Plenary, 11 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, September 11, 2003

Official Report 716KB pdf

---

Asylum Seekers

Good morning. The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S2M-329, in the name of Mr John Swinney, on the treatment of asylum seekers in Scotland, and on three amendments to the motion.

Today's debate takes place on a day of enormous significance for the international community, as we commemorate the events of 11 September. We extend and reiterate our sympathies to all those who were touched by the heinous events of that day. This morning, the very sad death of the Swedish foreign minister Anna Lindh—the result of an act in Sweden yesterday—has given us a sharp reminder of those heinous events. We commemorate her loss.

Fourteen years ago, the disparate nations of the planet came together as one to promote and protect the interests of the world's children. The result of those deliberations was the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—the most universally embraced human rights treaty in history. Fourteen years after the world came together as one to frame that convention, I ask the Parliament to come together as one to uphold it because, although I am certain that there are real differences between our parties on the constitutional future of our country, the values that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child enshrines should be respected by us all.

It is a mark of national shame that in 2003, in one small part of Scotland, those universal values are being denied. Today we have the opportunity to end that national shame and to say loud and clear that Parliament condemns the imprisonment of children in Dungavel and that we demand an end to that shameful practice.

Article 2 of the convention is clear. It says that all countries should take

"appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents".

Children in Dungavel are not being protected. On the contrary, they are being locked up and deprived of that most basic human right—liberty. They are being discriminated against and punished, for no reason other than the status of their parents. That is a direct attack on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Moreover, it is a direct attack on the basic standards of decency that Scotland should be showing to some of the most vulnerable children on earth.

Dungavel is officially a removal centre, which implies that people should be there for the shortest period of time, but the facts say otherwise. The Ay family, with four children aged between seven and 14, was imprisoned for more than a year. Who could have failed to have been moved by the testimony of those children before they were deported? They were bewildered by the treatment to which our country had subjected them.

We know of another child detainee, Nikola Garzova, who spent two birthdays in detention and we know—from the report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education that was published only this summer—that 36 children have spent six weeks or more behind bars during the past year. At any one time, about a fifth of the inmates at Dungavel are children.

The damage to those children is incalculable. HMIE's report says that, in spite of the commitment of a hard-working and enthusiastic teacher,

"The educational needs of children detained for prolonged periods of time were not being met".

The chief executive of the Scottish Refugee Council used language rather different from that which was used by that Government education body. She said simply:

"It is shocking that innocent children in Scotland should be spending their teenage years behind bars, deprived of the benefits of proper schooling and the ability to socialise with people their own age."

The reality is that Dungavel is not a removal centre. Let us lose the polite language and tell it as it is: Dungavel is a prison that locks up innocent young children.

The parents of such children are not criminals. They have applied for and been refused asylum, are officially said to be likely to abscond, or are having their identities checked. At the very worst, the parents' so-called crime is to seek a better life abroad—a better life in a country that they had believed treats people with dignity and respect.

Even if we were to accept, as the Home Secretary does, that failed asylum seekers have done something that deserves punishment, I fail to see any justification for punishing their children. It is not right, which is why no other European country treats children in that way and why we in Scotland should not treat children in that way in our country.

There is an alternative—no child has to be locked up. Families could be asked to report daily to a police station or a social work department to account for their movements. To those who might say that there is a risk that such families will not turn up and will abscond, I make two points: first, is it realistic to assume that a mother who speaks little or no English, who has no money and up to four children will go on the run? Who do they think that we are talking about here?

The member mentioned the Ay family. In that instance, was not it the case that the mother with four children, and their father, absconded from Germany, hid away in a lorry and came illegally into Britain? Does not that contradict everything that the member has just said?

It is a question of having a different regime; it is about saying to people that they have an obligation to report and that we will not lock up innocent children for the activities of their parents. That is the fundamental issue. Either we think that it is right to imprison children for the activities of their parents or we accept that it is morally wrong in principle to lock up innocent children.

My second point is that, for the Scottish National Party, even if there is a risk that a family will go on the run, the interests of the child must come first. For us, the risk of harm to innocent children from being locked up behind bars outweighs the risk of the family absconding. That is our choice; it is for others to make their choice. Make no mistake. The issue that is at stake is whether we judge that it is right in principle to imprison children or whether it is immoral to imprison innocent children. That is the test that must be applied to every proposal that is made in the debate.

Sadly, the situation in Dungavel is all too typical of the way in which the United Kingdom Government treats asylum seekers. In April last year, the Home Secretary spoke about non-English-speaking immigrants "swamping" local schools. It is hard to think of a more racially charged word. Its use has its origins in the language of Enoch Powell and Margaret Thatcher.

In response, the Labour MP Diane Abbott, speaking in the House of Commons, had this to say:

"We are talking about children here, not raw sewage … I think the rhetoric has the risk of feeding the very fears that the National Front lives on".

She is right, so I make no apologies for the language that I and others have used to describe the Westminster approach to asylum. I wish only that those who say that they are outraged by my descriptions of Westminster asylum policy were more outraged by the reality of that policy.

If Mr Swinney believes that Westminster policy is racist, as he has claimed in the press recently, how can he explain the fact that the United Kingdom has accommodated 47 per cent of all people who have been granted refugee status in the European Union in the past year?

That is an interesting fact but, per capita, the UK has accepted fewer refugees than most other European countries. How can we welcome people with the rhetoric that David Blunkett comes out with, which is designed to alienate people and to make them feel unwelcome?

The member's point has been dealt with. I will have more to say on proportionality in a moment.

The motion calls for an end to the detention of children at Dungavel. We in the SNP believe that the best way to do that would be to take responsibility for asylum policy by transferring it from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament. That would be a practical demonstration of the benefits of independence. Although others in the chamber agree with that, I accept that more disagree, but I do not believe for one second that one's opposing independence is a valid reason for remaining silent on this most pressing issue.

Does Mr Swinney know that more children are locked up in the other immigration removal centres at Harmondsworth, Oakington and Tinsley? I have heard nothing from him about those centres in what is still the United Kingdom.

I have said in principle in the clearest way that I can and I framed the motion to make it crystal clear that the SNP believes that innocent children should not be locked up, whether in Dungavel, any other detention centre, or any other place.

The refusal of Scotland's First Minister even to give an opinion on the jailing of innocent children demeans his office. The only reasonable assumption that can be drawn from his refusal to speak out is that the First Minister agrees with and supports the policy. If so, he should be honest enough to say so. If not, he should have the guts to oppose what is happening. Whatever the First Minister's views, one thing is clear: the vow of silence is no longer sustainable.

Today's newspapers are full of reports of new dialogue between the Home Office and the Scottish Executive on how to handle the issue. I will wait to hear the Minister for Communities set out exactly what that means; however, I will make two comments. First, the Executive's position that the issue was nothing to do with it has been shattered by the action that it has been forced to take to address public concern. Secondly, the key question that remains from the Executive's intervention—this question is also for every member—is: will children still be imprisoned at Dungavel once we have heard the minister's announcements and the speeches by Executive members?

Last week, the First Minister said that he would be outraged if Westminster interfered in a Scottish Parliament matter, so he will not interfere in a Westminster matter. The First Minister's bargain is that he will not talk about Westminster if Westminster does not talk about the Scottish Parliament. However, the First Minister's bargain is falling apart. The issue is not a reserved matter for Westminster; it is a matter for all of us who are committed to basic human rights in our country. The predecessor of the Minister for Communities was reported to have secured a pledge—which has since been broken—that children would not be detained at Dungavel for more than a few days. Perhaps the minister could confirm whether that pledge was secured. The Executive has spoken out on the matter in the past and now—at last—seems to be speaking out again.

The First Minister has said repeatedly that he will not interfere in Westminster matters, but Westminster has failed to stick to its side of the bargain. The UK Government has made it clear that on the education, health and welfare of the children of asylum seekers, it will interfere in the affairs of this Parliament whenever and wherever it likes. Westminster's Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 makes that clear. Section 40 of that act gives the UK Government powers over

"the education of residents of accommodation centres"

for asylum seekers. Crucially, an order under that section could apply, disapply or modify an act of this Parliament.

In a written answer to my colleague Linda Fabiani, the Minister for Education and Young People said that the 2002 act can override the Scottish Parliament's Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. Our desire to educate children in the community is overridden by Westminster's desire to lock up asylum seekers and their children. That is a disgrace. Contrary to the First Minister's assertions, Westminster is directly interfering in this Parliament's affairs. The First Minister should stop his attempts to dupe the people of Scotland on that point.

The Executive must address another challenge to the regime at Dungavel. In January this year, the UK Government signed up to a European Union directive on minimum standards of care for asylum seekers. Article 10 of that directive compels countries to educate asylum-seeker children and children of asylum seekers under similar conditions as those for nationals. It is clear that the children of Dungavel are not educated in similar conditions as Scottish nationals, because the last time I looked, Scottish nationals were not educated behind bars.

The UK is in clear breach of a directive that it signed up to voluntarily. In this Parliament, our duty should be to force the Government to meet its obligations, not to provide it with an excuse to ignore its obligations. The UK must comply with that directive by February 2005. My party, for one, will hound the Government at every opportunity from now until then to ensure that the UK complies.

Dungavel is part and parcel of the hysteria over asylum seekers. It represents a get-tough measure from Westminster new Labour that panders to misinformation and prejudice. We should not pander to prejudice; we should confront it. We should say that neither Scotland nor the UK is being flooded with or swamped by asylum seekers. I say to Mr Muldoon that we should point out the facts.

In the past 10 years, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and other European countries have taken in proportionally more asylum seekers than has the United Kingdom. Developing countries have taken in millions of asylum seekers in the past few years.

Will the member give way?

Mr Muldoon has had his answer—he should sit down.

For their actions, those countries should be supported. Providing a home for those who flee oppression by tyrannical regimes overseas should be a badge of honour, not a failure of public policy.

How we treat asylum seekers goes to the heart of how we see ourselves as a country and of how others see us. It goes to the heart of the Scotland that we want to build—a welcoming Scotland and a Scotland of values, decency and respect. That Scotland should be outward looking and should act as a beacon of freedom and justice. That Scotland should never seek to punish children because of where they or their parents come from. Parliament has an obligation to create that future and to make that ambition a reality. That ambition must override any misplaced deference to Home Office ministers.

What is involved is a question of principle. Do we in 21st century Scotland believe that it is right to lock up innocent children? The SNP deplores that view. I invite members to support that principle.

I move,

That the Parliament calls for an end to the detention of children at the Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre.

The motion is one of the shortest to have been lodged and it contains the simple proposition that children should not be detained in Dungavel. However, the SNP could have abbreviated that statement to the even simpler proposition that in Scotland, children should not be detained. Why did it not do that? It is because even the SNP recognises that in any society, children will, because of particular circumstances, need to be detained in a minority of distressing situations. No one in the chamber welcomes that but, of necessity, it cannot at times be avoided.

It is not surprising that, in its simplest form, the motion could not be advanced by the SNP, because it would be unsupportable. To give any proper consideration to the motion as drafted, the question must be asked why children are detained in Dungavel. The answer, of course, is that their parents are asylum seekers. However, they are not just asylum seekers—they are asylum seekers who merit detention because they fall into one of the following categories: doubt exists about their identity and the basis of the claim; there has been a failure to abide by the rules that govern temporary admission or temporary release; or removal of the asylum seeker from the United Kingdom is imminent.

I ask Miss Goldie to move her microphone a little closer because some members are having difficulty hearing her speech.

On those asylum seekers' being among those who merit detention, the Scottish National Party's motion gets into difficulty, because either the party has no workable asylum policy—so that the Dungavels of this world would be redundant facilities to the SNP, whose regime would have no checks, balances, doubts or detention—or the party has some kind of policy on asylum seekers, the details of which are a closely guarded secret, but which acknowledges the need for a form of detention in some cases and draws the line at detaining children with their parents in those cases.

