out racism and promote social justice and equality for all who live in Scotland. Let us see from the Executive some social justice and equality for refugees and asylum seekers.
I am obliged to Cathy Jamieson for the opportunity to participate in the debate, which is of considerable and growing importance. She was right to flag up the attitudes that we have in Scotland. We are an hospitable people who, time after time, throughout the centuries, have shown that we are prepared to welcome those from foreign shores who are oppressed, unhappy and in total distress.
Cathy Jamieson was right also to flag up the difficulties of the situation that we are talking about. The difficulties are those that will be experienced by local government, as Shona Robison highlighted. The inevitable shortage of resources will cause a degree of resentment and considerable aggravation for the Executive. We must recognise that we are confronted by a problem of considerable scale. We expect to receive 6,000 refugees this year. There will be 60,000 in the UK and 100,000 foreign nationals have applications outstanding for UK citizenship. When we are dealing with numbers of that size, problems are inevitable.
People are being cynically exploited. On "Panorama" the other night, we saw people being smuggled into this country, sometimes after having parted with their savings for the opportunity to get here. One cannot be anything other than desperately sorry for those people, but they are not asylum seekers; they are people whose wish for a chance to live a better life is being exploited. Much as we would like to help such people, there are problems when we consider the number of people we would have to help.
The UK Government has to accept some of the responsibility. It is appalling that the applications should take so long to process. Scenes such as those that we saw on "Panorama" are iniquitous. The lady with six children was in a diabolical situation. The applications should be dealt with timeously and expeditiously so that people know where they stand. False applications cost the Government £500 million a year. That has major resource implications.
The UK Government must think about the fact that the change in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 has made us a soft touch in Europe.
Does Mr Aitken agree that, today, we are focusing not on the process of dealing with asylum seekers but on what happens to people when they arrive in Scotland, in terms of education, social work and housing? We are trying to address how the Scottish Parliament can help people whom we have a duty and a responsibility to help.
I recognise that that is clearly a major issue. I shall be brief, as I want other members to be able to participate. The fact is that the applications must be processed much more speedily and the numbers must be cut, otherwise we will face difficulties.
There are considerable deficiencies in the present system. Communication is difficult, and the rules of procedure are obtuse. I have had professional experience of trying to make contact with the immigration department in Croydon: it is almost impossible—in fact, it is impossible—to get through to the people there on the telephone. They do not write letters and they do not communicate. It is not surprising, against that background, that the average waiting time for a case to be dealt with is some 27 months. The frustration that must be felt by people who are waiting for such decisions, especially when they do not speak English, beggars belief.
The issue of human rights has been touched on. Giving asylum to people who are fleeing oppression and danger in one of the dangerous regimes that exist throughout the world is no more than good neighbourliness. It is also our duty, under various international treaties. Under the new proposals, the voucher system and the lack of choice of accommodation deprive people of control and dignity. The system is grudging in essence, as in its provision, and will create a festering resentment among the 50 per cent of refugees who will remain in Scotland at the end of those procedures.
The local government implications have been mentioned. It is intolerable that the United Kingdom Government should drive a coach and horses through existing support systems and practice that have been built up over many years, by removing the relevant powers from councils. The cash help that is given to councils must be examined as well. There are not just 6,000 houses in Scotland that are waiting to be occupied. At present we receive some 300 refugees a year and are having to upgrade that substantially. Their houses need to be renovated and, ideally, should
be situated in clusters, to enable people who require mutual support—and who probably cannot speak English—to gain that support from each other. A consortium of Scottish housing providers is now in place to manage some of that. However, there must be flexible and adequate resources to enable those providers to carry out their duties.
Members have mentioned education and health care. Education is important, as learning to speak English and to communicate provides refugees with a basic tool. The long-term system that is proposed stands in stark contrast to the much more adequate support that was given when we dealt with the Kosovan refugees. That was a successful venture, and it has resulted in recent resettlement arrangements.
My Liberal Democrat colleague, Mr Richard Allan, opposed the bill on second reading in the House of Commons, calling it
"a Jekyll and Hyde Bill"—[Official Report, House of Commons, 22 February 1999; Vol 326, c 63.] with some good aspects outweighed by quite a lot of bad aspects. It is outrageous that this Parliament and our councils in Scotland must pick up the pieces of the legislation.
