United Kingdom Border Agency
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-7490, in the name of Anne McLaughlin, on the United Kingdom Border Agency’s contempt agenda for Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament condemns the UK Border Agency (UKBA) for its actions that, it believes, imply a complete lack of respect for the Parliament and the people of Scotland; deplores what it considers to be the chaotic and unfeeling manner in which hundreds of asylum seekers in Glasgow were informed of the cancellation of UKBA’s contract with Glasgow City Council and their subsequent imminent removal to elsewhere in Scotland; condemns, in particular, UKBA’s decision, following a review, to continue, in its view, to refuse to engage with members seeking to represent constituents; believes that this policy is unique among all UK and Scottish governmental agencies, and considers that both examples demonstrate contempt for asylum seekers, the Parliament and Scotland.
12:32
I had hoped that my first members’ business debate might be about something positive and worth celebrating and would congratulate great people on great work. I really did not want to have this debate and, along with many other MSPs, I tried to get the United Kingdom Border Agency to see sense.
Members may recall that I lodged a similar motion last year on the UKBA’s refusal to speak to MSPs. In the end, I did not go ahead with the debate because I wanted to try to convince the Home Office to change its mind. Alas, it did not—but l tried.
I wrote to Phil Woolas when he was in charge and I wrote to Alan Johnson. I spoke to Ann McKechin and to Jim Murphy. They all told me exactly the same thing:
“We get 66,000 letters a year from MPs. We do not wish to take on even more and duplicate.”
The argument is weak, because nobody is suggesting that anyone should be represented by an MP and an MSP, so there would be no duplication.
Then there was an election and a new Government. Despite the fact that it was primarily a Tory Government, it started making the right noises on asylum issues. For all the deserved criticism of the Liberal Democrats’ end of the coalition in recent weeks, I am aware that asylum was one of their red-line issues.
Labour was out and the new Government said, for example, that it would end the detention of children. It also said that it would review the position on dealing with MSPs. Well, it has reviewed it now and guess what it says?
“We get 66,000 letters a year ...”
—blah, blah, blah. That is followed by another oft-repeated reminder that
“immigration is a reserved matter”.
Indeed it is, as is benefits, but the Benefits Agency is perfectly happy to respond to my enquiries on behalf of constituents.
What of health, education and housing? All of those matters are devolved to this Parliament but are perfectly legitimate areas of interest for members of the other Parliament when it comes to representing their constituents.
Alex Neil, the Scottish Government Minister for Housing and Communities, will respond to the debate. What if he were to refuse to respond to MPs? How would that help the constituent? It would not. That is precisely why no Scottish Government agency discriminates in that way and no other British Government agency treats this Parliament with such contempt.
The results of the UK Government’s review, coupled with the disgraceful way in which Glasgow asylum seekers are being treated over the cancellation of the contract with Glasgow City Council, have left me with no choice. The debate had to happen, and I make absolutely no apology for the motion’s title: “UKBA’s Contempt Agenda for Scotland”.
The dictionary definition of contempt is:
“The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior”.
Well, the message to the representatives of this Parliament and the people who wish us to represent them is clear: the UKBA considers this institution “inferior”. The dictionary goes on to describe contempt as
“open disrespect for a person or thing accompanied by a feeling of intense dislike”.
We could forgive the more than 600 asylum seekers in Glasgow who last month received the shockingly insensitive letter that told them that their lives would soon be turned upside down again for feeling disrespected and if not intensely disliked, then certainly not cared for.
Other members will be talking in more detail about the Glasgow situation. I will use my remaining time to say something more general about asylum seekers. When I was elected, I spent time thinking about the areas that I wished to focus on. I have to be honest and say that asylum was not one of them—human rights more generally was on the list, but I had no burning desire to fight asylum issues. That, I now believe, was because I just did not know enough about the subject. I had always understood that asylum seekers are not—I would say that they probably never are—people who simply decide to hop on a plane and cynically manipulate the system. Some come because it is the only chance their children have of any reasonable start in life—who among us would not do the same?—and many others come because they are absolutely desperate and in fear of their lives. Studies have shown that the majority do not set out to reach the UK; they set out just to escape their own country. They do not know where they will end up and suffer painful and often horrific journeys to get there. When I hear some of their stories, I feel like awarding them medals for bravery.