Whichever option describes the Scottish National Party's position, that position is incredible. Few people in Scotland seriously think that we can have no asylum policy, or that we can operate an asylum policy without a facility for detention in some cases.

If the Scottish National Party concedes the principle of detention in some cases, I can think of nothing more brutal and inhumane than separating child from parent in such a case and placing that child in the care of a stranger—a foreigner who might not even speak the child's language.

The motion should address the asylum policy that is operated by Her Majesty's Government, the shortcomings of that policy and the practical consequences of those shortcomings for asylum seekers in Scotland, but it does not. The whole asylum system is in chaos and needs to be overhauled. Indeed, the Conservative party has urged Her Majesty's Government to take immediate action to introduce 24-hour-a-day monitoring of all ports of entry and it takes the view that no asylum seeker should be given unrestricted freedom of movement until all the necessary vetting procedures have been discharged by the security services. Most important of all, the processing of applications should be dealt with quickly and efficiently rather than in the turgid and lethargic manner of which Her Majesty's Government has been culpable. In short, we need a swifter, safer and fairer system. I say to Mr Swinney that the successful applicant deserves such a system and that decisions must be made as quickly as possible to be fair to applicants who have no entitlement to stay here.

At Westminster, the Conservative party's policy is to introduce one-stop accommodation centres for all new arrivals in order to facilitate the objectives of speed, safety and fairness. Our view is that, internationally, we need to reinstate the 1995 to 1997 bilateral agreement with France, which allowed us to return asylum seekers from France within 24 hours.

Will the member clarify whether the Conservatives' policy, as outlined by Oliver Letwin, is to imprison adults and their children in offshore centres? Where would such imprisonment happen? Which islands in Scotland does Annabel Goldie have in mind?

If that were policy, I would be under an obligation to expand on it; however, it is not policy. The suggestion was one of many suggestions that were contained in a discussion paper. Mr Letwin has confirmed that what Mike Rumbles describes is not policy. Indeed, if the Scottish Conservatives have anything do with the matter, it will never be policy. The risk of its becoming policy is very slight.

The need for dramatic change to asylum policy at Westminster is evident from the statistics. In 2002, there were 110,700 applications for asylum. Of those, more than 54,000 were refused at an initial stage, so it is clear that some form of checking or monitoring is necessary. More than 54,000 applicants were supported in national asylum support service accommodation at the end of March 2003. On detention, at the end of June 2003, 1,355 people were detained in removal centres, 120 of them in Dungavel.

My party would like the population in Dungavel to be reduced and children to remain in Dungavel for the shortest possible time. However, only a change of policy and procedures at Westminster will achieve that aim. In the implementation of any asylum policy, asylum seekers—whether they are detained or not—must of course be treated with dignity and compassion. Where detention is involved, any suggestion that the regime that is operated in any centre is oppressive, callous, insensitive or cruel must be investigated and immediate remedial action must be taken.

Will the member give way?

If Mrs Ewing will forgive me, I would like to make progress. I do not have much time.

The motion does not make it clear whether the SNP finds material fault with the Government's asylum policy, the conditions and regime that prevail in Dungavel, or with both. As a result, I have lodged an amendment to the motion.

The perplexing question is, why has the SNP raised the matter in the chamber, given that it is outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament? Having done so, why does the SNP then shy away from a full debate on the real issue, which is the deficiency of Government policy at Westminster? I submit that there are two answers. We know that the SNP is not interested in a United Kingdom, wants to be shot of Westminster at the first available opportunity and will use any device to justify destabilising the framework of the UK. However, it is as duplicitous as it is tasteless for children to become the armoury of that political assault.

Will the member give way?

I am running out of time.

The second reason for the SNP's raising the matter is that its interests in the matter have far more to do with its leader, who is being harried from within his ranks, hounded from without and haunted by his party's flagging political fortunes. I might disagree profoundly with how the Scottish Socialist Party has behaved in relation to Dungavel, but when it comes to publicity, the SSP makes the SNP look like a bunch of amateurs. That is what has rubbed salt in the wounded electoral flank of the SNP and why the motion as it stands is unsupportable by any commonsense assessment.

I move amendment S2M-329.1, to leave out from "calls for" to end and insert:

"deplores the operation by Her Majesty's Government of an inadequate and ineffectual policy on asylum and profoundly regrets the policy implications of such deficiencies for asylum seekers in Scotland."

This is an important parliamentary occasion in which what we say in the chamber can enhance or diminish the Scottish Parliament.

I am grateful to John Swinney and the SNP for raising the issue in question. It is right that such an issue should be debated in the Scottish Parliament, albeit that the tone with which Mr Swinney introduced the debate was not helpful in encouraging the emergence of a consensus view that would allow the Parliament to speak with the authority with which it is capable of speaking.

Behind the scenes, we hear and read about careful political calculations being made and about how the issue will damage or help the Government or the Scottish Executive, or advance or hinder the independence cause. How will matters be received in Millbank? Will Tommy Sheridan or Rosie Kane, who has done so much to shine a light on the issue, be the socialist impresario?

The Scottish Parliament is greater than the sum of its parts or its parties. It is made up of decent men and women who have consciences, know right from wrong and want to do their best in their elected roles—after all, in the previous session, the Parliament's Education, Culture and Sport Committee delivered the children's commissioner. In all the parties, whatever their angle, it is recognised that we are dealing with a great wrong in the detention of children at Dungavel. That wrong sits badly with our concern for social justice, inclusiveness, the rights of the child and Scotland's essential fairness and compassion. The regime and system at Dungavel stick in our throats.

On Mr Brown's amendment, will he clarify whether he believes in no detention at all of children at Dungavel?

I will deal with the details of the amendment as I develop my argument and will return to that point. However, if I may, I will stay with the main point.

Children—who might be other members' children or mine—with names, personalities and talents are detained behind bars, gates and barbed wire. They have committed no offence, but cannot leave, attend local schools or meet and make friends with local children. The SNP's motion has merit, but it is flawed and incapable of commanding a majority in the chamber. That is essentially because it has no context and no recognition of wider issues, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—to which John Swinney rightly referred—the UK dimension or the proper levers of pressure on the Government.

On Saturday, Mr Brown and I attended a rally at Dungavel. A Liberal Democrat press release about the rally stated:

"Mr Brown called on the Government to act immediately on the reports by HM Inspector of Prisons and HM Inspector of Education, and stop the detention of children in Dungavel."

Will he clarify whether that is the purpose of his amendment?

The purpose of my amendment will be clear from what I have said and what I will proceed to say. Its purpose is to make progress on the matter rather than to make a moral knee-jerk that will have no effect on end results.

Annabel Goldie touched on one example of the implications of the SNP's motion—the possibility that children might be separated from their detained parents and perhaps put into foster care. That is a consideration for many MSPs and it is not an option with which they should have any truck. In the rush to stop one evil, we should not create another.

Immigration and asylum matters—including the care of any children—are reserved to the UK Government, which is sensible in an island country with no internal controls on movement across the Scotland-England border.

Will Mr Brown take an intervention?

No. I have taken enough interventions.

The United Kingdom Government holds the key to Dungavel and to the other seven immigration removal centres in the United Kingdom—four of which house children. At 2 April this year, there were 21 children at Dungavel, 18 at Harmondsworth, 14 at Oakington and three at Tinsley. When listening to Mr Swinney's speech, I was struck by the lack of concern for or reference to the children held in those detention centres. The detention of children is an issue not only for Dungavel or for Scotland but for the whole of the UK.

It is not our job to review the asylum and immigration policy of the Government, but I express my view and the view of my Liberal Democrat colleagues that far too many people are detained unnecessarily in removal centres for far too long. There are many alternatives to detention, including the use of tagging or voice recognition techniques, and the requirement to report daily to a police station.

There is no satisfactory or consistent bail regime. It is a matter of regret that the provision for automatic bail hearings in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 was never brought into force and was repealed by the Government in 2002.

Will the member give way?

No, I am sorry, but I have limited time and have given way to other members.

Detention may still be necessary to ensure the removal from the country of people whose asylum applications have been properly rejected and who refuse to leave.

The children in Dungavel are there without limit of time and in contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—a treaty that has been ratified by the UK, but from which the Government has a reservation on immigration matters. The United Nations convention has decreed that

"childhood is entitled to special care and assistance"

and that

"the child … should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding".

Article 3 of the convention states:

"the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."

The Labour Government states in a letter to me that it is "deeply sympathetic" to concerns about the detention of children and that it was "not their intention" to lock children up for months. The Government even has the gall to state:

"the United Kingdom honours the spirit of the convention".

That gobbledegook is written on Home Office paper that bears the motto

"building a safe, just and tolerant society."

The reality of the situation is revealed by last month's report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, which reveals that 79 children had been detained in Dungavel for more than the recommended maximum temporary period of two weeks. The report states that

"Dungavel did not offer satisfactory educational provision"

for the 36 children locked up for more than six weeks. It also states:

"In addition, the detained children's personal, social and learning experiences were impoverished by their lack of contact with the outside world".

The report is a sensible handle on which to hang the Scottish Parliament's contribution to the debate. The words of the official prose in the reports by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education and Her Majesty's prisons inspectorate for Scotland are a more powerful indictment of the situation at Dungavel than all the ranting of politicians in all the chambers in Britain.

I accept that UK ministers did not intend that such a situation should arise. It results from a combination of factors that include, among others, administrative delays, legal challenges and oversights. However, the continued inaction of the UK Government on the highly professional reports of those two independent agencies is a scandal that the Government must now rectify.

I have not come fresh minted to the issue. I visited Dungavel in March to see for myself what was going on. I have to say that I was impressed by the efforts of the staff there—not least in the classroom—but it is difficult to accept that a 20ft metal and barbed-wire fence, locked prison doors and secure internal intersections are in the best interests of children.

My focus sharpened after my appointment as convener of the Education Committee. In June, I spoke out to castigate the detention of children and my comments received considerable coverage in the media. I wrote to the Home Secretary and expressed my concerns to the Minister for Education and Young People. As John Swinney said, I spoke at the Scottish Trades Union Congress rally last week. However, that has not been enough and neither have the efforts of all of us who have raised the issue.

The Scottish Parliament has the opportunity to express its view on the matter. We cannot unlock the gates of Dungavel by ourselves, but does anyone doubt that the unified voice of the Scottish Parliament will carry weight and influence with the Government?

In that spirit, I appeal to colleagues throughout the chamber to support the Liberal Democrat amendment. Neither the motion nor the other amendments can command a majority in the chamber. The Liberal Democrat amendment represents the fulcrum around which the Parliament can honourably unite. My hope is that it will articulate the united view of the Parliament, which can be conveyed in a dignified, responsible and effective fashion to the Government. I would, incidentally, expect the Scottish Executive to report the Government's reply to the chamber in due course. The amendment is a reasonable, sensible and contextual amendment and I urge the chamber to support it.

I move amendment S2M-329.2, to leave out from "calls for" to end and insert:

"reiterates its strong support for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; believes that decisions affecting children whose parents are to be detained should be made in the best interests of the child; notes that the issue of asylum and immigration policy is reserved to Westminster but welcomes the significant progress made by Scottish Ministers to improve services and support for asylum seekers and refugees in the community; notes that Dungavel is one of eight UK removal centres operated by the Home Office throughout the United Kingdom; notes the reports by HM Inspectorate of Prisons and HM Inspectorate of Education on the educational provision made for the children detained at Dungavel; calls on Her Majesty's Government to take immediate action to implement the recommendations in the two reports and to end a system of detention of children at Dungavel which denies them access to social contact and to educational and other services in the local community, and calls on the Scottish Executive to convey the Parliament's concerns to Her Majesty's Government."