I hope that the minister will tell the United Kingdom Government, in no uncertain terms, that that is our view. More to the point, I hope that he and this Parliament will do everything possible to ensure that the act—which is about affording effective hospitality to incomers to this country— will be improved in its operation. That is an urgent matter.
I congratulate Cathy Jamieson on securing this important debate. Regardless of the fact that this issue is reserved to Westminster, it affects legislation on issues that have been devolved to this Parliament. Other members have made known areas for concern.
We must ensure that Scotland's councils and communities are willing and able to provide the support that is needed and, as has been said, hospitality for those who seek asylum in this country. I would like to focus members' attention on one aspect of the debate. Although the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is of primary concern, regarding international law on this issue, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child also has a locus.
There are several references to child refugees in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and it is clear that the convention and its articles are to be applied to all children "within jurisdiction", regardless of the status of the child, their parents, their legal guardians or their family members. In the United Kingdom—and, therefore, in Scotland—we are obliged, as signatories to both conventions, to provide child refugees with special protection and help, and to provide all children, including refugees and asylum seekers, with benefits from our social security system according to their needs. Support for children in need, who are dependants of asylum seekers, should not be at a lower level than support for any other child in the community.
We have a role in providing children with basic rights such as food, clothes and a place to live, along with the right to participate fully in our society. No child, or their family, should have to face stigmatisation by the receipt of "in kind" support provision. The rights and needs of children must be of prime concern when establishing the means to support asylum seekers in this country and throughout the UK.
I shall make two brief points. First, there is still a perception that poverty is the driver that forces refugees to come to this country. The top five countries of origin for refugees coming to Scotland are Pakistan, where a military coup has put many people in danger of severe oppression; Kosovo, where there has been war and ethnic cleansing; and Iraq, Algeria and the Sudan, where there have been significant human rights abuses that everyone knows are appalling.
Secondly, Elaine Smith mentioned the European convention on human rights. Members will be aware that the convention came into force in Scotland ahead of the rest of the UK—and of some of the consequences of that. Unsurprisingly, Jack Straw's Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is likely to be in contravention of the convention. For example, the convention requires the provision of properly funded legal services for people in detention, but legal aid is not available for the hearings set out in the act. That is not just a matter for Westminster, because the Scotland Act 1998 makes the Scottish Executive responsible for upholding the convention. The rest of the UK will have to wait a little while for their human rights; this Parliament must act now, ahead of any court case, to ensure that the human rights of asylum seekers are protected in this country.
Finally, the convention demands that there should be freedom from
"torture . . . or inhuman or degrading treatment".
I submit that compelling people to use a voucher system is significantly degrading.
I apologise to the four
members who wanted to be called, but I must call the minister to reply on behalf of the Executive.
I congratulate Cathy Jamieson on raising this debate; this is an important subject that we take very seriously indeed. I am aware of many members' sincere concerns and have listened very carefully to everything that has been said.
It is worth repeating that Scotland has a good record of responding to asylum seekers, and we are resolved that that should continue. That means ensuring that Scotland plays its full part in the national framework of support for asylum seekers.
Under the devolution settlement, immigration and nationality, including asylum, is clearly a reserved matter. Consequently the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is reserved. Support for asylum seekers by the secretary of state under part VI of the act is a reserved matter. The act institutes a UK-wide system of support for asylum seekers, which will be operated by the national asylum support service.
The consequent amendments to social work, mental health, or children's legislation to which Cathy Jamieson and others have referred have been made. Any such future amendments dealing with support for asylum seekers and their families are matters for the UK Parliament.
It is clear that it would be outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament to seek to supplement the resources provided to local authorities by the Home Office to support asylum seekers, as this evening's motion asks.
Does the minister accept that when local authorities take on responsibilities such as providing assistance under section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, they should have the flexibility to provide such assistance in the way they think best for the individual concerned? Do we not need Scottish solutions to Scottish problems?
A local authority that made section 12 payments now in support of asylum seekers would be acting beyond its powers. It would be a matter for the Westminster Parliament to return that power to authorities.
