Official Report 1027KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18780, in the name of Craig Hoy, on the impact of accommodating asylum seekers on Scottish local government. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.
I advise members that we are, as expected, quite tight for time. I call Craig Hoy to speak to and move the motion—up to seven minutes, please, Mr Hoy.
16:01
This is a debate that some members in the Parliament do not want us to have. It is one that is politically heated, and in which those on the liberal left want to mischaracterise the views of others. It is a potentially uncomfortable debate for those in government and those who have recently been in government. It is a debate in which our language needs to be carefully chosen; I recognise and respect that fact.
However, it is a debate that we can no longer afford not to have, because today there are more than 6,000 asylum seekers in Scotland. Glasgow is housing more asylum seekers than any other council in the United Kingdom—a staggering 3,844 as of the end of June; that is 40 per cent more than Birmingham. To be blunt but honest with the communities that we represent and serve, that cannot continue.
The economic costs are considerable. It costs £250 million a year to house asylum seekers in Scotland—£41,000 to house and support each and every one. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. The protests that Mr Swinney condemned are not what any of us would like to see on Scotland’s streets, but they are the product of politicians’ failure to address legitimate community concerns.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not at the moment.
At the heart of the problem are criminal gangs who bring illegal immigrants into the country in small boats. In the year to June, nearly 90,000 asylum applications were made in the UK, and 50 per cent of those arrived via irregular routes—the vast majority by boat, but others by lorry or shipping container.
The First Minister and Scottish National Party can no longer bury their heads in the sand, because the negative effects of illegal immigration—and of the asylum hotels, which are the visible tip of that iceberg—are very real.
During the summer, I knocked on thousands of doors across Dumfriesshire and, time and again, the issue of illegal immigration came up. It came up among the young and the old, and among those living in small villages and in large towns. It came up among those who are directly impacted by asylum hotels, and among those who have simply watched the small boats arriving on their televisions with an increasing sense of alarm.
The costs are not just financial—there are economic costs, social costs and opportunity costs. Yes, we all want Scotland to be a welcome, open nation. I have had the privilege of living and working overseas, and I know how important migration is for modern, dynamic economies in order that they can attract global talent and, in so doing, create a country with rich and diverse cultures and experiences.
However, uncontrolled migration—or worse still, rampant illegal immigration—simply cannot be the sustained solution to any workforce challenge, and the SNP is playing a strange game of identity politics if it believes that to be true.
As we see from Scottish local authorities, the financial burden of housing immigrants cannot be understated. In fact, SNP-run Glasgow City Council has admitted as much itself—Susan Aitken says that the debt-laden local authority faces a staggering £66 million overspend on homelessness. Today, city chiefs fear a fresh influx of newly homeless refugees as the Home Office reduces the length of time for which people can stay in Government accommodation.
Will the member give way?
I will take an intervention at this point.
I welcome the measured tone that you started the debate with—language does matter.
Through the chair.
Does the member recognise that, in fact, the previous Conservative Government deliberately put a hold on processing claims to allow people to seek asylum and that, now that Labour has come into Westminster, it is processing those claims? Does he recognise that there are vast numbers of claims that have not been properly funded in order to enable people to move on in dignity?
I can give Craig Hoy some of the time back.
I recognise that. I also said at the outset that it would be an uncomfortable debate for parties that had recently been in government. I am not apportioning blame to one party or another, but the SNP—[Interruption.] The First Minister is chuntering away, but the SNP has to recognise—
Will the member give way?
I give way to Mr Swinney.
Although Mr Hoy is tacitly acknowledging the failure of the Conservative Government to properly manage the asylum regime over many years in office, he is bringing the debate to the Parliament to politically exploit the issue in a most disgusting fashion. It embodies where the Conservative Party has found itself these days.
We can always rely on John Swinney to lower the tone. We are coming to the Parliament to reflect the legitimate views of reasonable people in a representative democracy. I think that it is scurrilous, Mr Swinney, for you to throw around that kind of language when we are having a reasoned debate in the Parliament.
Through the chair, Mr Hoy.
Mr Swinney is shaking his head, pretending that none of this is to do with him, but it is quite clear that, as Scotland has more liberal homelessness rules than England, Scottish councils fear that thousands of potential asylum seekers will come to Scotland where they will have a right to be housed that does not exist in England. That is a real risk, which the minister is well aware of.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not. I do not have time.
By councils’ own admission, the SNP’s approach is crippling. It is forcing them to prioritise the needs of those from elsewhere when Scots struggle to get a roof over their heads. At the outset, I said that the debate would be uncomfortable for those in government and those who were recently in government. That means us recognising that the policy of housing asylum seekers—many of whom are, in reality, illegal immigrants—in hotels was the wrong decision.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have time.
That decision was taken by the previous Conservative Government in the eye of the Covid storm. Now, we have to admit that it was the wrong policy, even if it was well intentioned.
We also have to recognise that things are now much worse as a result of Labour’s failure to tackle the mounting immigration crisis. Rather than stopping the boats, Keir Starmer and Labour have allowed their numbers to swell. They systematically took apart the deterrent schemes that were put in place by the previous Conservative Administration. In the year to June, Labour presided over a 17 per cent increase in asylum applications compared with the previous year. Beyond those numbers, the picture is even more alarming because of the SNP’s open door rhetoric, which is adding to the pressures.
Scots are seeing their services undermined and their life chances blighted. In 2023-24, there were 40,685 applications for homelessness and 33,619 households were assessed as homeless or threatened with homelessness in Scotland. Across the country, people will be concerned, understandably, when they see priority being given to those who are coming from overseas. Housing asylum seekers in hotels is not the solution to the problem. Tackling the causes of illegal immigration and processing those who are seeking to come to the UK at source is, in effect, the only way to fix it. As I said last week, the use of asylum hotels has changed our communities and, in their view, not for the better.
Five years after the emergency use of hotels during the pandemic, the numbers have soared. In August 2020, 188 asylum seekers were housed in hotels and bed and breakfasts in Scotland. Today, that figure stands at more than 1,500. The previous Conservative Administration committed to end the use of hotels but, sadly, the Labour Government has comprehensively failed to do so.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I do not have time.
