The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-10347, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on asylum seekers and refugees: the need to create a more humane system.
15:21
Last night, I had the enormous pleasure of speaking at the launch of refugee week Scotland 2014 at the stunning venue of the Old Fruitmarket in Glasgow. Refugee week Scotland, which is co-ordinated by the Scottish Refugee Council, is now 14 years old and is bigger and better than ever, with more than 120 cultural and community events and workshops around Scotland that celebrate the diversity and contributions of our refugee communities. It was a great spectacle to be part of.
Every year is themed and this year’s theme is “Welcome”. The strong message is given that refugees and people who are claiming asylum in Scotland are welcome to our country. That is an appropriate theme in the year of homecoming and in a year in which 70 nations and territories of the Commonwealth will be welcomed to Scotland and, more specifically, to Glasgow. It is also highly appropriate because of the negativity towards migrants, refugees and asylum seekers that we have heard in some elements of the media and the political structure.
We live in a world in which people travel more and more. However, not everybody who travels has a choice in the matter—they do so because they are searching for safety and sanctuary. As we all know across the chamber, Scotland has a long history of welcoming people from across the world, whether they are visitors, students, migrant workers or those have fled persecution and looked for asylum.
As well as the Home Office’s dispersal of asylum seekers to Glasgow over the past 14 years, we have a history of supporting refugee resettlement. That has gone on for not only years, but for decades and even centuries. In the mid-19th century, at the time of the great hunger in Ireland, Glasgow and Scotland gave sanctuary to those who suffered great persecution and hunger, although that was not without problems and difficulties, of course.
In more recent times, over the past 20 years, we have had refugees from Bosnia, Kosovo and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Asylum seekers from Iraq, Afghanistan and most recently Syria, as many of us know, have come outwith the resettlement programmes. We celebrate the cultural, social and even economic contributions that our refugee communities have made to Scotland.
During my time as a minister, as an MSP before that, and in various other guises, I have had great pleasure in meeting many asylum seekers and refugees, as most members in the chamber have probably done. I have been greatly impressed by their determination to rebuild their lives in Scotland and to contribute to Scottish society. They have left the place that they call home—not out of choice—and I can see in their eyes their determination to succeed in what is their new home. However, it has also been made abundantly clear to me that barriers are built into the asylum system specifically, which do not make integration easy—in fact, they make integration a lot more difficult. In some cases, those barriers clearly exacerbate the terrible traumas that people have already faced and are suffering from.
None of us can imagine what it is like for people to have to leave their homes—in the midst of persecution, in the midst of conflict or in the midst of the threat of sexual violence—but when, on top of that, people have to navigate their way out of a country and into another country, where they face a number of barriers that would be there anyway regardless of the asylum process, such as language, it becomes a difficult thing for any of us to comprehend.
The barriers to integration that are currently cited by refugees and asylum seekers reflect long-standing concerns about the highly negative impact of the United Kingdom asylum system over successive years. Those concerns have been expressed not just by this Scottish Government but by previous Scottish Administrations and are shared by many people from many parties.
I will highlight some of the impacts of the asylum system. People have waited for many years for the Home Office to reach a decision on their cases. All of us, as members of the Scottish Parliament, have had asylum seekers come to us and I have been aghast that some people have had to wait for more than 10 years for a decision. Yesterday, I came across a young lady who told me that she has waited for 20 years and a decision has still not been reached. In fact, she went to the Home Office a couple of days ago and was asked whether she wanted to return home. She said, “After 20 years here, I am home,” and she was quite correct to say that.
Although I recognise that the time that is taken to process new asylum applications has improved slightly, the vast majority of people who seek asylum in Scotland still face a harrowing trip to the Home Office in Croydon for initial screening. It is not a statutory requirement for people to be screened in Croydon. I believe—I think that there will be widespread support for this—that people who have claimed asylum in Scotland should be screened here. There are trained staff in Scotland and it would result in a system that was not only more efficient and more effective but fairer to those who are seeking asylum and refugee status in Scotland. I hope that we can unite on that point across the chamber.
The ethos of the screening process should be supportive and enabling, helping people to tell their story in a culture where the default is not disbelief or suspicion. That is not to say that all claims for asylum should be granted; indeed, no one is suggesting that. However, everyone who seeks asylum should be treated—these are the important words—with dignity and compassion as their case is considered. We are often told by asylum seekers that it is that dignity and compassion that is missing in the system.