Support for asylum seekers is a matter for the UK Government, on which there was proper consultation—in 1998—and debate at Westminster. However, the Scottish Executive takes seriously its obligation to ensure that asylum seekers in Scotland are properly and fairly supported within the system.
Is the Executive confident that the necessary procedures will be in place for 1 April?
I was about to address that point.
Cathy Jamieson and others raised concerns about the preparedness to receive asylum seekers under dispersal and the potential for direction to Scottish local authorities by the Home Office. However, there are three criteria, the first of which is that there must be available accommodation. Dispersal cannot happen unless the criteria are met. The effect of section 101 is that dispersal cannot happen by direction unless Scottish ministers confirm that the three criteria are met. We do not expect many asylum seekers to be dispersed to Scotland under the new arrangements immediately after 1 April. The 600 families for which Glasgow has agreed with the Home Office to provide support under the present scheme will be taken into account in early decisions about dispersal.
Worry has been expressed about asylum seekers' access to health and social services. I confirm that the legislation ensures that asylum seekers will continue to have the same access to health and social services support and facilities as anyone else resident in the UK enjoys. That is an important point because there has been some confusion about the matter, particularly in the media.
I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised this evening about support for asylum seekers. That is why I announced on 18 November, in answer to a parliamentary question, that we will review the operation of the act in Scotland about 18 months after its implementation. The review will take particular account of the effect of the act in the devolved areas of housing, social work, education and health.
The logic of reviewing something is that one is willing to change aspects of it if one feels that they are not working. Therefore, is the minister not acknowledging this Parliament's ability to amend the pieces of the act that do not work?
Several members asked to what extent Scottish ministers consult the Home Office. There is constant contact and consultation. Any evidence of particular problems that the review produced—some hypothetical problems have been suggested tonight—would be used in our discussions with the Home Office.
I will refer to two further parliamentary questions, which I answered yesterday, on the related matter of the reimbursement of Scottish local authorities for support they have given to asylum seekers and refugees. We will ensure that local authorities are
given support in the present system and under the terms of the new legislation. I confirmed in answer to those questions that we will lay before Parliament two special grant reports, the first of which will reimburse local authorities for expenditure they have incurred in the current financial year—1999-2000—in supporting asylum seekers. It is expected that that grant will total around £3.9 million, the money for which has been transferred by the Home Office to the Scottish assigned budget.
The second special grant report will reimburse local authorities for the costs they have incurred during the current financial year in housing refugees from Kosovo. The total amount of grant is expected to be around £4.9 million, which will be met in full from the Treasury's UK reserve. There has been some interest in and media coverage of this matter, and I am glad that it has now been resolved satisfactorily.
It was reported that Jack Straw said that any family of asylum seekers who waited more than six months would be paid in cash rather than vouchers, and the minister spoke about the 600 families that will come to Scotland. As the backlog is 23 months, is it the case that no family coming into Scotland will be paid by voucher?
Mr Wallace, in his brief intervention, made a number of errors. The 600 families to which I refer will be hosted by Glasgow under the previous arrangement and will receive cash support, not voucher support. In the new scheme, when a family remain after six months, there is an allowance for a special cash payment to be made, to allow them to replenish certain items they may have bought early on. However, it is not a switch to cash benefits.
I have heard the concerns that have expressed during the debate. Given that support for asylum seekers is a reserved matter, I repeat that the scope for action is limited. However, in the meantime, discussions between the Home Office and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities continue, to seek to ensure the best possible outcome for asylum seekers in Scotland, under the new arrangements. The Scottish Refugee Council is involved in that.
We will have a review of the new arrangements some 18 months down the line. I acknowledge that that does not go as far as some members would like, but I believe that these measures are fair, practical and realistic, within the overall constraints that apply.
Will the minister give way?
The minister is on his wind-up.
Can the minister take on board the question about the European convention on human rights? Having signed up to it separately in Scotland, we may be faced with court action if we do something inappropriate, irrespective of the fact that this is a reserved matter. It is an issue that has yet to be addressed.
With all apologies to Dr Simpson, I sat down because I had finished, rather than to take his intervention. I have heard his point and I will take it on board.
I thank members. That concludes this debate and concludes today's business.
Meeting closed at 17:42.