It is unfair and wrong that we are still spending millions of pounds every day providing hotels to asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.
You need to conclude.
The communities that I speak to want action from their Governments. They understand that Britain should be a place to live, work, flourish, and put down roots, but it should not be a hotel for those who have entered the country illegally.
You need to conclude, Mr Hoy.
It is not a debate that any of us relish, but it is one that our constituents, regardless of the party that we represent, want us to have.
I move,
That the Parliament acknowledges that the current number of asylum seekers accommodated in Scotland’s local authority areas is becoming financially “unsustainable” for them, as confirmed by the Scottish National Party leader of Glasgow City Council; believes that asylum seekers should never have originally been accommodated in taxpayer-funded hotels; calls for the closure of all asylum hotels across Scotland as soon as possible, and rejects the Scottish Government’s position outlined in its response to the UK Government’s immigration white paper, which would see a further increase in the number of asylum seekers coming to Scotland.
16:10
Our words matter in this debate. They matter to the communities that we serve and those who seek our protection. Therefore, my message is clear: we must ensure that Scotland continues to be a welcoming nation to those fleeing persecution, conflict or danger.
The UK has a moral and international legal obligation to uphold the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the supporting 1967 protocol. Indeed, the UK was a founding signatory to the convention, which defines the term refugee and outlines the legal protection, rights and assistance that a refugee is entitled to receive. According to international law, everyone who satisfies that definition in the convention is a refugee.
Scotland has a long history of being a welcoming nation where refugees have been able to rebuild their lives. Successive generations of refugee communities have contributed to Scotland’s economy and society. We should not now turn our backs on those who need our protection in response to those who seek to cause division and fuel tensions.
Asylum is a reserved issue. The UK Government is responsible for asylum decision making and the provision of asylum accommodation. The Scottish Government has repeatedly raised concerns about the impact of UK asylum policy on Scottish local authorities, devolved public services and people living in our communities.
As Kaukab Stewart pointed out, it was the previous Conservative UK Government that introduced asylum hotels and caused a processing backlog in the UK asylum system. Over the past year, attempts by the current UK Government to speed up decision making and clear that backlog have resulted in a larger-than-expected number of newly recognised refugees seeking support from local authorities. The wording is important: we speak of newly recognised refugees who have gone through the process, not illegal immigrants or migrants. That is where the danger is in the policies that we are seeing.
I am disappointed that the UK Government has not been able to work with the Scottish Government and councils on the pressures in the current system. The situation has been further exacerbated by the recent reduction in the time that people seeking asylum are given to move on from asylum accommodation after receiving a positive decision on their asylum claim—again, that means that they are not an illegal asylum seeker. Newly recognised refugees are entitled to housing support and other benefits, but we have long argued that 28 days is not sufficient time to enable them to make those arrangements. Indeed, that is a position that is also held by the British Red Cross.
Of course, the UK Government’s policy of restricting people seeking asylum from working can also make finding a job extremely difficult once a decision has been made.
The Scottish Government recognises that Glasgow City Council in particular has come under significant pressure as a result of UK Government decision making, and I have repeatedly called on Home Office ministers to meet me alongside Glasgow City Council. Indeed, in April, the Scottish Refugee Council invited me to attend a round-table meeting, along with the council and the UK Government. We were disappointed that UK Government ministers did not join us at that meeting, at which we collectively discussed what could be done to tackle the pressures, within our own responsibilities.
In the face of Russian aggression, we stood with the people of Ukraine, helping more than 28,000 people to flee war. That approach was supported across the chamber. I wonder what the difference is that makes some people think that we should not support people who flee war, persecution and abuse when they come from other countries.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I am quite happy to take an intervention from Craig Hoy on that point.
In the previous debate, many of the cabinet secretary’s colleagues talked about what an independent Scotland would look like. If an independent Scotland had a similar problem of illegal immigration, how would she tackle it?
Of course, every country needs an asylum policy, but we would not allow a backlog of claims to build up, and we would not have a system that did not allow migration into our country at times when we wanted people to come into our country. We would be responsible, morally and economically.
I ask the chamber to join me in rejecting divisive, dehumanising rhetoric in favour of delivering our moral and legal duties of protection and building a strong and resilient community.
I leave the chamber with the words of Sabir Zazai from the Scottish Refugee Council, who is himself a refugee. Talking about refugees, he says:
“To live in fear is not a choice. It is a condition forced upon them. And when we allow fear to shape our response, we do not become safer. We become smaller.”
I move amendment S6M-18780.3, to leave out from “acknowledges” to end and insert:
“reaffirms individuals’ rights to asylum under international law, including the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol; upholds the European Convention on Human Rights, and highlights Scotland’s place in the world as a welcoming nation to those fleeing persecution, conflict or danger.”
16:15
Today, the Conservatives have taken the opportunity to put before the Parliament a motion that opens us up to the type of dangerous and divisive rhetoric that bad-faith actors weaponise for political gain. Of course, they are absolutely entitled to raise the issue in the manner that they have, but it is clear that doing so is, at best, an act of political amnesia or, more likely, blatant hypocrisy on two fronts.
First, we cannot forget which party is entirely responsible for the huge increase in the use of hotels for asylum seekers. Fourteen years of having a Conservative Government in Westminster pushed our asylum system to the point of collapse. Tory party decisions meant that thousands of people were stuck in limbo while the appeals system sank under the strain. It is the party that decided that 400 hotels across the UK were to be used to house people, and it is the party that had no serious plan to address the growing backlog that it caused.
Secondly, was it not the Conservative Party that, just last week, was complaining about parliamentary time being dedicated to the situation of children who are suffering in Gaza? Today, its business is about asylum and immigration policy, which is a reserved matter. Like I said, it is a case of either political amnesia or hypocrisy—the public will decide.
However, although the Conservatives have created the immigration crisis, it is the SNP Government that has entirely failed to address the wider housing crisis and the funding crisis in local government in Scotland. The SNP Government’s utter failure to build enough homes and to properly fund public services has caused the current crises, and an SNP-run Glasgow City Council has facilitated that.