I am pleased that we are having a debate on Dungavel, but it is unfortunate that, owing to the centre's very existence, we have to have a debate about it.

I commend the STUC for holding a rally on the issue last week and Michael Connarty MP for speaking out. I also commend Cathy Peattie, Sandra White, Rosie Kane and others for speaking out. If the BBC is correct in its reporting of the matter, people power has worked to a degree and there has been some movement on the issue, which I am happy to welcome.

If we are serious about debating the issue of Dungavel, we have to be clear about what the issue is. The issue is not about constitutional wrangling by the SNP or between Westminster and Holyrood, nor is it about any party in Scottish politics using Dungavel to sling mud at another one. The issue is not what is reserved or devolved, or which minister said what in public. The issue is whether, in 21st century Scotland, we should lock up children and their families, who are innocent of any crime, in a former prison. Each of us in the Parliament has a clear moral responsibility to answer that question today.

I cannot accept the SNP motion. It does not recognise that the power to act on the issue lies with Westminster and that only Westminster can stop the imprisonment of children or close down Dungavel. Only Westminster has the power to ease the harsh asylum regime. The role of this Parliament is to take a position on the issue and to make that position clear to Westminster. The SNP motion does not do that.

Will Elaine Smith give way?

I am sorry, but I do not think that I have time.

You could reasonably expect an extra minute for two interventions.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. That is helpful.

In that case, will the member take an intervention?

Yes.

The member said that families in Dungavel had committed no crime. Does she consider that individuals who sneak into the United Kingdom in a lorry against the laws of the UK and the European Union are not committing a crime?

I do not think that it is a crime to seek asylum in this country. The crime is in locking up children in Dungavel.

Unfortunately, the SNP motion does not provide workable alternatives. Its alternative could mean the separation of children from their families. For that reason, I have lodged my amendment.

The Executive cannot hide from its responsibilities by stating that the issue is reserved and that it will therefore have nothing to do with it. I am pleased that ministers are speaking to Westminster and that a move has been made to recognise the issue and speak out on it.

The refugee children are here in Scotland and they are being imprisoned on our doorstep. Their right to health care, education and welfare are rights to public services for which this Parliament and the Executive are responsible. If the care commission, for example, has responsibilities in Dungavel, ministers who answer for the commission also have responsibilities.

The Executive has a long and at times distinguished record of speaking out and lobbying Westminster on reserved areas. I will not go into that, because it is all on the record. If agencies such as the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations are prepared to engage with the issue and offer alternatives to imprisonment, ministers must engage with the issue in a similar manner.

As citizens in a civilised and democratic country, none of us can turn our backs on the treatment of asylum seekers. We cannot ignore Dungavel, whether we are MPs, Scottish Executive ministers, MSPs, councillors, trade unionists, mothers, fathers, sons or daughters. We cannot accept that anyone in our country, in particular a child, is imprisoned when they have committed no crime. Dungavel is not a suitable place for any innocent person to be imprisoned for any length of time. It cannot be tolerated for any longer as a place where children are locked up, deprived of a proper education and deprived of the chance to play and socialise with other children. Those are rights that we take for granted for our own children in our civilised nation. The SNP motion does not address that, as it leaves the door open for Westminster to assume that the Scottish Parliament would condone the separation of children from their parents or guardians. Of course, that would be unacceptable.

There are fundamental problems with Robert Brown's amendment. It looks initially as if much of that amendment could be supported as being better than nothing. Unfortunately, the terms used in the clause that begins "to end a system" mean that children would still be imprisoned behind barbed wire, but might be bussed to the local school, with all the stigma that would attach to that. To say that decisions would

"be made in the best interests of the child"

also leaves a door open to separating children from their families.

Does Elaine Smith accept that to separate parents from their children could hardly be conceived to be in the child's best interest, except perhaps in cases of abuse or other extreme situations?

I certainly do not accept that separation is in the child's best interests, but Robert Brown's amendment leaves that door wide open. His amendment proposes a restricted, short-term solution to some issues, but would not end the detention of children or their families at Dungavel. Instead, it uses semantics to disguise the fact that it still condones the imprisonment of children and their families at Dungavel, despite Robert Brown's fine words. Any member who supports his amendment condones that imprisonment. Everyone who opposes the imprisonment of children and their families must vote against that amendment and support mine. There is a clear choice.

Dungavel is a fundamental issue of human rights. We are all responsible for the treatment that people receive in our country and we are all guilty of consenting to that treatment if we hide behind a shield of silence. Discussion of the conditions in the prison muddies the waters. The staff should not be brought into the debate—although the fact that it is run for profit by a private company certainly should, because that is morally disgraceful. If people are put behind barbed wire and their liberty is removed, they are simply imprisoned. Members must not be misled by the convenient descriptions of decent conditions that Dungavel's defenders give—that is the gilded-cage argument. Loss of liberty is imprisonment—it does not matter how comfortable the cage is.

The real issue is clear: we must find a more humane and respectable way to treat asylum seekers, and the locking up of children in Dungavel must stop immediately. The treatment of our fellow human beings is every Scot's responsibility, no matter about the constitution. We should hang our heads in shame for tolerating the existence of such an aberration in our country for so long.

I move amendment S2M-329.3, to leave out from "calls for" to end and insert:

"recognises that there are widespread concerns regarding the care and education of children detained in Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre and calls on the Scottish Executive to engage in communications with Her Majesty's Government to seek to end the detention of children and their families at the centre and to develop a more humane alternative to this practice."

I am pleased to speak for Labour in this morning's debate. It affords me the opportunity to tackle directly the misinformation that has characterised discussion of Labour's position and to lay out Scottish ministers' involvement in a variety of issues that relate to asylum seekers and refugees.

I ask those who are concerned about Scottish ministers' role to let me explain. We have a direct responsibility for refugees, which we exercise willingly. We have delivered a solid programme of action to address the needs of refugees in our communities. We also have a role in welcoming asylum seekers to our communities and dealing with the services and support that they need and deserve. We have not done that work on our own. We have worked in partnership with the voluntary sector, local communities—to which I pay tribute—and local authorities. We want to place on record again the important role that Glasgow City Council has played in welcoming asylum seekers and refugees to its city.

We have also worked in partnership with the UK Government. Our partnership with Westminster has focused not only on the range of issues that are of significance to asylum seekers and refugees in our communities but on issues pertaining to Dungavel. I assure the Scottish Parliament that we take our responsibilities towards asylum seekers and refugees—and to the communities in which they live—very seriously. I argue strongly that our record proves that.

I will focus more specifically on the result of our partnership for Dungavel, because Parliament has clearly expressed an interest in that. There has been a long and sustained relationship between Executive ministers and Home Office ministers. We have met at regular intervals in past years. I take as an example the involvement of Scottish Executive ministers in matters relating to education services at Dungavel. As I outlined in my letter to the Parliament's cross-party parliamentary group on refugees and asylum seekers, we raised the importance of engaging Scotland's school inspectors in the inspection of education provision and standards at the centre. That happened.

It was because of that joint work that we have clear recommendations—which are consistent with the importance that Scotland places on education—that we can now take forward. We have been in discussion with the Home Office since the publication of the HMIE report on how the recommendations are to be implemented, because there are implications for the services for which we have responsibility.

Of course we must respond to the plight of those in need and do so within a humane framework. Most of all, we must do so in a way that brings about real change.

The minister says that she wrote to the cross-party group last summer. The HMIE report was made in October last year, with an update in August this year. Why has this taken so long, given that South Lanarkshire Council has been willing to respond to any request to provide children with a decent, mainstream education? Why can she not tell us about her private meetings with Whitehall ministers?

Fiona Hyslop demonstrates the misinformation that I wanted to clarify. She knows, as does anyone who has a cursory understanding of the issue, that action has been taken in response to the reports about which she talked. There have been improvements in the education services at Dungavel—Jackie Baillie raised those issues—and improvements have been consistent.

Will the minister give way?

I ask Margaret Ewing to bear with me.

I am attempting to demonstrate categorically that we have been in consistent discussions with the Home Office about those improvements and that we are now considering the specific improvements that highlight the circumstances of children who stay in Dungavel for more than six weeks.

I accept that the minister has been speaking to the Home Office, and I welcome that. However, although HMIE and HM inspectors of prisons have said in their reports that it is unacceptable for children to be in Dungavel for more than two weeks, children have been there much longer than that. I ask the minister to tell us a wee bit more about her discussions with the Home Office and how we can change that situation.

I will address that in the rest of my speech.

Our job—

Will the minister give way?

I ask Margaret Ewing to bear with me, because I have to get into my speech.

Our job in the Parliament is not only to aspire to change, but to translate that aspiration into action. At the end of the day, that is what really matters and that is why members were all sent here. It is therefore significant that, as a result of our continued and sustained work, the Home Office has stated clearly that it wants to work with Scottish ministers and South Lanarkshire Council to take forward the recommendations from the report on the education and welfare of children, particularly those in exceptional circumstances who are in Dungavel for more than six weeks. With me, the Parliament should welcome that.

However, to address the concerns of those most in need, we all have a responsibility to ensure that we have the means to deliver on the recommendations. I will be direct: it is extremely disheartening that the situation of children in Dungavel has been used as a foil to cut into the constitutional settlement and as a cloak under which some seek to transfer responsibilities. The decision to have devolution was made by the Scottish people. The Scotland Act 1998 was passed by the democratic process. I will remind members that that act meant that some matters would be reserved to Westminster and others would be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

I am appalled at the tenor of some of the minister's speech, alongside Annabel Goldie's, which was her worst-ever speech in the Scottish Parliament. I am deeply concerned that there seems to be no acknowledgement of morality in the debate. That is the issue that the SNP is addressing as the official Opposition. We accept that the Home Office has responsibility for the overall asylum and refugee legislation, but we cannot accept that, within our borders, children are being imprisoned and denied human rights.

Members must make their interventions a bit snappier than they have been so far.

I am sure that this is not the first time that that has happened to Margaret Ewing, and I know that it is not the first time that it has happened to John Swinney. Let me quote Jim Sillars. [Laughter.] Who? Margo MacDonald knows who Jim Sillars is. He said:

"Those who condemn Dungavel can do so totally safe in the knowledge that they can say anything they like … without the slightest danger of ever having to make an immigration decision."

Will the minister take an intervention?

I have been very fair and have already taken interventions. I must continue.

The minister has made her position clear. The member must sit down.

Jim Sillars always annoys the SNP.

Immigration and asylum were reserved for very strong and valid reasons—

Does the minister want to imprison children?

John Swinney has to listen to this. If he pretends to any kind of leadership in the SNP or in the Parliament, he must take these issues seriously.

It makes no sense to have varying immigration and asylum policies in the same member state. We are still in the United Kingdom. There is a UK Parliament with 72 MPs from Scotland providing the democratic route for Scottish concerns on UK matters.

Will the minister give way?

Can I have some forbearance on this, Presiding Officer?

I will compensate for interventions, but do not go too far.

I inform the minister that Jim Sillars is fine, thanks.

Does the minister accept that we have reached one of the core elements of the devolution settlement as it affects the Parliament? No one is trying to sneak under the wire. Does she accept that we must be up front in saying that part of the price of devolution is not having a say in what happens in a part of Scotland?

I do not think that that is what the SNP members are saying. However, that is why the First Minister has insisted that issues must be pursued within the democratically determined arrangements. It is, at best, misleading to suggest that the Scottish Parliament can address all the issues surrounding Dungavel, as some members have implied. No one is seriously suggesting that we do not have a system for immigration and asylum—or, if they are, they should say so.

There will be occasions on which there is a need to accommodate those who have not been granted asylum. The reality is that such a procedure will involve families and, regrettably, children. The UK policy on the issue is clear: people will be placed in removal centres for the shortest possible time—in the majority of cases, around 14 days. However, in exceptional cases when the stay is longer, especially when appeals have been lodged and are being processed, people who are placed in Dungavel will have their children kept with them. Wherever possible, keeping a child with its parents is the right thing to do.