We only have to look at yesterday’s absolute tragedy, in which at least 28 adults and children drowned off Christmas Island as they tried to reach Australia. How desperate would you have to be, and how bad would your life at home have to be, to risk such a treacherous journey? I pay tribute to the Christmas Island residents who did everything that they could to save people—in fact, they did save many. The residents’ natural human instinct was to respond to people’s cries for help and to try to save their fellow human beings. That is what our asylum policy should be about. It should be about responding to cries for help and protecting fellow human beings who did not get to choose where they were born, did not start their country's wars, did not provide them with weapons and did not invite their Government’s soldiers to rape them. Such people do not deserve to be treated with contempt when they reach our shores.
Working with asylum seekers requires sensitivity to people who are in extremely vulnerable positions, an ability to communicate when there are language and cultural barriers and the time to listen to often horrific and deeply personal stories. It is difficult enough for any ordinary member of the public to approach their MP or MSP with an issue, even with something as simple as their bins not being emptied, but to have to tell someone about your time in the torture camps or about running through the forest with your bare feet bleeding from wounds and men with bayonets at your back, to have to talk about the soldiers who came to your home and gang raped your 12-year-old niece and to have to describe how, as a child, you watched your father being gunned down in front of your eyes takes courage—it takes everything that you have got Those are the stories that I have heard from constituents over the past year and a half. You have to build a relationship with the person that you are telling. You have to trust them. To then be told by the UKBA that you have to repeat the entire process in front of another stranger, simply because you went to the wrong parliamentary representative must be utterly galling. How many of us would feel able to start the process all over again?
I will end by quoting a woman who fled Zimbabwe and sought asylum in the UK. She told me about the many things that had happened to her since her arrival in the UK. She said that, although she was grateful for all the support that she had been given, she just could not take any more. After the letter, she said that she felt like
“lying down and giving up”.
Our job, when someone can no longer stand up—when they tell us that they want to lie down and give up—is to stand up for them. That is my job as a human being; it is also my job as an MSP. I call on the UKBA to stop preventing me from doing my job and to start doing its job properly. That means the UKBA treating fellow human beings with respect rather than contempt.
We move to the open debate. Given the number of members who wish to speak, I ask them to keep to their four-minute time limit.
12:39
I intend my remarks to be relatively brief, Presiding Officer.
The whole area of asylum and immigration is a difficult one. By definition, if a country has an immigration policy, it will also have failed asylum seekers. The issue is then how the country treats people with humanity once that decision is made. The issue would be a problem for anyone, whichever position they are in.
I note what Anne McLaughlin said about her treatment as a member, but I want to reflect the concerns that exist about the way in which the UK Border Agency treated asylum seeker families in Glasgow when it sent them a letter telling them that they would be going shortly and that they were to take only three bags with them. It seems to me that the agency displayed a lack not just of compassion and understanding, but of awareness of the extent to which those families were integrated in their communities, with their young people attending local schools.
I put on record my thanks to Glasgow, my home city, for the way in which it stepped up to the plate when asylum seekers were to be dispersed throughout the country. Glasgow City Council, unlike any other local authority, chose to take those people, I think, because of its long history of showing compassion and understanding for people who have come into Scotland. It was not always an easy process and the council was the subject of a lot of criticism, but it should be commended for the way in which it tackled the issue, on which it worked closely with communities.
I think that members of all parties would accept that there is a sharp contrast between the attitude of Glasgow City Council and the way in which the UKBA has conducted itself. The reality is that asylum seekers were caught up in contract negotiations. The UKBA took a dehumanising approach, whereby it saw people in such circumstances as bargaining chips. I believe that through its letter, it tried, almost deliberately, to up the ante, but the real consequences were felt not by the council, which was wrestling with the problem, but by individual families.