We know that local authorities are not accommodating people who seek asylum; it is the Home Office that is entirely responsible. Will Mark Griffin join us in calling on the Westminster Government to properly fund local councils, instead of paying private companies that are making profit out of peril?
The minister makes it clear that the UK Government funds asylum seekers to the point at which they are given leave to remain. Responsibility for housing them then becomes a Scottish Government and local government funding issue. That is where the problem lies. We have an SNP council in Glasgow that blames the record financial settlement from the UK Government for its funding problems, while completely ignoring the years of successive council tax freezes and successive cuts to its budget made by its parliamentary colleagues.
Will Mr Griffin give way?
Sorry—with four minutes, I cannot give more time away.
While bins go unemptied, potholes appear and Glaswegians are living on the streets, the SNP council quietly gives massive pay-outs to department officials.
The SNP Government talks about providing a welcome, but it does not back up that welcome with the financial decisions and long-term support that are needed to turn it from just words into action. It is only Labour that has taken steps to fix the problem. Since the Labour Government was elected in the UK, the number of asylum decisions has doubled and the backlog has fallen by 24 per cent in just 12 months. A new independent body has been announced to speed up asylum appeals and ease pressure on the courts. Such delivery and leadership were completely absent from any Conservative Government during the past 14 years, and absent from any contribution that I have heard from members on the Conservative benches.
Here in Scotland, after 18 years of SNP failure, a Labour Government would prioritise restoring our roads, hospitals, schools and communities. Further, it would ensure that it served all Scots—new and old—well, rather than using them as a rhetorical device, only to forget them when their political capital runs out.
We must do better. Scottish Labour will work with everyone who is committed to delivering for our communities, and we will never allow division or dangerous political point scoring to detract from the real work that is needed in that area.
I move amendment S6M-18780.2, to leave out from “acknowledges” to end and insert:
“regrets that the previous UK Conservative administration left the asylum system in a state of collapse; recognises the progress made by the UK Labour administration to clear the backlog of asylum claims, and believes that the failure to tackle the challenges facing Scotland’s local authorities, public services and housing system, for which the Scottish Government has devolved responsibility and has received record levels of funding from the UK Labour administration, is the root cause of the housing emergency.”
16:19
We are here today to debate asylum and migration, but let us be clear that this debate has been framed by dog whistles, distortions and dangerous rhetoric from the Conservatives and others. I will not stand by while human beings are dehumanised, scapegoated and treated as though they are less than others. No one person can be considered illegal.
What is illegal—what is shameful—is the stripping away of rights, the deliberate spreading of misinformation and the whipping up of hatred by politicians and parts of the media. They are fuelling the fire of racism and fascism in our communities. This situation has been created by design—not by those seeking safety but by those who would rather manufacture enemies than face up to the real problems.
The threat to our country arrives not in small boats but in private yachts and jets. The Conservatives come here with their hate-filled rhetoric, but it was they who closed the routes for people to come to this country safely. They are the proud party of empire, but empire has consequences. We cannot invade more than 170 countries and subjugate millions to colonial rule, but then feign outrage when people seek safety, family and community in Britain.
Our history matters. The illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 destabilised an entire region. Without our greed for oil, many people would never have been forced to flee in the first place. We bombed Libya and left it as a failed state. British foreign policy continues to create the very displacement that the Conservatives now cynically exploit for political gain.
The cynicism runs deep. The decision to house asylum seekers in hotels was not about care or compassion; it was about lining the pockets of Tory donors during the Covid pandemic while simultaneously stoking public resentment. The plan backfired—the Conservatives lost in a landslide—but, instead of learning, they have doubled down on exploiting the most marginalised people to divide our society even further.
We see the consequences. In Falkirk, a brick was hurled through the window of a hotel that housed asylum seekers. That was not mindless vandalism; it was intimidation and racism that had been fuelled by the lies and hatred that are peddled in politics and the press. I have seen some of that toxicity at first hand, at anti-migrant protests in Aberdeen and Westhill. Anti-migrant protests are not about safety. They are about hate, and hate kills. Scotland must choose another path.
International law places on us a legal obligation to provide sanctuary. Beyond that, there is a deeper moral duty: the duty to treat people with dignity, compassion and humanity. That means giving them the right to work, the right to contribute and the right to live in communities. They should not be warehoused in ghettos or trapped in hostile conditions. Asylum seekers are not a burden; they are our neighbours, our future colleagues and our friends.
Let us be honest about the real issues. Small boats are not the problem. Refugees are not the problem. The problem is a grotesquely unequal economic system that privileges the wealthy elite, while ordinary people—whether they were born here or have newly arrived—struggle to make ends meet. The answers do not lie in violent racism or in scapegoating those who seek safety. They lie in solidarity, in dismantling inequality and in building a society where everyone belongs and where everyone can flourish.
I say to the Conservatives that they should stop scapegoating the marginalised, stop using asylum seekers as a distraction from their failures and stop peddling the dangerous lie that migration is a threat.
Scotland has a proud tradition of offering a welcome. Let us honour that tradition—not just in words, but in action—by treating asylum seekers with the dignity and respect that every human being deserves, by ensuring that they can live safely, securely and proudly as part of our communities, and by rejecting hate and choosing hope and love.
16:23
The better side of my nature would like to think that, when the Tory shadow cabinet discussed how it would use its precious party business time, some voices around the table wanted to talk about national health service waiting times, education standards, the ferry scandal or Scotland’s mental health crisis. However, I can say with a high degree of certainty that somebody—I suspect that it was not an MSP—said, “Let’s talk about asylum seekers. All 6,000 of them in Scotland.” I think that, deep down, we all know why. We all saw the same poll last Friday, which is perhaps why half of the Tory seats here in the chamber are empty right now.
The motion refers to the number of asylum seekers becoming “financially unsustainable” for our local councils. That is a valid debate, because it is true that our local councils are in a perilous financial situation and have been for years, but what does that have to do with the housing of asylum seekers? The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities tells us why councils are in a perilous position. Over many years, council tax freezes have led to revenue shortfalls. Councils must now do more with less. This year alone, councils are plugging a black hole of more than £600 million. Long-delayed reforms to our outdated council tax system, which were promised nearly two decades ago, are yet to materialise.