I know that many people feel genuinely that detaining children is not acceptable. I respect that view. However, there are difficult choices to be made and, in certain circumstances, that cannot be avoided. The implication of separating children from their parents is enormous and cannot be side-stepped or diminished. It is clear to me that if we are to do more than talk, those who wish to improve the circumstances of the children at Dungavel must engage with the realistic options that are before us.

We must take an approach that puts the best interests of the child at its heart; that recognises the fact that immigration and asylum policy are rightly the responsibility of the UK Government; and that works to build on the foundations that we have laid jointly. That has consistently been my approach to these matters. Scottish Labour supports the amendment in the name of Robert Brown, despite our disagreement on some significant issues, which I am happy to debate with him at any time. I will always argue that this debate must take place in the broader context of our responsibility to tackle racism and intolerance in Scotland.

I know that there is much to do. However, like the First Minister, I am proud of the way in which Scotland has welcomed asylum seekers and refugees and of the way in which our communities have risen to the challenge of helping some of the most vulnerable and excluded people in society to become the new Scots. Those people have benefited in many ways, but so have we. Our communities are richer and stronger because of their increasing diversity. We have learned that our communities can pull together and that we can reject racism and intolerance. We will do that best by being clear about our responsibilities and honest about our agendas.

We come now to the open part of the debate, which is heavily subscribed. I therefore ask members to stick strictly to the six-minute speaking limit, which we may have to reduce later. [Interruption.] Order.

I add my thanks to the SNP for using its parliamentary time to discuss this issue. The debate is long overdue in the Parliament.

In general, the Scottish Green Party's policy on immigration and asylum recognises that countries such as the UK have significant responsibilities for the root causes of people from many parts of the world needing asylum. We bear a moral duty to those people. We should be happy to welcome them, whether they choose to stay here only until their home countries are safe again or whether they choose to make a new life and home here and contribute to our culture and society. On that basis, we support the statement from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that persons under the age of 18 should not be detained. We give our whole-hearted support to that position and the current operation at Dungavel is, therefore, to be condemned.

I had hoped to lodge a more constructive amendment that would have added to the SNP's position, recognising that voluntary organisations, churches and individuals throughout Scotland are already working—often quietly, of their own accord and without recognition—to support refugees and asylum seekers. The capacity exists among such organisations to provide an alternative that is superior in every regard, and they recognise the benefits that can come to cities such as Glasgow. New life and energy are put into schools when asylum seekers' children participate. New life and energy are put into voluntary organisations when asylum seekers choose to volunteer, broadening the scope and depth of understanding of different experiences of life that our voluntary organisations can gather. Those benefits should be welcomed and encouraged.

We must decide which, if any, of the amendments that are before us improves on an already strong and clear motion. Annabel Goldie's amendment correctly identities an inadequate and ineffectual policy on asylum, but I doubt that her idea of an adequate and effective policy would be similar to mine. To offer profound regrets without suggesting solutions or ideas is, itself, inadequate.

Robert Brown's amendment certainly contains a lot more material than the motion; however, that is not a real advantage. The amendment's reference to the reports by HM inspectorate of prisons and HM Inspectorate of Education is welcome. However, as we have heard, the ministers of the Scottish Executive—who can take no action or even express a view on reserved matters—have been holding secret talks to address the concerns that are raised in those reports. Robert Brown's amendment also refers to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, that perspective is implicit in the motion's call for a simple end to the detention. That is, as I have mentioned, the UNHCR's position and that of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Robert Brown's admission that he regards the taking of a moral stance as a knee-jerk reaction dismayed me, and I hope that he will find time to reflect on his speech later. Finally, the convoluted call for action by Her Majesty's Government at the end of his amendment fails to express the strength of the views, feelings and wishes of members from many parties.

That leaves Elaine Smith's amendment, which at least addresses the issue—the detention of children. The amendment also refers to the families of such children. We would not, of course, support the separation of children from their families as part of an asylum policy. I think that the call for the Executive to engage in communications to seek an end to the practice is not an improvement on a call for an end to the practice. However, I am ambivalent about supporting Elaine Smith's amendment. I will listen to other speeches. I hope that members from all parties will vote with their conscience.

The amendment clearly states:

"seek to end the detention of children and their families at the centre".

I hope that Mr Harvie will accept that that is what the amendment means.

I have read all the amendments carefully and I will listen carefully to all the speeches from all sides.

We know that members from many parties would have an end to the detention of children, full stop. Therefore, whatever amendment members decide to support, I ask them to vote with their conscience and send a clear signal—

Will the member give way?

No.

The member is nearly finished.

I ask members to send a clear signal by supporting the motion, whether amended or not by Elaine Smith's amendment. I ask members to vote with their conscience and call for an end to the detention of children.

Two years ago, the Scottish Executive informed me in reply to a parliamentary question that no planning permission had been required for the change of use of Dungavel House from a prison because South Lanarkshire Council's opinion was that the use of Dungavel House as a detention centre did not constitute a change of use in planning terms. How right the council was.

We were all told that Dungavel House was to be a halfway house and a holding centre for those who were in danger of absconding and those who had reached the end of the legal process and would be deported in a matter of days. That was a lie.

The Home Office even changed Dungavel's name from detention centre to immigration removal centre. However, the Home Office did not change the profile of those who are sent there, sometimes for months on end. They consist of people who have not reached the end of the legal process and—as we have all known for two years—families with children. I understand that no family has been detained in Dungavel because they absconded. Families have been taken from their homes and communities and placed in detention while their cases continue. Dungavel is not an immigration removal centre—it is a jail.

While we hold this debate, Bushra Sharif—a Pakistani national—is at a bail hearing. She was granted asylum because she suffered serious marital violence; she was living in Bradford, but she was removed to Dungavel because her husband reported her for giving wrong information at her original hearing. At that hearing, she had not explained that, as a Pakistani national, she had been living in Kuwait. She did not do so because she was frightened that her violent husband would be able to trace her. The fact that her life was in danger is not in dispute, so why were she and her children locked up in Dungavel? Was it because of the fear that she would abscond with her three children, who are aged one, six and seven? Why on earth are we locking up such young children? Why does our country choose to do that when laws in countries in mainland Europe do not allow the detention of under-age children? Some other countries set an age limit on the detention of children.

There are alternatives to detention, but separating families by taking children away from their parents and putting them into foster care is not an acceptable alternative to the Scottish National Party. Such a proposal is no more than conscience salving for those who do not want to vote for our motion, which says that we should not imprison children. The so-called fear of families absconding is no more than scare tactics, which pander to the worst elements and aspects of our society.

Many families over the piece have been granted bail and have gone to live with guarantors in their homes. Some families have since been deported and some have been given leave to stay in Scotland. However, the country is not full of wandering families who hide in ditches and jump into hedges whenever anybody passes by. Surely there is no member who is duped by that kind of rhetoric. Surely there is no member who does not believe that it is worse to lock up dozens of children than to take the slim chance of somebody absconding.

A church publication recently undertook a study that showed that one of the main reasons given by asylum seekers for coming to the UK was that the UK believed in human rights. We all like to think that that is true. Tony Blair certainly harps on about the UK's belief in human rights when it suits him. However, people can talk all they like but it is actions that count. David Blunkett's actions leave me deeply ashamed to be part of the collective responsibility for what is happening in our country.

We are all collectively responsible, in this democracy, for detaining children in Dungavel House, ignoring the UNHCR guidelines on persons under 18, refusing to ratify article 22 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and refusing to honour agreed European directives. Even if the least that any of us can do is protest, we should do so. If we can do more—I believe that the Executive can—we should do so. Belief in human rights is not a reserved matter and neither is morality.

When I first heard about the Liberal Democrat amendment, I thought that it might be a step in the right direction. However, after closer reading, I now believe that that amendment does no more than talk the talk; there is no guarantee at all that it will walk the walk. Two aspects of the amendment, to which Elaine Smith referred, stick out. One is the part that states:

"Decisions affecting children whose parents are to be detained should be made in the best interests of the child".

However, that would leave the door open for children to be taken from their parents and placed in foster care. Who would decide that? It could be the Home Office. I am sorry, but I trust nothing that the Home Office does in relation to immigration and asylum, because it has made too many mistakes and done too many bad things.

The other relevant part of the amendment refers to ending

"a system of detention of children at Dungavel which denies them access to social contact and to educational and other services in the local community".

It would be unacceptable to have children taken from Dungavel to a school, only for them to have to say to their friends at the end of the day, "You might be going swimming, but I am going back to jail. You might be going away for the weekend, but I am going back to jail for the weekend. I don't really know why, because my parents have not committed any crime. It's because the Government of this country says I should."

I would not find such a situation acceptable and I hope that the Parliament does not find it acceptable. I urge all members to vote for the SNP motion, which says straightforwardly that we should not imprison children in this country.

I believe that we should have a progressive immigration policy that means that we take seriously our responsibilities to the wider world and that we help create new lives for those who are fleeing from persecution. Therefore, I believe that the starting point for any immigration policy is how foreign nationals and asylum seekers are allowed to stay in the UK. I presume that we all start from that point, whether we believe in a UK boundary or a Scottish one. Those who do not believe in that principle must say so now. Any who do not have such a policy must be saying, in essence, either that no one will be allowed into the country or that we will have an open-borders policy, which was in effect what Elaine Smith alluded to earlier. Both those approaches would have consequences that I do not believe are in the best interests of UK nationals or, indeed, of foreign nationals or asylum seekers.

John Swinney claimed that the UK today is an unwelcoming and racist place. He backed up his claim by saying that, over the past 10 years, other European Union countries took proportionately more asylum seekers than the UK did. I accept that that is true. However, I prefer to deal with recent events. In 2002, the UK Government created such a horribly unwelcoming place that 147,115 people applied for asylum in the UK. That compares with 76,000 who applied for asylum in France and 69,000 who did so in the Netherlands. If the UK is such a horrible place, why do so many people want to come here?

Will the member give way?

No. Tommy Sheridan will have his chance soon.

Further, if this is such a horrible place, why would Labour at Westminster have joined the UNHCR refugee resettlement programme that will bring 500 refugees from West Africa to live in the UK in the next year?

I agree that we must support those who are fleeing persecution, but we must still have an immigration policy and that policy must be enforced. In Glasgow, members can see with their own eyes that we are developing structures and support systems to welcome many thousands of asylum seekers. The SNP's Kenny Gibson once said that he did not think that Glasgow City Council had the expertise to cope with the numbers involved and that for asylum seekers to come to a local authority in which services such as health and education were already under pressure would not benefit them and might cause tension if additional strain were put on existing services. How wrong could Kenny Gibson have been? Paul Martin will demonstrate later how Glasgow has succeeded.

Today's debate centres on children. Everyone in this chamber has genuine concern about the welfare of children, whatever their nationality. That is why I, as convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee in the first session of the Parliament, along with my colleagues across the parties, introduced a bill to create a children's commissioner.

There has been considerable commentary in the press and the chamber to the effect that Labour MSPs do not care about children in Dungavel. What a lot of rubbish. It was a Labour MSP, Cathy Jamieson, who secured a members' business debate on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in February 2000. Since Dungavel opened in 2001, Labour MSPs have been lobbying UK ministers and Scottish ministers on the issue of children and their welfare. The fact that we do not do that through the pages of the press does not mean that we do not care; it means that we are not prepared to exploit already vulnerable women and children for party-political purposes.

No. Margaret Ewing will have a chance later.

Robert Brown's amendment is correctly framed. In recognising lines of responsibility, we are not being weak but are being mature politicians.

Ha!