Members will recall that during an exchange at a recent First Minister’s question time, I highlighted the situation of a young woman at Lourdes secondary school who was being supported by her school community, and the impact that receiving one of those letters, at the very point at which she was studying for exams, had on her family and her mother. It seemed to me that the UKBA’s action reflected a lack of understanding of the human and family dimensions of the problem. When interventions on such matters are planned, there needs to be an understanding that families and communities will be affected.
I invite the minister to give us an update on the role of the Scottish Government, particularly in relation to its responsibilities for the education and welfare of young people. The First Minister responded positively when I raised that and it would be useful to know how progress can be made in that difficult area. It is important that the minister makes his voice heard on that argument.
In addition, I raise with the minister the importance of supporting and funding the integration networks in Glasgow, which were particularly successful when there was tension when asylum seekers first came to the city. An immense amount of work was done by voluntary organisations, church groups and, more broadly, faith groups in welcoming asylum seekers and bringing all the communities together to develop a community understanding and a shared history of change and separation that enabled people to understand some of the dreadful circumstances that asylum seekers had been through.
I would welcome the minister commenting on whether he sees the potential for funding such preventive work, which I think has been so important, and I would like him to give us an update on how services can be delivered across communities such as mine, to ensure that when there are pressures on those communities, the allocation of funding recognises and follows that.
At the heart of Anne McLaughlin’s position is the need to understand asylum seekers as individuals and families, so that when people make decisions, they understand that they can have traumatic consequences for families that have already experienced a great deal of trauma.
12:43
I congratulate Anne McLaughlin on securing an extremely important debate.
We all know that Glasgow has received the largest number of asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. As a Glasgow MSP since 1999, I have dealt with hundreds of asylum seekers and refugees. Labour members might not want to hear this, but the Labour MPs who have been predominant in Glasgow would not deal with such cases. We were the people who picked them up. That is the honest truth, which we must get on the record.
I pay tribute to the many groups and individuals who have worked tirelessly to ensure that we have the knowledge and expertise to deal with asylum seekers and refugees. Without that knowledge and expertise, we would not have been able to point them in the right direction or to help them get the right lawyers. They would have been floundering and so would we.
Glasgow is a beacon. The work that it has done is held up by other areas of Great Britain as something that other people should emulate and follow.
I seriously wonder if UKBA decided to send out the letters because the integration of asylum seekers and refugees in Glasgow is so great. They have great community spirit. They are welcomed in Glasgow and people work to help them. I seriously wonder if that is why the letter was sent out.
We are talking about human beings and human rights. For someone to receive a letter that informs them that they will be forced to move within three days and with no idea where they will be moved to is unacceptable, no matter who the person is. To be told that they cannot take any possessions is barbaric, and I have already talked in a previous debate about people being told to take only two pieces of luggage. It is quite harrowing; it brings up memories of a darker era in European history. It is appalling that a UK Government agency should act in that way, but unfortunately it is not surprising.
The way in which UKBA has operated under the previous Labour Government and now under the Con-Dem coalition means that it has been out of control for many years. Successive UK Governments have sanctioned the illegal detention of children and dawn raids, used every means to circumvent the law and denied many asylum seekers their basic human rights.
The way in which the UKBA interacts with elected representatives and local government is equally revealing. It does not want to speak to Glasgow City Council, other groups that I have referred to and elected members. As an elected member, I have dealt with hundreds of asylum seekers. I challenge the Westminster Government and the UKBA to say what I should do if someone comes to my office who desperately wants help, and I have to say to them that I cannot help them. They are constituents who have arrived in the country and are staying in Glasgow, so they are entitled to the representation that we can afford to give them.
We have built up expertise: why should we lose it? We have built up so much expertise that I, and other elected representatives, can pick up a phone and get people housing and some kind of money and put them in touch with groups or expert lawyers who can help them. It has taken years to build up that knowledge and, all of a sudden, we are now being told that we cannot act. I used to be able to phone the immigration office in London and get direct contact, but in the past few years, we have needed a PIN number.
I have to ask what the Westminster MPs are doing. Why are they not saying that we should be treated as equally are they are? It is as if they are protecting something and they do not do any work on it.
If an asylum seeker, refugee or whoever comes to me for advice or help, I for one am going to give them it, regardless of what Westminster says.