When I sat on the Conservative benches, we did not blame asylum seekers for councils’ financial position; we blamed the Scottish Government. I wonder what has changed.
The Parliament should not be deaf to people’s concerns about immigration, but neither should it be afraid to debate them. It is true that people cannot get a general practitioner appointment or see their dentist. Yes, they struggle to get decent housing that is suitable for them and their children. Yes, they see people who have absolutely nothing to do and nowhere to go, wandering around their town centres. It is easy for political parties to blame such situations on those who can do nothing about it. The reason for people being unable to get GP appointments is that there are not enough GPs. The reason for their being unable to get dentist appointments is that there are not enough dentists. The reason for their being unable to get houses is that there are not enough affordable homes in Scotland.
All the while, qualified doctors, dentists, entrepreneurs and engineers are sitting in a Holiday Inn somewhere, living on £10 a week and waiting in a Home Office backlog—sometimes for years—that leaves skilled asylum seekers unable to work or claim universal credit, with nothing to do and no money to spend. That is the reality for asylum seekers in Scotland. Therefore, here is an idea: instead of forcing them to live off the state, as it is often described, why do we not let them stand on their own two feet? Why do we not let them take individual responsibility? Why do we not let them contribute to Scotland’s economy? Why do we not let asylum seekers work? That is not a woke question; it makes economic sense. I vividly recall sitting on the Conservative front bench, next to the well-respected Donald Cameron, during a debate in which we agreed that such a proposal merited genuine discussion with the then UK Tory Government.
Research tells us that if we allowed asylum seekers to work after six months in the country, it would generate £16 million of economic growth in Scotland alone. If we allowed it from day 1, the figure would double. If we allowed it across the UK, the gains would be huge—more tax revenues, more money flowing back into the economy and more people filling our skills gap. It would just make sense.
People’s concerns about immigration are real, but the way to deal with the problem of thousands of people stuck in asylum hotels is not to shut the hotels but to clear the backlog and process their claims quickly. The previous UK Government failed spectacularly to do so. If the new one does not succeed, more people wearing turquoise rosettes will be sitting in the chamber next May than those wearing blue ones. We all know who the real winners would be in that scenario.
We move to the open debate.
16:28
This afternoon, we have heard that local authorities are struggling to house the surging number of asylum seekers in Scotland. Communities, especially in my Central Scotland region, are feeling the consequences of that and tensions are rising. The debate is important because we have a duty to confront our constituents concerns, however difficult that is. We cannot simply dismiss them.
In October 2023, the rape of a 15-year-old girl in Falkirk by an asylum seeker who had entered the UK illegally left the community shaken. As part of the perpetrator’s defence, his lawyer cited cultural differences and language barriers as reasons why he did not understand his action but did not say that they were an excuse for the crime that was committed. Irrespective of the people I represent, the plain fact is that a young girl was attacked by someone who illegally entered the UK.
Protests have taken place outside migrant hotels in my region. The use of hotels has become a flashpoint and has fuelled anger and disgust, but we cannot brand everyone who raises concerns as racists. We, as politicians, must listen.
The crime that Meghan Gallacher describes is absolutely disgusting and appalling, and I totally condemn it. She went on to say that people who are raising concerns should not be tarnished or categorised. Does she also accept that we should not tar asylum seekers and refugees who are fleeing war and persecution with the same brush and that we need to be very careful to use our positions of leadership to calm the tensions? Will she give me an example of how the Conservatives are doing that?
Meghan Gallacher, I will give you the time back.
We are trying to have a grown-up debate in the Scottish Parliament. The public are not extremists—they are asking fair questions. We are trying to bring the debate to the chamber in order to talk about the wider issues surrounding asylum seeker hotels and the issues that could alleviate some of the tensions, such as housing, which I will come on to discuss.
One of the banners at the protest read “Migrants adored, pensioners ignored”. That sentiment is completely blunt, but it captures what I believe many people in Scotland are feeling. The pressures of both legal and illegal immigration expose the failures in housing, healthcare and public services. Too many hard-working people who live and work in Scotland are feeling ignored by Governments—I use that word in the plural—that have completely failed to get a grip on the issue.
We need to look at the demographics of the people who are arriving in Scotland. Across the UK, 62 per cent of asylum claims are from adult males, whereas just 21 per cent are from adult females. For small boat arrivals, the imbalance is even greater: around 75 per cent are adult men, while only 10 per cent are children. They are not families fleeing together—they are overwhelmingly single men of working age. People see those demographics and wonder why women and children are not being prioritised as part of the asylum system. Meanwhile, in Scotland, more than 1,500 asylum seekers are being housed in hotels—that is almost a quarter of the number that are in the system. Across the UK, the number of those in hotels still stands at more than 32,000, despite repeated promises to reduce it.
Will the member give way?
The member is concluding.
I will not give way, as I am in my last couple of seconds.
Housing is central to the debate. Scotland’s housing emergency was not created overnight; it is the product of decades of failure to build enough homes. We see that through the homelessness applications and through the thousands of Scots who are trapped on social housing waiting lists. Yet, asylum seekers are being placed in hotels while local families wait.
The solution is straightforward. If we get a grip on the housing emergency and build more homes, we will be able to look at immigration in a new light. However, I fear that, until then, we will still have tensions in Scotland, because we are not addressing the big issues that matter in this country.
16:32
One of the most noticeable things during my time in the Scottish Parliament—it will have been 15 years when I retire next year; no cheering, please—has been the positioning of British politics. Historically, it moved gently from centre-right to centre-left, with a few Thatcher-like blips in the middle. However, in that time window there has been continual movement further and further to the right. The reasons for that include the constant squealing by media outlets in an attempt to get clicks for advertising—bad news always sells better than good—and the craven surrender by once-mainstream political parties to the racism and xenophobic scaremongering that are being touted by populist grifters on the make.