In my role as Minister for External Affairs and International Development, I have had the great opportunity of travelling overseas. When a person travels for a long time and is away for days or weeks, the best thing is the flight back home. Once a person arrives back, whether that is in Glasgow, Edinburgh or other parts of the country, they feel like they are at home. They know that there are home comforts and, in most cases, a family waiting for them, along with their own warm bed where no better sleep is to be had. Home is home. Nothing is better than arriving home.
Having a place to call home is a most basic need for everyone. A home that is secure and in good repair provides a substantial contribution to the health, wellbeing and quality of a person’s life. For refugees and asylum seekers escaping the trauma of war and instability, the home contributes to the stability that they so desperately need. Unfortunately, I hear too many cases of poor housing conditions, where repairs are not carried out timeously; of overcrowding; and of people facing frequent accommodation moves, preventing them from settling in to communities.
Another area of great concern is the support that is—or perhaps is not—given to asylum seekers. Those who are on section 4 support do not receive cash, but are given the Azure card to enable them to buy food and other necessities only from certain shops; we have talked about that in a members’ business debate. That is humiliating and dehumanising. The lack of cash makes it difficult for people to access basics such as culturally appropriate food and public transport. It is, at its essence, dehumanising not to trust people with cash; to give them a card, a bit of plastic, is to say that they are not deserving of real money.
As I have said, that makes people’s lives difficult. Many asylum seekers have told me that their children come to them, looking for 50p to spend at the school tuck shop, but what can they do? They cannot cut up the card to give them the money. All they have is what is on that card. I realise that being able to buy something from the school tuck shop is not a fundamental human right, but children need to feel that they can participate fully in their school and in their educational lives. The fear of destitution—and, indeed, actual destitution—is very real for asylum seekers who cannot work.
We have proposed that, for asylum seekers, there should be integration from day 1. As members know, we do not have full control over immigration and asylum policy, but where we do have some control, we ensure that integration happens from day 1, not from when a person’s status is settled or otherwise. Many in the chamber will be familiar with our “New Scots: Integrating Refugees in Scotland’s Communities” strategy, to which the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Refugee Council and, more important, asylum seekers and refugees themselves contributed, and we have also produced a clear framework for the next three years for all those who are working towards refugee integration.
The projects that have been supporting asylum integration include the unique Scottish guardianship service, which works with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who have been separated from their families, and the family key worker pilot for newly arrived asylum seekers, which embodies the ethos of ensuring integration from day 1 by providing support from the day of arrival and ensuring that asylum seekers get the help that they need right from the start of the process.
We are 92 days away from the referendum on Scottish independence, and people are debating our country’s values and what is important to us as a nation. This debate on asylum and how we treat those who are fleeing persecution and prosecution who seek it is an important part of that bigger debate. In our white paper, “Scotland’s Future”, we make it very clear that asylum too often gets politicised, and as a result, we propose to separate the issues of immigration and asylum.
We want a system that is built entirely on compassion. To that end, we will close Dungavel detention centre, which represents an incorrect and inhumane way of treating those whose asylum applications have failed. We will also give asylum seekers the right to the dignity of work and end the practice of dawn raids.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to all the organisations and individuals who, for many years now, have worked hard to support refugees and asylum seekers and help them rebuild their lives and integrate in Scotland. Our desire for a more humane system reflects our vision of a society and a country that we very much aspire to: an open, welcoming and tolerant nation that protects people who are fleeing persecution and violence, treats them with the sensitivity and compassion that they deserve, does not add to their trauma and helps them to rebuild their lives in our vibrant, diverse and inclusive country.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the celebration of Refugee Week Scotland 2014 from 16 to 22 June, co-ordinated by the Scottish Refugee Council; notes that the events highlight the vibrancy and dynamism of Scotland’s many cultures; understands that refugees, many of whom have been victims of violence and ill-treatment, are seeking a place of safety to rebuild their lives; believes that asylum seekers and refugees should be integrated into Scotland’s communities from day one, as set out in New Scots: Integrating Refugees in Scotland’s Communities, developed in partnership by the Scottish Government, COSLA and the Scottish Refugee Council; recognises the excellent work of local authorities and third sector organisations in supporting asylum seekers and refugees; believes that more must be done to ensure that the asylum system treats people in the most humane, fairest and holistic way possible, consistent with the aspirations of the New Scots report and respecting human rights, and believes that, for many asylum seekers, the current system exacerbates the traumas that they have already suffered.