12:47
The UK, Scotland and the city of Glasgow have a proud record of giving asylum to those who require it. We in this country have a broad mind and attitude to those who require our protection and assistance, so much so that we have, on occasion, become a target for those who seek to use the asylum system as a method of bypassing immigration.
It is unfortunate that we have been landed in a situation in which there has been a breakdown or denial of communication between members of the Scottish Parliament and the Home Office. I will not challenge that, other than to say that members of the Westminster Parliament, whose responsibility it is to deal directly with the Home Office, should be doing so. However, from the members that have spoken in the debate so far, and from other sources, I hear that that work is simply not being done. That might be partly what has created the crisis in the relationship.
As far as the UKBA and its relationship with the city of Glasgow is concerned, there are two sides to every story. The UKBA has made it clear that it has tried hard to negotiate with Glasgow City Council to continue the contract to provide accommodation. In the UKBA’s view, it is Glasgow City Council that has made it difficult to achieve that objective. We also have an undertaking that no one will be moved at the moment because of the termination of the contract, and anyone who is going to be moved will be given a full 14 days’ notice so that they can take whatever action is necessary to make that transition smoothly. I hope that we can accept those reassurances.
Does the member think that 14 days’ notice is enough notice for someone to uproot their family and move to somewhere else in Scotland? Does he accept that the damage was done the minute that those 600 families received the letters saying that they would have only three to five days’ notice to pack a maximum of two suitcases?
Yes, I accept that that was damaging. We have come to a situation in which the UK Border Agency has made it clear that it will implement a more lenient approach but, sadly, damage has been done. However, I am further reassured that arrangements that are currently being entered into by Glasgow City Council and Ypeople—formerly YMCA Glasgow—may result in many of those people being able to continue in their existing property. As a consequence, we may achieve a great deal more stability than was originally believed would be achieved.
In concluding, I realise that this has become a major local issue in the city of Glasgow. It has the potential to be an embarrassment for Scotland if we cannot get it right. I urge members of the Scottish Parliament to do as I would do when approached by someone in an immigration case and give advice, the first item of which is to contact their member of the Westminster Parliament, who has the authority to represent their interests. If that is not done, we have a serious problem in how our democracy works.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have finished, but I will give way.
No, you cannot—if you are finished, you are finished. I call Christina McKelvie.
12:51
I will pick up the point that I am sure Anne McLaughlin was just about to make—in lots of cases, people come to us having been to their MP, who has not helped them. That is where the difficulty lies.
I congratulate Anne McLaughlin on securing a members’ business debate on this subject. It is a problem that is all too familiar to many of us. We have all tried to make representations on behalf of migrant and refugee constituents, and we know that the problem exists. It is also an issue that exemplifies the unfortunate attitudes—I am being charitable here, because I have described the UKBA in other terms—that some, but not all, parts of the Whitehall apparatus continue to have towards the Scottish Parliament and its elected representatives.
Colleagues from Glasgow have already spoken powerfully about the recent behaviour of the UKBA towards asylum seekers living in Glasgow, so there is no need for me to say more about that, other than to agree that the approach was deplorable and should be reversed.
I will talk about the UKBA’s refusal to deal with MSPs who contact it on behalf of their constituents. That behaviour appears to be based on the UKBA’s own interpretations of the boundaries of devolution and about the cases MSPs should and should not take up. Apparently, the UKBA believes that it has the right to dictate to elected members of this Parliament what their job is and how they should do it.
Other UK Government departments do not do that. The Benefits Agency does not reply to MSPs who write to it with a refusal to answer their questions because welfare benefits are a reserved matter. Quite rightly, it understands that any elected representative—no matter which Parliament they are elected to—is entitled to receive not just a response but a proper response that addresses the query that has been made.
The UKBA thinks differently. Like benefits, asylum and immigration is a policy area that may be reserved but which nonetheless has enormous implications for a wide range of devolved areas and which impacts considerably on the lives and welfare of many people living in Scotland. That is a reality which the UKBA refuses to recognise. It will not countenance the possibility that MSPs have a legitimate concern about how asylum and immigration policy affects our constituents, nor recognise our right to take up cases relating to it.