In 2015, I had the opportunity to visit Serbia with a local charity, Glasgow the Caring City, to see how efficiently the support that it had sent to help refugees fleeing war-torn countries was being used. During that trip, I met a group of Afghan families who had been travelling for months to get to Serbia on the next stage of their journey to a life that they hoped would be better and safer. The father was holding a small bag, which I took to be holding important items—papers and so on—but it was a newborn child. They had trekked for thousands of miles while the mother was pregnant, with her having to give birth and suckle that child while living in makeshift tents or simply by the side of the road on their journey. I met many other good people there, who were forced to leave because of different situations in their country—and many of them were young men, because they were the ones who were under threat from their existing Governments. Most of them would have been a huge positive to any country. However, of all the people I spoke to, not a single one was making their way to the UK. As one voluntary worker said to me, “Why would they? They know that the UK hates foreigners and is very unwelcoming to them.” Is that something to be proud of?
Migrants and refugees are not a curse on a country; generally, they are a blessing. They often bring with them much-needed experience, different cultures and a vibrancy that is often missing in this grey land of ours. However, to our shame, we are now seeing any new person as a threat—a threat to our jobs, our houses, our doctors and our safety. That is utter insanity. Clearly, there have been some high-profile cases of violence and sexual offences, which are appalling, and they have to be dealt with by the full force of the law. Does that mean that everyone from that country is a threat? Of course not. There are many instances of Brits or Scots going abroad and committing heinous offences. Should every Scot or Brit be banned from those countries? Of course not.
The debate has been brought about for one reason only: the party that secured it is terrified of losing support and MSPs to a racist grifter in charge of another party. The Tories are not alone. While they meekly trail behind Farage, hoping to entice their support back by even more xenophobic actions such as today’s motion, Labour has decided to try to outdo them. Apparently, concentration—sorry, barracks are being considered to house asylum seekers.
One of the problems raised in the motion is, however, a real one: the cost to Glasgow of housing asylum seekers. The solution is not to make life more unbearable for those seeking shelter; the solution is simple: to support the cities that take in asylum seekers with appropriate funding and, as Jamie Greene mentioned, to allow asylum seekers—who often bring much-needed skills and qualifications—to work. That would take some of the strain off the taxpayer, and it would help to close the employment gap that we keep hearing about.
Of course, none of that works for those in charge, because they do not want solutions; they want scapegoats. If it is not asylum seekers, it is single mums with more than two kids, or it is the guy down the road who makes a few bob on the side doing homers while also helping his neighbours in the community. Meanwhile, the ever-increasing number of billionaires get to decide who the losers are while funnelling money offshore, never to be seen again in these islands.
If members are looking for someone to blame, they should blame the tax dodgers, the mass polluters and the utilities companies, which charge us more than is charged anywhere else in the world for power while grabbing huge profits for themselves. They should stop blaming people who are fleeing thousands of miles from a horrible existence to make a better life for themselves and their families.
The way the world is going, one day it may well be you or yours. Please vote against this horrible motion.
16:37
During the recess, there was a protest outside the asylum hotel in Westhill, just outside Aberdeen. There were three groups: the protest, the counter-protest and a group at the other side of the road, where I was, who were just watching what was going on.
Regardless of what people think of the protesters, we have to acknowledge that a lot of people are angry at what they see going on over immigration. Let us set this straight up front: legal migration is good, our country is great and it is the way it is today because of legal, controlled migration. We owe so much to those who have come to this country and who call the United Kingdom their home. We are in a position where we can control our own borders, and we can attract the skills and professions that we need—be they doctors, dentists or nurses, all of whom we have a shortage of. The problem that fellow Scots are angry about is illegal migration.
The First Minister likes to remind us at every opportunity that we are a country that follows the rule of law.
In the spirit of the fact that language matters, would Douglas Lumsden accept that there is no such thing as illegal migration, due to the 1951 convention, to which this country is signed up, and that he would be better advised to use the language that is appropriate, which is “regular and irregular routes”?
If people are coming here illegally, it is illegal migration. I think that is the term that everyone accepts. When it comes to illegal immigration, the Government is quite happy to look the other way and welcome with open arms these individuals who have dangerously entered the country illegally.
The SNP seems genuinely confused about what is legal and what is illegal. Let me try to spell it out for its members. A person applying for a visa, being granted that visa, bringing their skills to the UK and contributing to our economy is perfectly legal—and welcome. Crossing the Channel in a small boat is illegal. Not only that—it is dangerous and life threatening, and it enables criminals. We should not be welcoming people into this country who cross the Channel illegally. If SNP members cannot understand that, it proves that they are out of touch with communities right across Scotland, who are angry.
That is the whole point. At general question time last week, I asked a question about homelessness in Glasgow, pointing out the issues surrounding the numbers of refugees or asylum seekers—call them what you will. The minister who replied said that I should be ashamed of myself for asking the question. Does that not show how out of touch SNP members are with the ordinary people of Scotland? They do not share their concerns.
Stephen Kerr is right. Whether we like to talk about it or not, these are the real concerns of people outside. We are here as a Parliament, and we have to represent the views of all those people.
There is no real deterrent in this country. The Rwanda scheme was perhaps not perfect and not liked by everyone, but it would have been a start. Instead, we have Labour and the SNP sending out all the wrong signals. We should not be encouraging illegal immigrants to cross the Channel in dinghies, allegedly fleeing persecution, conflict or danger in war-torn France. We simply cannot cope.
The Government needs to understand the strain that communities are under due to high levels of illegal migration. Scots struggle to get appointments at dentists and GPs, and NHS waiting lists have spiralled out of control. We have a housing emergency and people cannot get into social housing. The list of pressures goes on. Jamie Greene is right that those pressures existed before. However, if members think that illegal immigration is not playing a part in all of this, they are deluded. Hard-working families who have paid into the state for their whole lives are being forgotten about. That is the view of people out there.
People see that our public services are under strain. Local councils that already face a funding crisis due to years of SNP austerity are left to pick up the tab for the SNP’s open-door policy. The SNP Government needs to listen to our communities and to our hard-working Scots, who are angry because they are paying more and getting less.
16:41
When internet use became more prevalent and social media emerged, many of us thought that that would help to bring us closer together, as human beings, both here and around the world. Unfortunately, on many occasions—we are seeing a lot of this in our communities now—such technology is used by bad-faith actors to drive wedges between communities and create fear.