15:33
I am pleased to take part in today’s debate, and I want to say at the outset that I am proud of the UK’s long and distinguished record of offering asylum and providing a place of safety to those who are genuinely fleeing persecution across the globe. We recognise that many of those who come to Britain seeking asylum have suffered terrifying experiences and have made a huge effort to reach our borders, and we should, as the minister has said, treat those people as all modern liberal democracies treat them, with compassion, dignity and respect. There is no argument about that, and I think that most people believe that individual and collective freedom within the rule of law is the basis of our democracy.
The key to dealing with asylum seekers who arrive in this country is having a system of assessment that is efficient, robust and transparent, processes cases as quickly as possible and, above all, is fair. That is fundamental so that we can then offer the appropriate support to genuine asylum seekers and refugees. We need to recognise that some of the people who come to the country seeking asylum may not be genuine but want to come here for other reasons including economic ones. In the interests of the genuine asylum seekers, therefore, those people must be removed from the country as smoothly as possible, and we support the UK Government in taking all the necessary steps to remove those who have no valid grounds to stay here.
The UK coalition Government inherited an asylum system that many described as chaotic and dysfunctional with a massive backlog of cases, but it is making steady progress in putting that right. The UK takes a positive role in working with fellow European Union member states to ensure that asylum flows are properly managed and that those who are in genuine need of protection are given it without undue delay, while those who do not need protection are swiftly refused asylum and returned to their own countries.
The detention of children of asylum seekers has been debated in this Parliament before. I spoke in a debate on the subject in 2009. I am delighted that the UK coalition has made real progress in that area as it has sought to ensure that the welfare of children is promoted. It ended the detention of children at Dungavel as soon as it was elected in 2010. Home Office policy is clear that family detention is used only as a last resort in the removal of failed asylum seekers from the UK after all voluntary returns options have failed, and an independent family returns panel is consulted prior to every enforced return.
Jamie McGrigor mentioned that he is pleased that the coalition Government took that step of not detaining children in Dungavel. What is his reaction when children from Scotland are taken for detention down in Yarl’s Wood? Why does it make a difference just because it is in Yarl’s Wood?
If that is really the case, I will have to come back to the minister at another time with an answer to that. All I know is that what I said is true.
Dawn raids on failed asylum seekers is also a real issue of concern that has been voiced in this Parliament in previous years. Indeed, I have voiced concerns about that myself. Again, we would want to see such raids used only as a last resort. However, where a family has chosen to break the law and defy the decisions of UK courts, we have to allow the agencies time and space to carry out operations to rectify that situation and ensure compliance with our laws. The timing of such operations will depend on a number of factors including the safety of the family and others and any concerns that the police and others raise around public order.
On the issue of allowing asylum seekers to work, the UK Government is clear that the purpose of the current policy is to deter economic migration through the asylum route. Economic migration comes through other routes.
On the level of financial benefits that are provided to asylum seekers in the UK in addition to the free accommodation and utilities that are provided by the Government, I am aware of the recent court ruling on the subject, and the Home Office is considering a range of options. Again, it wants to avoid doing anything that might encourage economic migration through asylum. Those who are granted refugee status can, of course, access welfare benefits and tax credits just as UK nationals can, as well as entering the labour market.
I pay tribute to those charities in Scotland that work with genuine asylum seekers and refugees. We should all commend the good work that they undertake. We are supportive of moves to encourage refugees to integrate with our communities. In that respect, we agree with the “New Scots” document and we recognise the positive part that they can play in society. I hope that the Government will continue to work with other EU countries, as it is doing, to do something about the disasters at sea in which so many unfortunate people have been drowned.
My amendment emphasises the need to ensure that our asylum system is “efficient ... and fair” and deals with cases in the shortest possible time so that some of the problems that we will hear about today are not suffered by asylum seekers who have to wait months for a decision to be made.
I move amendment S4M-10347.1, to leave out from first “believes” to end and insert:
“recognises the excellent work of local authorities and third sector organisations in supporting asylum seekers and refugees, and supports the work being done by the UK Government to improve the asylum system so that it is efficient, humane and fair and focuses on helping genuine asylum seekers and refugees”.
15:39
I, too, welcome the debate, which is fitting in refugee week.
I have no doubt that, across the chamber, we want to see the asylum system constantly improving and evolving. We should therefore welcome the ambition in the “New Scots” report to better integrate refugees into Scotland’s communities. I share the vision that was set out by John Wilkes, the chief executive of the Scottish Refugee Council, when he said:
“Our vision is for a Scotland in which all people seeking refugee protection are welcome and where they are protected, find safety and support, have their human rights and dignity respected and are able to achieve their full potential in their new communities.”