The UKBA operates to its own version of the devolved settlement, one in which it can tell members of this Parliament who contact it on behalf of an individual constituent, in so many words, to go and take a running jump. As the title of Anne McLaughlin’s motion says, it is demonstrating contempt, not only for the Scottish Parliament but for the process of democracy in Scotland and the right of our constituents to receive representation from us.
I cannot help but wonder whether there is an element of pique in that approach—a wee bit of revenge, perhaps, against this Parliament and its pesky MSPs, who have been frequently and strongly critical of some of the UKBA’s more unpleasant practices, such as dawn raids and child detention, particularly in Dungavel in my region.
Members of the Equal Opportunities Committee, of which I am one, heard evidence from the UKBA’s Scotland director during our inquiry into migration and trafficking earlier this year. He told us that its handling of devolution
“is still a challenge, but I suspect that I am told less about us getting it wrong than I am about us getting it right nowadays. However, there is still some way to go.”—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 21 September 2010; c 1990.]
No kidding—they can say that again. We are telling the UKBA that, in refusing to deal with MSPs who are making representations on behalf of their constituents, it is getting it badly wrong and that it needs to change its approach now. We are elected to the Scottish Parliament to represent everyone in Scotland and I expect the same service from all the reserved agencies across the UK as they would expect from our ministers. The same should apply.
12:55
I, too, congratulate Anne McLaughlin on obtaining today’s members’ business debate on an important subject. I welcome today’s announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister that the Westminster Government will end child detention by May next year, in accordance with the partnership agreement and the promise that was made. That should be welcomed across the chamber, as we were united in making representations to the previous Government over a number of years against a background of no fewer than 7,000 children being locked up in the course of the last five years of the previous Government.
I wish to defend the UK Border Agency to a degree. There is no doubt that the agency is under pressure because of the sheer number of cases that it has to deal with. In fairness, it has indicated in its letter that it will take up policy issues, and I have been able to raise the policy issue of the deal with Glasgow City Council with it and have got a response from it.
Nevertheless, like other members, I do not find it acceptable—nor have I ever done—that it will not reply to normal letters. Over the years, I have had a policy of taking up issues that come to me directly but, broadly speaking, I do not get involved with ones that come as campaigns across a number of different issues when I do not have personal knowledge of the situation. There is a bit of an issue with the sheer number of people who are making representations about the subject that we are debating.
I do not think that it is particularly helpful to major on the claim that the actions of the UKBA have been disrespectful to the Scottish Parliament. That is not the central issue and it gets in the way of a proper approach to the central matter, which is the agreement between the UKBA and Glasgow City Council. There is no question but that its actions were pretty clumsy in that regard. The terms of the letter that was sent out were lamentable and must have caused considerable upset and worry to families and individuals.
The arrangements themselves have been clouded by uncertainty and lack of information. Several colleagues were present at the cross-party group on asylum seekers and refugees a fortnight ago and, even at that stage, the agency did not have clear information about what was going to happen. It was not even clear about how the contract was to be terminated and when the termination would become operative. The whole thing could be described only as a mess.
The number of asylum seekers is falling as the process of case resolution proceeds and more people are granted leave to stay. However, according to the council, the UKBA simply stopped sending further asylum seekers on 13 October, without any intimation. It seems to me that there are two issues. The first and most important is that we must ensure, if possible, that people can remain in their current houses and do not experience disruption in their schools, community support and their all-important sense of security. It cannot be beyond the wit of those involved to ensure that that is the case with the new providers, while accepting that some people will anyway move into more permanent accommodation once their status has been resolved. Glasgow City Council has a good reputation in ensuring security of housing for a goodly part of most people’s stay in the city.
The second issue is that of future support. I have no doubt that the cost issue is valid, but no one doubts the fact that the comprehensive package that has been put in place by Glasgow City Council, the extent of the community support that is available—following painful lessons early on—and the success of our integration arrangements are second to none. The process must be carried out properly and supportively, in a way that meets both the spirit and the letter of our legal and moral duties to refugees from oppressive regimes who seek the sanctuary of these shores.