Fear of immigration has always caused much more damage than any sort of immigration ever could. People focus on the bad examples—the minority of stories—where there has been a case that has negatively affected a community, rather than on amplifying the huge and massively positive contribution that thousands of individuals have made when they have gone to other countries, throughout the pages of history and in recent times.
Let us also remember that a lot of the people who are coming to our shores, and to other parts of Europe, are moving away from places that we bear responsibility for damaging: Iraq, Afghanistan and many others. Let us put ourselves in the shoes of those who come here, and think about how it must feel to leave somewhere, travel across continents and then arrive and be subject to a system that is often extremely difficult to cope with, mentally and psychologically.
I recognise and respect the fact that immigration is an important issue for my constituents and people elsewhere in Scotland. I have thought about it deeply, particularly as the MSP for Leith—a port, and an area that has welcomed people for decades, whether it is the Irish in the 19th century, Italians, Indians and Pakistanis in the 20th, or, more recently, people from Poland, Ukraine, America, China and elsewhere, all of whom have added to our community and adopted a sense of being proudly Scottish.
Let us be clear that the vast majority of people who come here are very positive contributors—that is a fact. Economically, they are net contributors and, socially, they bring something to our communities, creating multicultural and intercultural diversity, with minorities adding to and embracing a strong and inclusive collective Scottish culture. That is what our new Scots do in the vast majority of cases.
I am passionate about the benefits of immigration, as members can probably hear. However, I also agree that, although people are welcome, we need to have a controlled system. It is not controversial to say that—every country has that. We, as a party, have always been clear about membership of the European Union and a points-based system. That was the position in 2014, and it is a serious position. If boats were landing here in Scotland, we would of course need a system to manage that.
However, there is a broader question that goes beyond the level of inward migration and what that would mean for Scotland. We need to give thoughtful, sensitive and rational consideration to the reality of the situation, without it being taboo, which is that we need to bring more people to Scotland. It is a fact that, because of our demographics and our low birth rates, we need to bring more working-age people here. They enrich our communities.
At the moment, the issue is completely reserved, but there are solutions to be found. While we continue to consider how Scotland could build a different migration system, let us embrace the long tradition of giving a warm and heartfelt Scottish welcome and shaking people’s hands as they arrive in our communities.
The final speaker in the open debate is Paul Sweeney, who joins us remotely.
16:45
[Inaudible.]—of the debate.
I am sorry, Mr Sweeney. We are having difficulty with your visuals. Perhaps you could begin again.
I apologise for my connection issues. I hope that you can hear me now.
I have been listening intently to the debate, and I agree with those members who have said that the Conservative motion is not only ignorant in nature but deeply divisive and unnecessarily damaging. Even its title fails to address the fundamental crux of the problem. People who are seeking asylum are not the primary issue when it comes to the housing pressure that exists in Scotland today. The issue is the rate at which people in the asylum system are being granted refugee status—because of the backlog that built up under the Conservative Government—and then settled on the basis of existing housing capacity, which is under pressure.
As my colleague Mr Griffin highlighted, the Conservatives’ hypocrisy is appalling. They should be eating humble pie for the vandalism that they have caused to the asylum system over the past few years. I say as someone who represents 95 per cent of the people who are seeking asylum in Scotland that that rings true. The penury under which people in the asylum system have been forced to live is shameful. People have had to survive on as little as £9 a week. For many people, that is simply unsustainable. Those are the most destitute people in our community. We should be doing as much as possible to get the backlog down, and I support the Labour Government’s efforts to do so as quickly as possible.
All levels of government must support people’s transition from the asylum system so that they can settle as refugees with the right to work, use their talents and contribute to communities. That is a good problem for Scotland to have because, as a country, we need more people. By the middle of the century, the number of working-age people is set to increase only by the equivalent of the population of Stirling while the number of retired people is set to increase by the equivalent of the combined population of Aberdeen and Paisley. It is not difficult to do the maths. Unless we grow the working-age population of this country and increase the number of people who are able to contribute to the workforce, we are in for a serious fall in living standards or a significant increase in taxation to deal with that issue. For the sake of our own wellbeing, we need to grow the country’s overall working-age population and to settle people.
Glasgow is a city that is well able to do that. It was built for 1.1 million people, but at the moment it has only around 600,000 people living in it. That is why more than 95 per cent—around 4,100—of the asylum seekers in Scotland are resident in the city. That is not a large number when we consider that there are more than 2,000 long-term empty homes in the city at the present time.
There has been a failure of policy in translating housing capacity to meet the demand of a growing population, for which the Scottish Government needs to step up and take responsibility. It is no good simply saying that the UK Government must somehow finance refugee accommodation. The responsibility transfers once refugee status has been granted.
I am open-minded about the idea of revisiting the Mears contract, which the minister suggested. I believe that there is a break clause that is due to come into effect next year. I would be happy to work with colleagues to explore an approach to the UK Government with a view to changing the nature of that contract. Perhaps there could be a municipal contract or the provision could be delivered through another means, such as local housing associations in the city. That would enable the pound to be recycled more readily into housing stock supply in the city.
We could look constructively at such ideas, but the Scottish Government must recognise that, ultimately, this is an issue of housing supply: the supply is not meeting demand. We need a growing population, particularly in Glasgow, and we need to address that issue urgently at all levels. Given that 44 per cent of homelessness applications are due to come from people who are refugees, it is clear that the situation needs to be managed efficiently and addressed.
There is added pressure from people coming into Glasgow from other parts of the UK; maybe we need to look at temporary application of local connection rules in order to staunch that flow of people.
Ultimately, the answer comes down to growing the housing stock: it needs to grow at a much faster pace than it is presently. Otherwise, there will continue to be social unrest, which is not good for our politics in general. We need to meet the needs of the people through housing supply.
16:50
I recognise the context for this debate. The UK still receives a small number of refugees compared with many other countries. Seventy-two per cent of refugees live in countries that neighbour their country of origin. The UK hosts only about 1 per cent of the world’s refugees, and the truth is that they make a huge contribution to this country, economically and socially.