Bruce McFee might laugh, but it is true. The SNP did not win the election and we live in a devolved country, not an independent one. Therefore, there are lines of responsibility and we must take them seriously.

Further progress must be made on the implementation of the reports of Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons and HM Inspectorate of Education. That will require close co-operation with South Lanarkshire Council, which has already shown that it has developed productive links with the centre, providing significant benefits to the quality and range of provisions available. Progress has been made since October 2002—as was recognised in HM Inspectorate of Education's follow-up report, just as it would be recognised in the follow-up report on any other provision in any other part of Scotland—but more must be done.

Robert Brown's amendment focuses on what is best for the child. In some cases, it might be in the interests of a child to be educated in a mainstream school. I do not accept Linda Fabiani's argument that that cannot ever be done. In some cases, a child might be able to go to local voluntary projects that are run for children. In other cases, however, perhaps because of language barriers, that approach will not be possible and the child will need to be educated in the centre. The role that is played by the local visiting committee cannot be underestimated in that regard.

Each case must be decided on its merits. There might be families who could be located in supported accommodation in the community, but that might not be appropriate in other cases. Whatever decisions are taken on detention, steps must be taken to speed up the process. Labour ministers must continue to do that with their colleagues in Westminster.

If we simply say that no children can ever be detained, we must deal with the hard questions that go along with that. Those questions will not go away simply because we say that they do not exist. Should we enforce our immigration policy? If the answer is yes, what do we do with someone with a family who has been refused asylum and who will abscond? Do we put them in a place such as Dungavel—

Will the member give way?

I do not have time. The Presiding Officer has indicated that I must wind up.

Do we put them in a place such as Dungavel or do we separate the children from their family? That is a choice that we must make because, if we have an immigration policy, we must be prepared to enforce it. If we follow John Swinney's suggestion and have people reporting twice a day to police stations, how will we enforce that? If people do not report, what do we do then? Do we detain them?

We all want what is best for children.

I must ask the member to close.

Conscience is not the sole property of the SNP and I resent the comments that were made by Patrick Harvie.

Please close now.

Each of us in the chamber will vote according to their conscience today.

As we sit here in this chamber, Bushra Sharif is sitting in a bail hearing in Glasgow. She is afraid that she will be sent back to Dungavel. Dungavel is a prison for her and her three little kids. She has been there for three weeks now.

Bushra was living in Bradford with her children and she never attempted to abscond. Her children are aged seven, five and one. They are beautiful children and she is a beautiful woman. She has every reason to abscond if she wanted to—I know her background and, if I had her background, I would abscond rather than be sent back to the country that she fled from.

In the gallery, members will be able to see Mercy and Percie Ikolo. They are not part of a stunt. They are two people who needed an alternative to imprisonment. They know how Bushra Sharif feels because, last week, they were in the same court and experienced the same fear of being sent back to Dungavel, where they had also already spent three long weeks. They were isolated, vulnerable and afraid—those are Mercy's words. Mercy's baby daughter saw her mother frightened and crying and that has made her very clingy. She did not allow Mercy to go to the kitchen or anywhere on her own—if the baby was asleep, Mercy had to wake her up and take her with her. Does anyone here do that when their children are asleep?

Percie Ikolo is frightened and has become clingy as a result of the regime in Dungavel. She has good reason to be afraid. She came to the UK for a three-day visit from Dublin. It is easy to go between Glasgow and Dublin; I have done it myself—anyone can get a bus from Govanhill to Dublin easily. When Mercy was attempting to return to her cosy home in Dublin, she was stopped at the Belfast port. Was it because she was a black African woman? Members can draw their own conclusions, but I point out that I have never been stopped in Belfast for any reason.

Mercy was escorted back on to the boat by two security guards and taken to mainland Britain, put in the back of a van and driven to Dungavel. She was shattered, worn and frightened, as was her daughter. A few days later, she was taken to Glasgow airport with deportation papers that stated that her destination was Uganda. Pause for a minute to think about that. The papers were for Uganda; she is from Cameroon. There are at least three countries between those two countries. Who made that decision? Why did they make that decision? Was it because she was a black woman from Africa and someone thought that they could throw a dart at a map and send her to wherever it hit? Again, members can draw their own conclusions.

The Ay family did not attempt to abscond at any time. They were settled in Kent and the children were attending school. Phil Gallie shakes his head, but that is true. They were all born in Germany—

I will not give Phil Gallie a platform. Members can call that a stunt, if they want.

The family were settled and the children were happily attending school when their father was sent back to Turkey. The mother was frightened and the family were easy for the authorities to get because she kept the children in school. She was vulnerable because she cared for her children. The family's future is uncertain. They are in Germany, terrified and unsettled. They were rushed out of this country before the damning report on Dungavel saw the light of day.

The Scottish Socialist Party is happy to unite behind John Swinney's motion, as it goes further than Labour members would have gone. We are also happy to support Elaine Smith as she mentions families with children, which is a crucial issue.

The detention of innocent people is wrong. Dungavel and other detention centres across the UK are wrong. New family units are being built in the south to contain more innocent people. We have to oppose that. We cannot shut up in the Scottish Parliament.

I ask members to imagine something for a minute—when people are in prison, they use their imagination to survive. I ask everyone in this chamber to imagine that they are not MSPs or ministers, to forget about the Executive and to pretend, for a minute, that they are human beings. Those who are shaking their heads should be hanging their heads in shame at the thought of what is happening in Dungavel. This is an issue of human rights and it matters from that point of view. It is an important issue for everyone on the planet. Simply sitting in this building does not exclude anyone from having an opinion on this matter.

When I was a kid, I was told to give money to the black babies. I gave a penny every day. For that honour I got a wee card that was filled in on the back. When it was filled in, I was allowed to give the wee baby on it a name. I called them all Elizabeth—not after the Queen, but after my auntie, who is a really nice woman. I still feel the same way about that, but it was decades later that I found out why the wee child on the card was starving and why they spoke English. I have to tell people who wonder why a lot of people want to come to these islands that it is because their first language, like Mercy's, is English.

When people are in prison they use imagery to survive and I ask members to do the same. Let us keep a handle on the facts. Not only do we have room in our country for those who are fleeing, for whatever reason, but we must welcome the diversity and skill that they bring with them. "One Scotland. Many Cultures"—that is what the poster said. Let us do something about that.

Robert Brown's amendment is a hook for the Labour members to hang themselves on. Some members would have had to say no to the motion and all the amendments and I am sorry that he has given them a tunnel out. Those members should have been made to stand up and make it clear that they say no to the motion and all the amendments and that therefore they say yes to detention.

Taking a child to school in a Wackenhut van—

Wind up, please.

Karen Gillon did not give way and she got extra time.

Order.

Taking a child to school in a Wackenhut van and then taking them back to prison is not conducive to a healthy upbringing.

Prison is a state of mind. Labour members should get out of theirs.

I cannot accept members bandying around statements on how much time other members have taken. I have asked members to restrict themselves to six minutes and I expect everybody to be disciplined in that. If they are not, some members who have sat here all morning wishing to speak will not be called and that is not reasonable.

This is a simple moral issue, but how we deal with it has complex consequences. Although I am what might be described as moralist and maximalist, I am ready to support Robert Brown's amendment, which moves the debate on helpfully.

I pay tribute to John Swinney for introducing this debate. Although commenting on the motives of other people in politics is ridiculous and a waste of time—it is hard enough to know our own motives, let alone other people's—I think that in this case John Swinney tried genuinely to produce a motion that he thought would attract simple moral support. Many members view his motion differently and perhaps he misjudged it, but his intentions were excellent.

I agree with Donald Gorrie, but would it not, therefore, have been better for the Liberal Democrats not to have lodged their amendment, so that we could have united behind the simple expression in John Swinney's motion?

Our collective view was that the important thing was to make an advance and to put forward a proposition that might get the Home Office to do something. We feel that our amendment is an advance on John Swinney's motion. I am sure that all members in the chamber are against detaining children. However, that is a simple moral issue on which politicians have not led; the churches, the STUC and many voluntary organisations have led on it.

Scottish MPs, with the exception of Michael Connarty, have not pursued the issue as vigorously as they should have and that is a cross-party criticism.

Speak for your own party.

If the member had listened, she would know that that is what I said I was doing.

It is right that we should pursue this simple moral issue. People have various views on how we deal with it. First, the issue is reserved so we cannot unlock Dungavel. Secondly, there are differences of opinion. Some people feel that all detention of asylum-seeking families is wrong. Other people feel that detention of the adults might be justified in some circumstances and that we should not separate the adults from their children. How we make progress is a complicated issue.

The important thing is that we can make a serious proposition to the Home Office, which, from all accounts, has the most intransigent set of officials and so on that one can meet, and persuade it to make progress. Our amendment suggests ways forward. It makes it quite clear that the present system is unacceptable—we could put that to the Home Office as a simple moral point—and it lays open the way to a more civilised system of educating the children even if they are staying in Dungavel. They could have not only education but social and out-of-school activities with the community. That is not ideal, but it would be a great step forward from the present position.

The final line of the Liberal Democrat amendment

"calls on the Scottish Executive to convey the Parliament's concerns to Her Majesty's Government."

Does that mean that the Liberal Democrats agree that the concerns of not only the Parliament but the Scottish people about the detention of children have not been conveyed to the Government until now?

I cannot agree with that, because I am not privy to what private conversations our ministers have had with ministers in London. All ministers are entitled to have private conversations and pick up the phone and say, "Look, you've really got to do something about this." I am quite sure that our ministers have been doing that.

The way forward that the Liberal Democrats would like, on a UK basis, involves housing associations constructing smaller units where families could live together. They would get support from the community, churches, councils and voluntary organisations. There would be appropriate supervision. Some people would need tighter supervision than would others. For others, reporting daily to a police station would do. There are other options for ways forward and we must press hard for them.

Westminster must work out, in co-operation with us, a way forward that answers the moral dilemma around incarcerating children. As Margo MacDonald said, this is a key test. Can we make devolution work? I am a great supporter of devolution, but it has to be a partnership. We must get Westminster to move on this issue.

I do not know how members vote on other occasions, but I hope that we vote in favour of either the motion or one of the amendments. If everything is defeated, we will look bloody stupid.

The issue of how Scotland treats asylum seekers and, in particular, the children of asylum seekers is not new to the Parliament. Even before the Parliament took on its full powers, in a debate on 9 June 1999 about how Westminster legislation would affect the Scottish Parliament, I asked Donald Dewar what he would do about the fact that the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 were being amended by the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

Donald Dewar said at the time that it was for Westminster MPs to consider the bill. However, importantly, he said that the Scottish Parliament was free to amend provisions legislated for by Westminster that covered devolved areas. He warned about inertia creeping into the Scottish Parliament, which might prevent us from acting promptly to assert our role to reverse Westminster legislation covering devolved matters. We have seen the inertia that Donald Dewar warned about so long ago in this Parliament over this matter.

I cannot understand ministers' inability to act even within the powers that they have. Donald Gorrie made a point about whether we should know about what they are doing and their private conversations. If we knew what they had been doing in the past few months, we would not necessarily have had to hold this debate today.

One of the most telling facts is that Glasgow City Council has been able to arrange with the national asylum support service to have devolved functions for housing and South Lanarkshire Council has agreed with the Home Office a similar arrangement for education. The councils did not need the Executive, because the Executive does not have the power or influence to make a difference. It is interesting that councils have more authority on this issue than the Parliament.

This is a matter of political will and I am concerned by the lack of action. Why is the United Kingdom such a special case that we have to jail the children of asylum seekers? Other European countries do not have to. What is so special about us?

An important point of Scots law arises. Anne Owers, HM chief inspector of prisons, has said in a report:

"We also believe that the guiding principles that underlie international and domestic law on children should be brought into decisions to detain … children and families."