As a supporter of the UK Government, I suggest that it must make sure that the UKBA fulfils its functions properly. Anne McLaughlin has raised an important issue and I hope that the minister, in replying to the debate, can tell us what the Scottish Government has been doing, as part of the agreed protocols on these things, with the UK Government or whoever to assist and support the refugees who have been caught up by this bureaucratic dispute. That is the central issue, not so much communication with MSPs.
12:59
I thank Anne McLaughlin for bringing to the chamber the emotive and important issue of the treatment of asylum seekers, particularly in Glasgow. I acknowledge that Sandra White lodged a similar motion. I know that she has a particular perspective on the matter, but I hope that she accepts that there are Labour MPs in the city who have taken up asylum cases and represented them well.
There has been unprecedented cross-party unity in condemnation of the brutal and inhumane behaviour of the UK Border Agency. Glasgow City Council has made its position clear—with the exception of one Tory councillor who did not sign the letter condemning the behaviour of the UK Border Agency. David Mundell has spoken out, as has the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, and the Equal Opportunities Committee of the Scottish Parliament has taken an interest in the matter as well, and rightly so.
It is for the UK Border Agency to make its case about its contact arrangement with Glasgow; I want to talk about the impact that that will have.
I am concerned that the negotiations that have been taking place might have undermined Glasgow’s proud reputation in this regard. As Robert Brown and others have said, it is important that, whatever the outcome of the contract negotiations might be, asylum seekers do not have to be moved from their homes.
There are 1,300 asylum seekers in the city. We have had the contract since 2000. Like Johann Lamont, I am proud of my city’s record in being one of the first cities to volunteer to take so many asylum seekers, who have come from Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, China and Sri Lanka—in fact, from too many countries to mention.
There was no prior notification about the UK Border Agency’s decision to give a three to five-day notice to asylum seekers. I have to wonder what was in the minds of the officials who drafted the correspondence, and I hope that they have seen the error of their ways. Anyone who had considered the impact on families and children would simply not have taken such a decision.
I do not know whether the member has written to the UK Border Agency, but is she aware that the letters that we are getting back from it tell us that that letter has been used before and has never caused a problem? I am not entirely sure that it will not be used again in other parts of the UK, if the situation should arise.
My position is clear that that is not an acceptable way of handling this matter, and I have added my voice on that basis.
I do not think that asylum seekers should be required to move, and I think that all efforts should be made to ensure that they do not have to. As others have said, the population of asylum seekers has been welcome in Glasgow. Constituents of mine who live in Kingsway Court tell me that the community has been transformed by the attitude of asylum seekers who will, for example, clean their stairs and who go to their local schools. It would be a great loss if they were to leave.
The UK Border Agency’s letter says that asylum seekers could be required to move anywhere in the “Scottish region”. Leaving aside the fact that Scotland is a nation, not a region, that is still a rather large geographical area, and the letter has created a great deal of uncertainty for those who do not know where they will end up.
Breaking up the association that asylum seekers have had with people in their communities is what concerns me most. The presence of asylum seekers in an area is what has made some schools sustainable. I do not understand why any official would think that an asylum seeker who has been in Glasgow for a few years could cope if they have only two pieces of luggage, particularly if they have a family. I found that to be a particularly facetious instruction.
As we have discussed this morning, we have had a harsh winter, and that must be taken into account for families who might be required to move.
In closing, I note that Blindcraft, an important organisation that has been providing furniture to asylum seekers, will definitely be affected if Glasgow loses asylum seekers.
I hope that the situation can be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.
13:04
I thank Anne McLaughlin not only for securing the debate but for the tremendous work that she has done in Parliament on behalf of all Glasgow’s communities, of which asylum seekers make up just one part. People who think that Anne McLaughlin focuses on just one issue do not know her constituency casework. She is a credit to this Parliament.
I am not going to talk about the termination of the contract with Glasgow City Council and the letter that has been sent out, which have been well documented. Needless to say, I want to put on record that the UKBA’s decision is absolutely repugnant, and was handled in a way that goes against all forms of humanity.