As for the numbers, asylum applications peaked in 2002 at around 84,000 a year. In 2024, the number was around 84,000 in the year. So far, the figures for 2025 show a slight increase, but there are still significantly fewer than many other European countries receive, and the current peak is similar to previous high points. That is nothing to be surprised at, given the growth in conflict and economic or climate stress around the world.
Most claims are legitimate. The claimants are found to deserve and need the right to stay here and, as others have mentioned, the backlog is entirely the result of deliberate choices by successive Governments.
As for housing, what broke the UK’s housing system is the long-term decline in socially rented housing and its replacement by a rapacious, exploitative private rented sector. Asylum seekers are not to blame for the lack of investment in affordable housing. They are not to blame for landlords hiking rents or for the pressure on our public services. Those things are the result of choices made by successive UK Governments.
The UK Government’s explicit hostile environment policy began in around 2012, and anti-immigrant and racist sentiment peaked with Brexit. Even at that stage, what we are seeing now might have seemed unthinkable: openly racist, ethno-nationalist ideology is being mainstreamed. Members of Parliament are openly discussing mass deportation and questioning whether black and brown people can ever be considered British or English; the UK’s shadow justice secretary is quite content to be photographed in the company of a founder member of Combat 18, a neo-Nazi terror group; and a man who proudly showed the world a Nazi salute is now not only using the social media platform that he bought to tolerate explicit far-right racist and conspiracy content, but actively paying people to generate that content.
Despite years, even decades, of evidence from countries right around the world, the political parties that claim the centre ground in UK politics are doing nothing to challenge the profoundly dishonest, racist grifters of the far right. Instead, they are signalling to the electorate that the priorities of people such as Farage and Robinson are the right ones.
Aping the far right is obviously wrong in principle; also, it will never work. Those people already have wall-to-wall media coverage for their hateful agenda, and the current UK Government risks giving them the political power to demolish our human rights and to treat immigrants and asylum seekers as subhuman, all while slashing public services even more severely and handing what is left of the economy to the super-rich. We need to be clear eyed about the dire threat that has resulted from UK Government after UK Government dancing to the far right’s tune and allowing both traditional and social media to become propaganda machines for extremism.
There is still reason for optimism. Even after decades of anti-asylum propaganda, in every community we can find people giving their time, energy and resources to support asylum seekers and to show that the instinct to reach out and help those who need it is a basic part of human nature. It is strong. We need Governments and politicians who share that instinct, who will express it and who will explicitly challenge and oppose the racism of the far right.
16:54
I have long thought that the issue of immigration requires a sensible, mature and informed discussion. Some good contributions and points have been made during the debate. However, overall, sadly but not surprisingly, we have not had the considered and honest discourse that is required for such a serious issue.
As Mark Griffin and Paul Sweeney have said, the Conservative motion reeks of hypocrisy. We know why the Conservatives have held the debate. It is because they are panicking about Reform. Who knows? The way that things are going Craig Hoy might be leading Reform in Scotland the next time that we debate the issue.
The fact is that immigration skyrocketed under the Conservatives. They did not have a plan then, and neither does Nigel Farage have one now—he was a key Brexiteer who is as responsible as anyone for the situation that the country faces. On the other hand, the UK Labour Government has doubled the number of asylum decisions and reduced the number of asylum seekers who are waiting for a decision by 24 per cent in just 12 months. That is practical and responsible action.
What will not work and is not practical and responsible is the policy of open borders, as suggested by some members of the SNP and the Greens; equally, nor is closing the borders practical or responsible, as suggested by some members of Reform and the Conservatives. I think that the vast majority of people in Scotland—indeed, in the UK—would agree with Labour’s position that we must have a managed immigration system alongside sustainable public services and finances.
Scotland will always be a place where vulnerable people are welcome. It is part of who we are—it always has been. If we lose that, we lose something fundamental about being Scottish—our welcome to everyone, wherever they come from.
However, let us not become misty-eyed about ourselves. Let us be realistic. The reality is that a large number of us are struggling to make ends meet, cannot afford a home or public transport, do not feel comfortable with our finances and do not carry ourselves with the confidence that we would wish for. When those doubts are among us, people are less charitable, and we wonder why people from beyond our shores seem to be able to get the things that we cannot afford.
I will be clear. My son, Sam, had difficult birth, and in the theatre room in Paisley, a United Nations of doctors and nurses from around the world brought him into the world. New Scots have made an invaluable contribution to our NHS and our society as a whole. The resentment that people currently feel about asylum seekers is not because those people are racist but because people such as the Tories and the SNP have failed to make Scotland as prosperous as it could be, due to the beggar-thy-neighbour politics that they peddle.
I welcome people who are in need of refuge. I reject those who pretend to be welcoming but who do not build a welcoming nation that looks after its citizens. I reject the parody patriotism of John Swinney and the SNP and welcome the challenge to make the Scottish welcome real again. We can do that only by recognising our constituents’ real concerns about the level of migration and its impact on their security, our public services and our housing supply.
People are angry about the lack of homes and the state of their homes, as they should be, but that anger should be directed at the SNP Government, which created the housing emergency; it cut the affordable housing budget and cut money to councils while spending £1 billion on a new Barlinnie prison, which should have cost a tenth of the price. [Interruption.] People in Scotland need a new direction. That is why a Scottish Labour Government would reform our planning laws and support councils to boost house building and end the housing emergency, on which the Government has failed.
I discourage members from making interventions from a sedentary position.
16:58
This afternoon, we have heard of the failings of UK Home Office policies. However, that must not undermine our continuing moral and legal commitment to refugees and people who seek asylum. I am deeply concerned about some of the rhetoric that is being used across the UK, which should, of course, have no place in our society. No one should have to fear that they will be targeted just for being who they are. It is critical that every citizen feels safe and welcome in our communities.
As the cabinet secretary made clear in her opening remarks, we all have a responsibility to be mindful of the language that we use. Scotland’s Parliament can choose to reject the deliberate use of divisive and inaccurate language, which does nothing to address community concerns or the impact of austerity. It has been disappointing to hear the echoing of divisive language in the chamber. However politely it is said, it is still inflammatory.