Anybody who knows anything about Scots law and children knows that children's welfare is paramount.

Robert Brown's amendment says that he

"believes that decisions affecting children whose parents are to be detained should be made in the best interests of the child".

Do he and I agree that it is not in the best interests of the child for a child to be jailed? Do he and I agree that it is not in the best interests of the child to separate a child from its mother and family? If so, why on earth are we agreeing to the continued detention of children, as we will be if Robert Brown's amendment is agreed to?

The amendment

"calls on Her Majesty's Government to take immediate action to implement the recommendations in the two reports and to end"—

I repeat, "end"—

"a system of detention of children at Dungavel".

Our concern is that we should speak with one voice to ensure that the Parliament sends a clear message that it refuses to accept the detentions. Robert Brown's amendment would allow children to go to school in the daytime but would necessitate their detention at night. We are able to express our opinion on whether we think it right or wrong to jail children. That is the choice before us.

Why have things taken so long? Why do we have the inertia that I mentioned? Why is it only when we have an SNP debate that we make progress? Over the past four years, we have had opportunities but we have had no action. Why has the Executive not exercised the duties and responsibilities that it can exercise under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998 to transfer functions? It could use section 30 to transfer legislative powers.

I have written to Peter Peacock about education issues. In many ways, the education issues mask the underlying problem, which is to do with the way in which we treat children. Is it right for children to be detained and jailed? If people think that our Minister for Justice—and the Minister for Justice for four years was a Liberal Democrat minister—has been making representations to the Home Office but nothing has happened, what makes them think that agreeing to Robert Brown's amendment will make a difference now that a Labour minister is the Minister for Justice?

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is a very serious issue indeed. It was the Tories who first rejected its complete adoption and wanted reservations on immigration and citizenship; it is the Westminster Labour Government that continues to reject the adoption of that part of the UN convention. Do the needs of the child drive the treatment of asylum seekers or is the need of the Home Office to jail parents more important? If members support the Executive's position, they are saying that the needs of the Home Office are paramount, and not the needs of the child. Scots law says that the needs of the child should always be paramount. We must make a judgment. What is on offer is day release from jail. That may be better than no release, but it is still just day release from jail.

Compassion, justice, integrity and wisdom—are they shown in the detention of children at Dungavel? If members think not, they should support the SNP's motion.

Let us be quite clear on one thing: no one is happy at the prospect of young children being detained long term at Dungavel or anywhere else. However, too much emotion has been injected into this debate and into the wider general discussion. What is required is a cool, detached, compassionate approach to what is a growing problem. Let us also be quite clear that there is certainly blame. The blame lies not here but at Westminster, with Tony Blair. Initially it lay with Jack Straw and it now lies with David Blunkett, who manifestly failed to recognise the scale of the problem.

It is wrong and totally unfair that so many asylum seekers have to wait so long for their applications to be determined. That is the nub of the matter. The asylum seekers are not the only victims; the British taxpayer has also been a significant victim of the failure on the part of Blair, Blunkett and Straw to cope adequately with this matter.

The proposals in the SNP's motion fail to recognise the status of Dungavel. The people incarcerated there—and we regret this very much—are those who have exhausted the asylum process and the appeals process and are due to be repatriated. That being the case, anyone here might well ask—and reasonably—how it is possible for people with or without children to be kept there for a year. That question has to be asked down south and the solution must be brought from down south. It is not our responsibility.

If there is an alternative to keeping people at Dungavel—and many members have mentioned this—it is to take children away from their families and to put them into a strange environment with all the trauma that that would entail. That is surely not what Mr Swinney wants or what he is proposing today, but that would be the very unfortunate effect of his motion.

The SNP does not accept the dividing of families. Will Bill Aitken condemn what has happened to Fatima Muse, the woman who was fined in Dungavel for feeding her child? She and her children are to be deported while her husband, who I presume is the father of the children, is being given leave to remain in the UK. It is not the SNP that should be lectured about dividing families. Does Bill Aitken agree?

I am a great believer in commenting on situations only when I know the full facts. In the case that Nicola Sturgeon mentions there is contradictory evidence. There appears to be an adequate feeding facility. I will comment on things when I know the full picture.

There are three amendments to the motion. Elaine Smith spoke eloquently and sincerely about her amendment, but clearly we cannot accept it. I will deal at greater length with Robert Brown's amendment on behalf of the Liberal party. I have known Robert Brown for many years and he would not deliberately mislead. However, he has caused the chamber real problems today, and Rosie Kane was right to point that out. The wording of his amendment is so vague and woolly that members do not fully understand the portent of it. Fiona Hyslop was right to raise that issue, too. I rather suspect that the wording is deliberately vague and woolly, to mislead people—who, although I do not agree with them, hold strong and sincere views—into supporting an amendment that they do not really understand or appreciate. I want to know from the Liberal party whether or not the terms used in the amendment mean that children would not be detained in Dungavel under any circumstances? Is it day release, or is it total release?

Will Bill Aitken tell me what he does not understand about the amendment? The amendment

"calls on Her Majesty's Government to take immediate action to implement the recommendations in the two reports and to end a system of detention of children at Dungavel".

What does he not understand about that?

I have no doubt that that intervention was intended to be helpful, but Mr Rumbles has created more confusion. If we consider what Mr Brown said when speaking to his amendment, we will realise that he did not say that. That is certainly not what I took from what Mr Brown said. I hope that, when the member for the Liberals sums up, their position is made totally clear and that we are left with absolutely no dubiety. I suspect that there has been a deliberate attempt to con a significant number of members into voting for something that does not mean what it says.

Members will be aware that we have discussed Sighthill in the chamber on many occasions. Since the murder of Firsat Dag two years ago, the Sighthill community has been the subject of intense scrutiny. I advise the chamber, as I have done on many occasions, that the local community in Sighthill has met the challenges that it faced as a result of the dispersal programme. John Swinney does that community a sincere disservice by referring to our UK colleagues as racist. That does not assist us in considering ways in which we can deal with the very serious and complex issue that we face in our community.

I thank the member for giving way on the question of whether his UK colleagues are racist. How many of the residents and new citizens of Sighthill would have passed a British test if it had been set?

They passed the Sighthill test. We welcome people from all over, and we have done so for 25 years. We welcome people from the overseas community—students and asylum seekers. Our focus has been on working with asylum seekers to ensure that they feel part—

Will the member give way?

Sandra White should give me some time.

We have considered ways in which we can support asylum seekers and their children in that community.

Little recognition has been given to the many community organisations and individuals who do so, such as the recently retired Church of Scotland minister, Rev Jones, who gave 32 years of his life to Sighthill. Only recently was recognition given, when Rev Jones was awarded the MBE. We should recognise his contribution to supporting asylum seekers all over Scotland during the dispersal process.

I have a brief question for Paul Martin on Dungavel, which is what we are talking about. Does he believe that children should be incarcerated at Dungavel—yes or no?

I assure Sandra White that I will most definitely come to that point shortly.

We have welcomed people through the dispersal programme, but the Parliament needs to involve itself in a mature debate on that programme. Should Sighthill have been selected because we had 500 empty properties? Is that the only reason why dispersal took place to that community? We need to consider whether the dispersal programme has worked and have a mature debate.

On Robert Brown's amendment, I recognise that the education programme for asylum-seeker children has worked effectively in Sighthill. The children have integrated with one another. They are an example to their peers because of the way in which they have worked with other children and have bonded so effectively with them. I will support Robert Brown's amendment because it recognises the need to ensure that children are given the opportunity to bond with other local children to ensure that they can be part of the community.

I say to the minister that we need to consider how we fund the education system to ensure that additional teaching staff are made available to support asylum seekers. There is a particular issue in relation to interpretation services, which are a serious concern in many schools in Glasgow. To me, that is the kind of practical point that should be discussed in the chamber. I would also like to see us ensure that additional resources are made available for health.

To conclude, it is time for us to consider ways in which we can work with our colleagues in Westminster, instead of working against them. We should not involve ourselves in the kind of provocative language that has been heard in the chamber today. We need to build on the positives that there have been in areas such as Sighthill. We should welcome the investment from the Executive, but we should also learn from past mistakes in areas such as Sighthill, where asylum seekers were dispersed because we had 500 empty properties. We must learn from those mistakes and learn from the negatives. That is the way forward.

In order to get as many back benchers in as possible, speeches should be of only four minutes.

Last year, I visited Dungavel as a member of the cross-party group on refugees and asylum seekers. Our report stated that Dungavel is not an appropriate place for families and that we saw no justification for the detention of children. Last week, I returned to Dungavel for the STUC demonstration. Speaker after speaker condemned the barbaric practice of imprisoning innocent children whose parents have sought refuge in this country. Some of them have fled from some of the most oppressive regimes in the world and, instead of being given a warm Scottish welcome, find themselves locked up in prison.

Those who deny that Dungavel is a prison should visit the place to see for themselves the locked doors, the perimeter fence and the razor wire that is just as high and just as intimidating as any prison wall. Indeed, in some respects, the innocent people who are detained at Dungavel are treated worse than convicted prisoners. Why punish a mother for feeding her children? Even convicted prisoners are allowed to eat in their prison cells.

At last week's question time, Peter Peacock, the Minister for Education and Young People, told me that the operation of Dungavel, including the education and welfare of children, is the responsibility of the Home Office. The truth is that education is devolved. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education's report on Dungavel states that the centre did not offer satisfactory educational provision, although section 1 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 refers to

"the right of every child of school age to be provided with school education".

It seems that the Scottish Executive and the Home Office are breaking the law by denying the children in Dungavel their educational rights.

The Scottish Executive must stop passing the buck. It is not good enough for Scottish ministers to claim that it would cause offence if they spoke out on a reserved matter just as it would cause offence if Westminster colleagues spoke out on a devolved matter. There are many examples of Westminster politicians speaking out on devolved matters. Eric Joyce MP has made some ignorant public comments about Scottish education, but the First Minister defended his right to do that. Anne McGuire, who is a UK Government minister, is intervening on a health matter to try to secure the location of a new hospital in her constituency. Why should Scottish ministers take a Trappist vow of silence, especially when the rights of children are at stake?

Finally, I will comment on the spurious argument that stopping the detention of children would separate children from their parents. The cross-party group's report recommended that community reporting procedures be explored as an alternative to the detention of families with children. That would be a much more humane alternative to locking people up.

Dungavel must be closed because it has no place in a civilised society. It is a national disgrace and it makes a mockery of the Scottish Executive's declared aim of achieving higher standards of social justice in a modern, multi-ethnic and multicultural Scotland.

I say to Bill Aitken that perhaps if we had had more emotion and less detachment, we would have stopped locking up children in Scotland before now. Of course emotion should be brought into a debate such as this. What kind of people would we be if there was no emotion in a debate on the detention of children?

I want to say something about the tone of the debate and the language that has been used. To imply that John Swinney or anyone else has any ulterior motive other than the best interests and welfare of children is nothing short of a disgrace. Many SNP members have been raising issues about asylum seekers and their children from the day we came into Parliament. We did that well before there was any nonsense about the other issues that have arisen; to say otherwise is, quite frankly, disgraceful. The oohing and aahing that took place during John Swinney's speech is the type of behaviour that brings the Parliament into disrepute.

Today, we need to reflect on what this Parliament is about. The Parliament was set up to change Scotland and to reflect the type of Scotland that we wish to see. Surely to God this Parliament can agree on one thing—that we do not want to see children locked up on Scotland's soil. If we cannot agree on that, my goodness, what can we agree on?

In April last year I, Dennis Canavan and others went to Dungavel to see for ourselves what was happening there. I will say a few words about it. I have no criticisms whatever of the staff in Dungavel. They do a job in difficult circumstances, but it is a job that they should not be asked to do. No one should be doing a job that involves locking up children.