I want to talk about the relationship between MSPs and the UKBA. I differ from Robert Brown on the issue—it is not about a bureaucratic fight between MSPs and the UKBA; it goes far beyond that. We represent those communities and individuals, and to say that it is a bureaucratic stushie misses the core point.
I will give members one example. A year ago, I held a surgery specifically for the Kurdish community in Glasgow. I had made a few Kurdish friends, and I said to them, “If you’ve got friends, family and contacts in the Kurdish community who wouldn’t normally see a councillor, an MP or an MSP, bring them along”. About 30 Kurdish individuals went to that event, and we invited police officers, interpreters and people from integration services in the city.
For about two to three hours after people had given their initial speeches to the asylum seekers—and to others, because the event was not only for asylum seekers—I was there writing up case notes on what had to be done in response to people’s concerns about schooling, their housing situations or their asylum cases.
At that point, was I supposed to say to the asylum seeker, “I’m sorry, but could you just sit at the back of the room—I’ll give you the MP’s name later on and they can take up the case for you”? An asylum seeker might say, “I’d like to talk to you about my asylum, but I’d also like to talk about the absolute pit that the city council or others have put me in for my accommodation.” I should say that Glasgow City Council do pretty well on accommodation, but others do not. We cannot pick and choose the cases that come to us, and it is stupid, absurd and ridiculous that the UKBA forces us to do so. It is not good enough.
I would gently say that some MPs are better than others at dealing with asylum seekers. I find that the most vulnerable people in society do not go to our surgeries, so we have to reach out to them. MPs are not always particularly good at reaching out, and there are various reasons for that, but they must do better.
If someone went to an MP’s surgery and said, as I have heard people say, that they have experienced a very serious and distressing situation in the health service in Scotland with regard to neglect or incompetence—which has even led to fatalities in some cases, as I have heard from representations to my office—I would not feel threatened if the MP was to write to Nicola Sturgeon or the health board. I would not say, “Back off—that’s devolved”; that is not how it works. It is not good enough for those vulnerable asylum seekers who come to me and tell me stories of torture, rape, exploitation and abuse, and of fearing for their lives. They are often in tears and are reaching and crying out for help, and I have to say to them, “No. Can you just stop there? That is a reserved matter.”
On humanity, human rights, dignity, social justice and respect—all the things that make us human, and which are why we get involved in politics in the first place—we have to say, “Sorry—that’s reserved to Westminster because of some stushie with the UK Government and the UKBA”. The situation is not good enough and it has to change, not for politicians or because of constitutional wrangling, but for asylum seekers. I hope that today’s debate, led by Anne McLaughlin, will go some way towards changing that.
13:08
I congratulate Anne McLaughlin, as other members have done, on bringing the debate to the chamber. Her introductory speech was one of the best that I have heard in almost 12 years in the Parliament.
It is deeply shocking that asylum seekers, who are already so vulnerable and often deeply traumatised by their experiences, can be treated so callously by the UKBA. I share the anger that is felt among members in the chamber—and by the elected representatives in other devolved administrations—at the lack of respect that is being shown to the democratic process not only by the UKBA, but by its political masters, who are at present Damian Green, Theresa May, Nick Clegg and David Cameron. The UKBA could not act in that way without the tacit agreement of those ministers.
The disrespect is directed not just at those of us who have had the honour of being elected as MSPs to represent our constituents, but at the people of Scotland and those who have fled their own countries in fear and wish to make Scotland their home.
Like the previous Administration, the Scottish Government takes a different view on the treatment of asylum seekers from that of the previous and current UK Governments. We are clear that asylum seekers who are dispersed to Scotland must be treated fairly and humanely and that while they are in Scotland they must be welcomed and supported. We believe that asylum seekers—who are among the most vulnerable people—should be integrated and welcomed into local life on arrival. The Government is clear that asylum seekers should be treated with respect, and we lead by example.
Despite its being a reserved issue, the Scottish Government, as far as our devolved powers allow, enables asylum seekers and refugees to integrate into our communities from day 1, as well as having access to health care and education. That is why we have provided nearly £3 million over three years to organisations working with asylum seekers and refugees, including the Scottish Refugee Council, the Bridges Programme, Maryhill Integration Network, Integrating Toryglen Community and others that enable asylum seekers and refugees to access services, information, advice and support.