As the MSP for Glasgow Kelvin, I have the great honour to represent one of the most diverse constituencies in Scotland. I understand—of course I do—that people feel left behind after a decade of austerity and mismanagement, and Westminster is literally working against them. However, I have also had the pleasure of visiting many local grass-roots community groups that are bringing people together to share conversations, food and culture in order to get to know each other and learn that we have more in common than what divides us. New Scots have the same hopes and dreams, and their stories and laughter are weaving the very fabric of our rich, diverse and welcoming nation.
Does the minister also recall the way in which a community in another part of Glasgow, Kenmure Street, rose up in opposition to the violence of the Home Office heavies and protected their asylum-seeking neighbours? Does she share my pride in that kind of concern about the immigration issues in our society?
I absolutely accept that the majority of people in Scotland will rise up and protect everyone in our communities. However, in direct contrast, some of the pressures that are arising from the UK’s asylum system are a consequence of overly restrictive policies, such as the policy on the right to work. Such policies prevent people from contributing to our economy or supporting themselves, and they erode their skills by minimising opportunities for integration. I welcome the fact that that was also raised by Jamie Greene and James Dornan.
Sadly, and to our increasing frustration, asylum and immigration decisions are reserved to the UK Government. I welcome Paul Sweeney’s support in working with us to pursue the right to work, safe regular routes and the expansion of visas. I am deeply concerned that asylum hotels are now being turned into targets of the far right. For the safety of all, we need the move-on period to be extended back to 56 days.
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
I am conscious of my time.
Furthermore, local authorities need to be properly funded for the work that they do when pressures are identified, as is the case in Glasgow City Council. We need the UK Government to recognise the impact on public services and to engage with us to develop those solutions.
I hope that the new Home Secretary and Home Office ministers will engage with the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities on how we can best deliver asylum and immigration systems that are based in compassion, respect and human rights for all.
17:02
The people of Scotland deserve honesty, and the truth is that the Scottish National Party has failed them. For years, the SNP has pushed an open-door immigration policy, so long as someone else is paying for it. It boasts of compassion, but it has washed its hands of responsibility. Where will asylum seekers live? Where will their children go to school? How will they see a general practitioner? Those are not abstract questions; they are real pressures on communities that are already stretched to breaking point.
However, the SNP blunders on while it ducks the consequences of its own mismanagement. That is not just incompetence; it is hypocrisy. The SNP can find money to send abroad, yet it cannot build homes here. It finds funds for foreign aid projects, but it cannot house Glasgow’s homeless.
Will the member take an intervention?
Absolutely not.
The SNP points the finger at Westminster, while five senior officials at SNP-run Glasgow City Council walked away with more than £1 million between them—signed off by themselves—with front-line services being slashed.
Furthermore, the Scottish Government has no plan to recover £36 million of benefits overpayments and fraud. That is not generosity; it is greed and misrule. The SNP has built a narrative, not a solution, and our communities are paying the price. Scotland and Scots are generous, but generosity must be matched with realism, and it is time that the SNP learned that lesson.
Douglas Lumsden reminded us that legal migration is good. Our country is great, and it is the way that it is today because of legal, controlled migration. We owe much to those who came to this country and called the United Kingdom home, just like my parents did. I am the son of immigrants who arrived, got a job, paid their taxes and integrated into British society. They never claimed a penny but worked hard every single day of their lives.
I am a bit past the point in the speech, but I am keen to hear Mr Gulhane, who I appreciate is a significant contributor as a professional. Colleagues on his benches—particularly Mr Hoy—showed some humility about his party’s mistakes and the damage that it has done to our country through the austerity agenda, which the Scottish Government has faced the consequences of. I wonder whether Mr Gulhane is going to refer to that.
Ben Macpherson has forgotten that 18 years of SNP rule has led us to this point. The SNP is absolutely responsible for where we are today. I will say, with my colleagues, that the Conservative Government was wrong in the way we handled migration. We have many things to learn, and we will show contrition for that.
Craig Hoy told us that Susan Aitken, the SNP leader of Glasgow City Council, has admitted that there was a £66 million budget shortfall of the SNP’s making. The SNP wants to virtue signal on someone else’s dime.
Meghan Gallacher told us that 1,500 asylum seekers are being housed in hotels, which is almost a quarter of all those in the system. In fact, Glasgow is the asylum capital of the UK, with 65 per 10,000, and is attracting homeless refugees from other UK cities such as Belfast, Birmingham and London, but what does that mean in practice? What does that mean to the average person?
Through a lack of planning by this SNP Government, people cannot be seen by their GPs, and all public services are creaking and in danger of failing.
Mr Gulhane mentioned council leader Susan Aitken. Her direct quote was actually:
“It is not asylum seekers and refugees that are the cause of this problem. It is around policy and the lack of funding that flows to local government.”
She went on to say that those are the direct consequences of decisions
“implemented elsewhere, specifically in Westminster.”
And who funds local authorities? It is Kaukab Stewart and her Government. Shirley-Anne Somerville had no idea how she would shape asylum or indeed pay for it. Mark Griffin condemns us for speaking about an issue that his constituents in Central Scotland are speaking about. It is an issue that directly affects my Glasgow constituents’ access to public services, not international affairs. Jamie Greene is right: it is not the fault of the individual asylum seeker. It is the fault of this SNP Government trying to claim the moral high ground, but it does not know how to pay for its promises, and it is letting our public services crumble.
Scots are compassionate people, but compassion without capacity is chaos, and chaos is exactly what this SNP has delivered: a housing emergency, spiralling NHS waiting lists, overcrowded schools and financially broken councils. Scottish families are waiting longer, paying more and getting less under this SNP’s undeniable legacy. Controlled, fair and balanced immigration must be the principle, as Ben Macpherson articulated.
Scots deserve homes, jobs and services before SNP vanity projects and virtue signalling. The SNP’s open-door, pass-the-bill-to-Westminster policy has failed. Our motion puts Scots first and demands fairness and realism. Scotland cannot afford the SNP’s excuses any longer.
That concludes the debate on the impact of accommodating asylum seekers on Scottish local government. To allow front benches to change, there will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business.
Previous
Scotland’s Finances