Will the member give way?

No. Annabel Goldie would not let me intervene on her, so I return the favour.

When we arrived at Dungavel, we were met with a fence that is at least 20ft or 30ft high. If it looks like a prison and it acts like a prison, in my view it is a prison. We spoke to many of the detainees there. I was thankful for the open access that we were given to speak to them, because it was revealing. I was struck by how many of them had no idea why they were there, how long they were going to be there, and what was going to happen to them. Members should imagine families with children in that situation, having no idea what is going to happen to their children. It is deeply disturbing and difficult when one is grabbed by families, mothers and children who are begging one to get them out of there. That is a tough thing to face. Perhaps some of the members in here who have alternative views should experience it for themselves.

We have had numerous reports. The issues that the cross-party group on refugees and asylum seekers raised in its report in April 2002 were almost identical to the ones that were raised by the chief inspector of prisons—children should not be locked up. Margaret Curran said a lot of warm words, and laboured the point that Scottish ministers have done a lot to improve the plight of children at Dungavel, yet children are still being locked up and reports are still being written condemning that practice. Whatever Scottish ministers claim they have been doing behind the scenes, it is not enough.

I finish where I started. Surely this Parliament can come to an agreement on one thing—that it is wrong in Scotland, on our soil, to be locking up children. I hope that by the end of today we are able to agree on that.

Quite rightly, in the past few months, there has been widespread comment and concern about the use of Dungavel as a removal centre for asylum seekers. I do not want to rehearse the detail of the debate, because we have heard it already, but essentially there are two strands of opinion—those who call for the complete closure of Dungavel and those who argue, rightly in my view, that we need to end the system of detention of children at Dungavel. I will take each in turn.

It is generally acknowledged that in any asylum or immigration policy removal centres have a place for that small minority of asylum seekers who have a history of absconding or for those whose claim for asylum has been rejected and who are awaiting removal. It is recognised, though, that that is an option of last resort. Nobody has brought this up today, but it is worth remembering that, before Dungavel, asylum seekers were held in Barlinnie, which is hardly appropriate accommodation.

I do not believe that it is in the best interests of children to be detained for any length of time. That view crosses the entire chamber.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you.

Neither Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, who criticised the detention of children for more than seven days, nor Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, which noted that Dungavel did not offer satisfactory educational provision for children who are detained for any length of time, believes that it is in the best interests of children. I welcome the recognition of that in Robert Brown's amendment, and the efforts that have been made by Scottish ministers, who have worked continually to effect change.

Will the member give way?

No, not on that point.

In particular, I congratulate Margaret Curran on pursuing the issue. She is right that we need a partnership approach to tackle the changes that are required in the interests of children. With the Executive working alongside the Home Office and South Lanarkshire Council, we will see the implementation of the recommendations in both reports.

Scotland has a reputation as a fair, caring and tolerant nation, with a long tradition of welcoming asylum seekers. The Executive is upholding that tradition with, as Margaret Curran outlined, considerable investment in integration projects, language classes, further education opportunities and legal advice and information, and very welcome progress with the Scottish refugee integration forum.

So what is this debate about? To paraphrase a popular song, "Why here? Why now?" Is it about children? Is it about Dungavel? Is it even about asylum policy? Forgive me for joining Annabel Goldie in being slightly cynical. Although Shona Robison makes a persuasive case, regrettably this debate is much more to do with the SNP's internal divisions. Commentators in the press, and commentators on the SNP's own benches, suggest that it is more about John Swinney appealing to the third of his party who are unlikely to vote for him anyway. What is it about? Is it about striving to get support by outdoing them with anti-English rhetoric that at times borders on being racist? The SNP charge is that somehow members of the Executive parties are racist. If so, why did the UK Government accept 47 per cent of asylum applications that were made in the European Union? Why are local authorities, in particular Glasgow City Council, providing accommodation for 3,500 asylum seekers?

The last time we debated asylum seekers in the chamber was on 31 October 2001. John Swinney was so concerned by the issues raised by asylum that he failed to show up and he failed to vote. That is a damning indictment. It is a bit late to come to us now.

It is unusual for me to disagree so quickly with something that Jackie Baillie said.

I thank the SNP for bringing this motion to Parliament today, because it raises an issue that is being talked about throughout Scotland. It is of interest to the people of Scotland, and people have strong views about it. In the chamber are people of conscience who represent all parts of Scotland and all political parties. Although it irritates me that occasionally the SNP takes the view that it is the only party that cares about Scotland, it irritates me even more when people talk as if only members of their own party have any conscience whatsoever. People of all parties have taken an interest—much more of an interest than I have taken—in the issue of asylum seekers over the past four years.

Key points arise from contributions to the debate made from all parts of the chamber. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the system, it is failing all asylum seekers who seek refuge in our country—not only children but families and single people. The system must be changed. Once we get into the question of how we change it, the issue becomes complex, but we are talking about a simple issue at heart: whether it is wrong to detain and imprison children in a prison.

I visited Dungavel, which I had not visited before, on Saturday. I was appalled to see that it is, quite frankly, a prison. We cannot imprison people who have done no wrong and committed no crime, and then sleep comfortably in our beds and live comfortably with our consciences. People of all parties should be able to unite around the fact that that is wrong, and that it is not behaviour that we want to see in a 21st century Scotland that we all want to improve.

The people in Dungavel have committed no crime and deserve our protection. However, we must be pragmatic and realise that we have to have a system for the control of immigration. Even the Scottish Refugee Council and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees agree that countries should be able, as a last resort, when all judicial appeals have reached their formal conclusion, to detain for a very short period of time people who have to be deported. That is the only reason why the detention of anyone should be formally allowed.

Will the member give way?

No.

Detention as a last resort is not what is happening at Dungavel. The report from Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons says:

"Dungavel was unique in the United Kingdom, as the only centre that held children for considerable periods, which could amount to many months in some cases…This had not been planned or anticipated when the centre was set up."

The system is failing, and rather than acknowledge that it is failing and make changes, Her Majesty's Government continues to keep people in a prison when they should be let out after two or three weeks if they have not been deported.

Much comment has been made about the education of the children. I agree with other members that what is happening is appalling. The points that are made in the HMIP report should be acted on by the Executive, which should act much more speedily than it has acted until now.

However, we are talking about wider issues, such as the mental health, well-being and psychiatric future of the children whom we are imprisoning in Dungavel. There has to be a better way. The churches, local authorities, voluntary sector and housing associations have all shown a willingness to work with the Executive and the Government on the issue. In a small number of cases, for a small number of days, people who have to leave the country may have to be detained, but 99.9 per cent of the time we do not have to detain children. I do not want to be part of a Parliament that agrees that we should detain children, and I do not want to be part of a country that does so.

The minister mentioned dealing with reality. I will deal with a few realities at Dungavel: large building, razor wire and guards. If someone's children are hungry outside permitted eating times, that person is allowed to feed them; if they try to do so, they are fined. If someone wants milk for their children they cannot just get it—they have to ask a guard, who has to open up the cupboards to give them milk. Kids cannot play outside whenever they want. They have to ask a guard, and are still surrounded by walls, razor wire and guards. If an individual needs sanitary products, they have to ask a guard. I would not call that a detention centre; I would call it a prison.

Members of the Parliament should be forthright in our opinion that children should not be held at Dungavel. I congratulate Elaine Smith and Cathy Peattie on their stance. I say to the other Labour members who have spoken that if there was a shiver going round their side of the chamber, it would be hard-pressed to find a spine to run up.

Let us consider the amendments one by one. It is not worth mentioning the Tory amendment. Elaine Smith's and Robert Brown's amendments both have merits. However, I am sorry to say—particularly in relation to Elaine's amendment—that those amendments are just smokescreens, as Rosie Kane said, that try to protect the Lib-Lab Government. Margaret Curran and the other ministers cannot hide forever. Robert Brown has created a smokescreen that tries to let them off the hook, but people outside the chamber will not let them off the hook any more. Once again, what we see today is the might and weight of Westminster against the fright of the Lib-Lab Government. According to the Government in Scotland, the master has spoken and the servants will obey. However, this is a Parliament and Lib-Lab members have been elected to it. They should get off their knees and do something. They should vote for the SNP motion.

I thank the SNP for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. I am quite disgusted at what I have heard from some members, who seem to think that they need to justify what is totally unjustifiable.

While the debate has been going on, Beverley Hughes, the UK minister in charge of immigration, has been interviewed on BBC television. She said that, although she is happy to discuss the matter with the Scottish Executive, there will be no change of policy at Dungavel, and that children are best kept with their parents in the centres, where they will be educated and not taken outside.

While we sit here debating and discussing the situation of children—a disgusting situation where the freedom and rights of children have been taken away—the Westminster Government is making comment. I will leave everyone here to interpret that in their own way—I am sure that there will be much more discussion about the situation.

I make it clear that I speak in support of Elaine Smith's amendment simply because it would not be right for young people to be transported to and from Dungavel to go to school. My reasons for that view are that no child should be detained and no child should be denied an education that is not fully inclusive. That is what we are doing, which is ironic for a country that has always been proud of its education system. By law, all children in Scotland have a right to an inclusive education, and no child should be denied full access to health care. At present, young people in Dungavel are not being inoculated when they should be, and their records are not being passed on. They are not being given a basic human right: the right to decent health care.

As far as I am concerned the children are being mentally and physically abused. They are being mentally abused because they are in prison. They have no freedom and cannot go out to play when they want to—they cannot go into the play area whenever they desire. They cannot eat when they want to—we have heard today about a mother being fined for trying to feed her child. Those are not examples of human rights being observed, and we should be ashamed to live in a country that allows such things to happen.

I am disgusted that we have to have the debate today. Over the past two years, many people in Scotland have been campaigning to get Dungavel closed. The Scottish Socialist Party's policy is to close Dungavel. Today, we are here to end the imprisonment and detention of children, mothers, fathers and young people in Dungavel. We want an end to it today, and the only way that we will be able to signal to the rest of Scotland and the UK Government that that is what we want to do is by supporting Elaine Smith's amendment. I ask members to support her amendment. I thank the SNP again. We have great sympathy with its motion, the terms of which we support.

It was pointed out earlier that John Swinney was not here when we discussed asylum previously, nor did he vote. It is hugely unfortunate that he is not here to listen to the summing-up speeches. Although I am the first to criticise the UK Government when it needs to be criticised, I did not like the tone that he used in his opening speech—the rhetoric of racism is inappropriate.

I see that Annabel Goldie also is not here. The Tories have taken quite a low-key approach, in my view because they are quietly ashamed of their UK position on asylum. I referred earlier to that position, which is, apparently, that we should lock up children with their parents in offshore centres.

Will the member take an intervention?

I cannot—I have only four minutes.

Robert Brown made a powerful speech that put the issue of the unacceptable detention of children at Dungavel clearly into focus. However, I am afraid to say that Elaine Smith used spin when she said that anyone who supports the Liberal Democrat amendment condones the imprisonment of children. That is outrageous. The whole point of our amendment is to make it clear that the imprisonment of children is unacceptable.

Is that the third time that the member has misrepresented Robert Brown's amendment? The amendment calls on the government

"to end a system of detention of children at Dungavel which denies them access to social contact"

and so on. It implicitly accepts the detention of children with occasional day release.

That is outrageous and simply untrue. I have not misrepresented the amendment.

Asylum is the responsibility of the UK Parliament. Margaret Curran focused on reality and it is clear from her contribution to the debate that our own ministers in the Scottish Executive have been active on the issue. Our Parliament is also active on the issue.

Karen Gillon said that, if we are to have an asylum policy, we must have one that works. However, in a research paper that was published just six months ago, Emma Cole states:

"Up until October 2001, children were very rarely detained by the Immigration Service and when they were it was usually for a matter of hours before they were deported or removed with adult members of their family. In fact, the very presence of children in a family was viewed as a factor indicating that an adult member of the family would not abscond".