On the fair question that was asked by Johann Lamont, the Scottish Government is clear that all asylum seekers and their children should be treated with respect and should have access to services. Asylum-seeking and refugee children should be given the same rights as all other children to enable them to integrate fully into Scottish society. We welcome this morning’s announcement on moves to end the detention of children of asylum seekers.
We are working with other projects, such as the family return project and the guardianship pilot, to try to ensure that the support and services are made available.
We have given the same access to higher and further education to the children of asylum seekers as we give to other children in Scotland. We are working with Glasgow City Council to ensure that those children have the same access to nursery education as other children in Scotland.
The thoughtless treatment by the UKBA of asylum seekers, who have been welcomed to Glasgow and Scotland by their local communities, is repugnant and shocking.
The First Minister wrote to the Home Secretary on 18 November to express his concern about the termination of the accommodation contract with Glasgow and to urge that the decision be reconsidered. He stated that
“the way this matter has been handled is extremely disturbing and does not appear to have the best interests and welfare of this very vulnerable community at heart. In particular there appears to have been a complete lack of sensitivity shown toward those seeking asylum”.
He went on to say:
“the text of the letter issued by UKBA to the asylum seekers has caused a considerable level of distress, not just to those receiving the letters and their families, but also to those who have worked hard to care for and welcome asylum seekers into their communities … On reading the letter I was astonished by the complete lack of consideration shown to asylum seekers of the impact that this decision will have on their lives, and felt that it was totally devoid of any compassion or understanding”.
I used to work in Romania on behalf of the World Bank, and I heard stories about Ceausescu’s Romania. The action that has been taken by the UKBA reminded me of some of the Ceausescu Government’s worst practices, such as forcing people from their homes.
We know that our concern is shared throughout Scotland. I thank again the young people from Lourdes secondary school for their petition asking for the cancellation of the contract to be revoked. Those young people understand the body blow that such a letter caused their asylum-seeking school friends and the importance of maintaining their friends’ educational and social networks in supporting their emotional wellbeing.
The needs of asylum seekers are at last being considered, and work is under way to transfer Glasgow City Council’s housing stock to Ypeople. If that is agreed—the novation process is complex and yet to be finalised—it will mean that the affected asylum seekers can remain in their present accommodation. That will be a huge relief for all concerned, although it does not excuse the alarm and stress that the initial letter caused.
As many members have said, the Scottish Government is also extremely disappointed that, unlike other UK Government departments and agencies, the UKBA has not moved with the evolving spirit of devolution and still will not correspond with MSPs—or indeed Scottish ministers—on individual cases. If we took the same attitude to Westminster MPs who regularly write to us on behalf of their constituents on devolved matters, they would be the first to squeal about it. Their silence on this matter is deafening and unacceptable.
Over the past couple of years, my officials have regularly raised this issue with their UKBA counterparts and the permanent secretary and his predecessor have done the same with the UKBA’s chief executive. When the First Minister met the Prime Minister on 14 May, the Prime Minister committed to an agenda of “mutual respect”. It is not for the Scottish Government to decide how the Parliament should respond to Damian Green’s letter to all MSPs—that is a matter for the Presiding Officer on behalf of the Parliament—but I assure the chamber that this Government is using every available avenue to get the UKBA and its ministers to understand the “mutual respect” agenda and that all those who are elected to serve the people of Scotland in this chamber should receive a substantive reply on individual cases, an approach that other UK Government departments have agreed and demonstrated.
We hope that the UKBA and its political masters understand and embrace the evolving nature of devolution and practise the respect agenda instead of simply paying it lip service. The First Minister is liaising on this matter with his counterparts in devolved Administrations elsewhere in the UK who share our concern on the substantive issue of the treatment of asylum seekers and the issue of correspondence and respect. If necessary, we will refer the matter to the joint ministerial committee for dispute resolution.
I hope that, in my seven minutes, I have been able to give members as complete a picture as possible of the updated position.
13:16 Meeting suspended until 14:15.
14:15
On resuming—