I refer to Patrick Harvie's intervention on behalf of the Green party on the subject of the Liberal Democrat amendment. We seem to keep returning to our amendment, which simply

"calls on Her Majesty's Government to take immediate action to implement the recommendations in the two reports and to end a system of detention of children at Dungavel".

I keep having to say, "What could be more clear?"

Will the member give way?

I would love to take an intervention, but I am in my last minute.

The continued detention of children behind barbed wire and fences is clearly a moral issue on which the Scottish Parliament must take a stand. However, it is clear that responsibility for the situation lies with the UK Government and the UK Parliament. I support the point that Donald Gorrie made: MPs of all political persuasions, with some notable exceptions, have been too quiet on the issue.

I appeal to Green party members to support the Liberal Democrat amendment. They have misunderstood the position that is set out in our amendment, which is that the Scottish Parliament can make its voice heard. We can succeed in influencing the UK Government and we should send out a message that will influence it. We have to do that as we have no power to end the detention of children at Dungavel.

It will not be often that I agree with Patrick Harvie, but his interpretation of the Liberals' amendment was exactly right. Robert Brown's comments qualified the situation and Mike Rumbles tried to say that the Liberals' amendment set out that they do not approve of the detention of children, but that is far from the truth.

It is clear that the wording of the amendment in Robert Brown's name suggests that the Liberals do not approve of the detention of children without allowing them to go out into the community, socialise and gain an education. Robert Brown went a little further than that when he suggested that that should happen after children have been in Dungavel for six weeks. When one considers the length of time that children spend in Dungavel, one will come to recognise that almost 90 per cent are there for less than that six-week period. Indeed, happily, almost 50 per cent come out of Dungavel within a fortnight. Those are the official figures. The purpose of Dungavel is to act as temporary housing for those who are set to be deported from the country.

That is true so far as it goes, but what about the 79 children who were detained for more than two weeks and the 36 children who were detained for more than six weeks in Dungavel over the past year? Is that not the central issue of the debate today?

I agree that that is the central issue, and I have some sympathy with Robert Brown's suggestion that, after a set period of time, children should be moved back out into the community. However, many children would have been confined for six weeks by that stage, despite Mike Rumbles's comment that the intention behind the Liberal amendment is to stop children being detained.

I move on to address John Swinney's motion. I am not going to criticise anybody for putting forward honestly held views—if those are his views, fair enough. I also want to pick up on comments that Shona Robison made. I respect her stand on the issue. I remember a meeting that was held in Glasgow two or three years ago at which she openly endorsed an open-door programme for immigration—

Will the member give way?

I do not have time. The member's endorsement of that programme is a matter of record and a matter of fact.

I ask John Swinney where the SNP stands on the issue. Does he believe in having an immigration policy or not? If we are to have an immigration policy, we must have a means of enforcing it.

Will the member give way on that point?

I am sorry, but I have to move on.

Mr Gallie is in his last minute.

The failure that is set out in Annabel Goldie's amendment is at the heart of the problem. The Labour Government at Westminster has created a shambles of the asylum scene—it has created the situation in which there is a need to lock up children in Dungavel. Mike Rumbles acknowledged that the process started in 2001, but the Westminster Government created the shambles that the process came from. Let us have no false tears over that point.

John Swinney referred to situations in which people who had a family would not abscond. I challenged him in respect of the Ay family, as the case of the Ay family disproves everything that he said on that subject.

You must sum up now, Mr Gallie.

I refer to Bristow Muldoon's intervention. We hear dissatisfaction about the way in which we treat immigrants in Britain. The fact is that a far greater number of immigrants come to the United Kingdom than go to any other European country. The situation speaks for itself.

In responding to the debate on behalf of Labour members, I make it clear first of all that every Labour member in the chamber wants to the country to have a fair asylum and immigration system that awards refugee status to properly recognised refugees who are fleeing persecution, as defined by the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

We recognise that the issue of asylum and immigration is properly the reserved responsibility of the UK Government. However, we also recognise that the Scottish Executive and a large number of local authorities in Scotland have played a positive role in welcoming people into Scotland's communities on a number of occasions.

Given that section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998 allows for the transfer of powers from Westminster to the Scottish Executive on specific issues, should the Scottish Executive not demand that powers in relation to Dungavel are transferred from Westminster?

I do not agree. I believe in the United Kingdom as a sovereign state. We should have an immigration and asylum policy that covers the entire country. I commend the Scottish Executive for the work that it has carried out in co-operation with the UK Government to welcome people to this country.

Will the member give way?

No. I want to make progress.

Although I did not agree with every aspect of Robert Brown's speech, the Liberal Democrat amendment that he moved is thoughtful and progressive and will take forward the treatment of asylum seekers in Scotland.

Will the member give way on that point?

I have to make progress, as I want to address the comments that were made by a number of speakers.

I accept that people on all sides of the debate have genuine concerns about various aspects of asylum policy. However, one of my biggest concerns with Mr Swinney's proposal was his unfortunate use of language, particularly with regard to the UK Government. It was very offensive and wrong of Mr Swinney to suggest that the UK Government or its ministers are racist. If he wants to retain any credibility in this country, he should apologise and desist from making such accusations.

One of the reasons why I joined the Labour party back in the 1980s was because of the party's lifelong commitment to internationalism and to dealing with inequalities throughout the world. That internationalism is still with the Labour party. We saw that commitment in the end of the empire and in the attack on apartheid in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s—Nelson Mandela recognised the crucial role that the Labour party played in that campaign. We see it in the current Labour Government's commitment to opposing ethnic cleansing in Kosovo—a commitment that Mr Swinney and his party did not support. We also see it in increases in international aid budgets and in the UK Government's being one of the foremost supporters of the call to reduce third-world debt.

On the subject that I raised in my intervention, Mr Swinney misrepresents the UK Government position. In the records for the most recent year, we discover that the UK Government took in 47 per cent of people granted refugee status by all countries in the European Union. A further 20,000 people were awarded exceptional leave to remain on humanitarian grounds. That result shows that the UK Government is far from adopting a narrow interpretation of the UN convention. The UK Government fulfils its international obligations.

The member has widened the debate. I take him back to the position of the UK Government on what constitutes a fair, equitable and reasonable immigration and asylum policy. Does he agree that the Labour party in Scotland might have a different interpretation from that of the Labour party in England of what would be a suitable degree of attraction for economic migrants into Scotland?

Apart from the Labour Government's record on the acceptance of people with refugee status, it is also the case that there was a net immigration of 171,000 people into the United Kingdom in 2001. People have come from all parts of the world—from other parts of Europe, from Commonwealth countries and elsewhere. More than 100,000 refugees have been accepted into the UK every year since 1998. The UK is not a country that says that it is full up; it a country that pursues a positive immigration policy.

Annabel Goldie and Phil Gallie, on behalf of the Conservatives, raised concerns about the operation of the current system, which must be improved. However, although they distanced themselves from the UK Conservative party position, they did not outline an alternative position for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.

Although my colleague Elaine Smith, members of the SSP and the Greens raised genuine concerns about individuals, they failed to address an alternative immigration or asylum policy that the UK could implement. I can assume only that their policy would be to have no policy and to offer free immigration to anyone who wants it. That position is not even taken by the SSP's socialist utopia of Cuba, where 33 out of 42 cases were rejected in the most recent year.

It is right that Britain continues to receive people who flee persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group or political opinion. It should be recognised that the UK has a long and continuing record of performing that role well and of accepting people from outwith the country who genuinely flee persecution. Anyone who suggests otherwise does so for narrow political purposes and would be well advised to desist.

At its heart, the debate is very simple. As a nationalist, I believe that immigration and asylum policy should be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, but that is not what members are asked to vote on today. I agree that all countries must have an immigration policy, but that does not preclude anyone from criticising the UK policy when it does not act in a "progressive" manner, if I may use Karen Gillon's word.

If anyone doubts the hypocrisy and inhumanity of the UK asylum and immigration policy, let me ask them to consider the following case. An Iraqi dissident came to see me a few months ago. The Home Office wanted to send him back to Iraq to face the wrath of Saddam Hussein—probably to be executed—at exactly the same time that Tony Blair was preparing to go to war against that same dictator. Incidentally, the refusal letter received by the Iraqi dissident displayed the legendary attention to detail of the Home Office to which Rosie Kane referred. Halfway through the letter, Iraq suddenly becomes Iran. However, that is not what the debate is about either.

The debate is much simpler than that. It revolves around the simple proposition that imprisoning children in Dungavel is wrong. I say to Robert Brown in all sincerity that imprisoning children is wrong wherever it happens, but we in this Parliament have responsibility for the welfare of the children in Dungavel. That is why the SNP is right to concentrate on that issue in our motion.

I do not claim for myself or my party a monopoly on caring about the welfare of children. We all care about children, but surely that is why, irrespective of whatever else divides us in the chamber, we should be capable of coming together to agree on the simple proposition that imprisoning kids is wrong. If it is wrong—and it is wrong under law—we should demand the end of the practice of doing so in our country. John Swinney cited the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child when he said that it is wrong to punish a child for the status or crimes of his or her parents. I say to Phil Gallie that seeking asylum in this country is not a crime—we should all be aware of that.

Imprisoning children is wrong according to the chief inspector of prisons in England and Wales, who condemned the detention policy and said that children should not be detained for more than seven days. The average length of stay in Dungavel during the past year has been four weeks, and the Ay family children were there for more than a year.

If imprisonment of children is wrong under the law, it is even more wrong morally, according to the experts, to lock up children. I agree with Robert Brown's comment that, even in a complex world, sometimes the concepts of right and wrong are pretty straightforward. That is why so many people in Scotland find it difficult to understand the First Minister's silence on the issue. His remit is defined by law. I will return to the rights and responsibilities of the Scottish Executive later but surely he could and should have spoken out as a citizen and a human being, if not as a politician.

Although I support the SNP motion, I deplore the fact that Jack McConnell is being attacked for staying quiet and keeping things under wraps instead of running a media-led Assembly. I prefer the Executive rather than the media to tell us what we should be debating. That is why he has not said, "David Blunkett must do this," in order to produce banner headlines in the papers. That is no way to rule a country.

Although I respect John Swinburne's point of view, I believe that powers can be devolved or reserved, but consciences cannot.

Even today, when we are told that the First Minister will support a particular amendment, he cannot bring himself to come to the chamber to speak in favour of that amendment. He will not even allow the amendment to be lodged in the name of a Labour member. He said that he cannot speak up because to do so—

Does the member recognise the annoyance and irritation caused to many members in the chamber by the SNP's obsession with the First Minister and whether he says something rather than with the Home Secretary and the United Kingdom Government, given that they have responsibility for the issue?

The irritation caused to the vast majority of the people of Scotland is that the First Minister, the leader of Scotland, says nothing about the simple issue of whether it is right or wrong to lock up children in Dungavel.

Will the member take an intervention?

I have less than a minute left.

The debate is not about the Scottish Parliament encroaching on reserved matters; it is about the Scottish Executive abdicating its responsibilities on devolved matters. Health, education and child welfare are all matters central to the question of how we treat asylum seekers and their children, and they are devolved responsibilities. That makes what goes on in Dungavel our business.

I will finish as I started: this is not a complicated issue; it is simple. If members believe that what happens at Dungavel is acceptable, they should vote against the SNP motion. If they believe that locking up children becomes acceptable just because they are let out once in a while, they should vote for the Liberal amendment, although they should be aware that Beverly Hughes has said that she has no intention of letting the children out from time to time. If, however, members believe, as I do, that it is plainly and simply wrong to lock up children, let us agree today—even if we agree on nothing else over the lifetime of this Parliament—to call for an end to the detention of children in Dungavel.