We should commend the excellent work of local authorities and third sector organisations in supporting individuals and families who seek asylum in Scotland. Their work means that those who seek safety and a place to start their lives again, free from fear and persecution, are able to access the things that many of us take for granted, such as housing and education. However, the picture is not perfect. The report highlights the fact that 96 per cent of refugees experience homelessness at some point and that there must be greater, more flexible English for speakers of other languages—ESOL—provision for women with families.
Let us be in no doubt that the Scottish Government already has a duty to ensure that individuals and families who join us here in Scotland have those things—they are basic human rights. I reject the idea that independence would be a magic pill to a better system and the idea that the UK arrangement that is in place at the moment is cold and compassionless. The system is not perfect, but progress has been made.
I interject not on the subject of independence but on the responsibilities that the Scottish Government currently has. Housing would be a core responsibility for the Parliament, but there are certain restrictions on the Scottish Government. I have made representations to Margaret Burgess, the Minister for Housing and Welfare, on the quality of housing for asylum seekers and refugees, but the Parliament does not have power over that. Does the member agree that we could look at the standards of housing for asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland?
I despair of the constant negativity from the SNP, which is always looking at what we cannot do instead of at what we can do. There is plenty of scope to improve the system within devolved responsibilities.
At the most recent general election, the Liberal Democrats were the only party to campaign to end child detention. More than 7,000 children were locked up in the last five years of Labour’s Administration, which is an average of almost four children a day. We committed to ending that course of action and we have delivered on that commitment.
The new pre-departure accommodation at Cedars, in Gatwick, was designed and is operating in conjunction with Barnardo’s. It is used only as a last resort, on the advice of an independent panel of child welfare experts, after all voluntary return options have failed. At the most, it can accommodate only nine families at a time in self-contained apartments. It offers the maximum freedom of movement and privacy within an unobtrusive, secure perimeter and with welfare services provided by Barnardo’s. The name Cedars stands for the principles that staff work to, which we could all sign up to: compassion, empathy, dignity, approachability, respect and support.
I ask Alison McInnes the same question that I asked Jamie McGrigor. Does she have an opinion on whether Yarl’s Wood—later on, I plan to read a testimony that describes it as horrendous and not as a detention centre but as a persecution centre—is a suitable place for the children of asylum seekers from Scotland to be detained, as they currently are?
Wherever they come from, children ought not to be detained unless as a very last resort. We have seen a significant change in the whole procedure, and it is as a very last resort, under an ensured return process, that children will be held at Cedars for no longer than 72 hours. In look and feel, Cedars could not be further from an immigration removal centre such as existed there in the past. Also, the use of Cedars is the exception; the aim is to encourage and support families to leave voluntarily without the need for enforcement actions.
We have made progress, but undoubtedly there is more work to do both at a UK level and within Scotland. It still takes too long to reach a decision on asylum in many cases and too many people face homelessness. We must continue our proud tradition of providing safe haven to those fleeing war and terror. We must have a system that recognises the trauma that individuals have faced and that is resolute that their future will be brighter. However, getting there requires a journey and a constant evolution of policy and practice to meet new challenges.
I move amendment S4M-10347.2, to leave out from “, and believes that” to “exacerbates” and insert:
“; welcomes the ending of child detention for immigration purposes at Dungavel, and believes that all that can be done should be done to ensure that the system for asylum seekers does not exacerbate”.
15:45
In his opening speech, the minister alluded to the terror, the tragedy and the fear that are faced by many people who cross the globe to seek asylum in a foreign country. It has been acknowledged across the chamber that the United Kingdom and Scotland have played their part in ensuring that those who seek solace are granted respite in our country.
On a human level, individuals in our communities and communities themselves have often shown by example the support that they can offer to those who arrive on our doorstep in dire need. We have seen some great examples of the support that has been offered. Unfortunately, as I go round doorsteps in the south of Scotland, I meet resistance to that approach. Some people say that they fear that asylum seekers and refugees get better treatment, and some allege that they have been used as cheap labour, which has resulted in unemployment in an area or a fall in wage rates. That is the type of misinformation that some political parties utilise to create fear and jealousy in our communities.
The major task that the minister and his Government face is that of ensuring that accurate information is provided to our communities so that the kind of information that passes as fact and which, for some people, eventually becomes accepted wisdom is rejected. Such misinformation does no service to Scotland, and it makes much harder the task of ensuring that those who seek asylum in our country or to be acknowledged as refugees are able to do so. It also makes it difficult for the authorities and others to deliver on behalf of those people, who need so much from us.
Does the member believe that the media have an important role to play in putting across factual information rather than the misinformation that, in some areas, fuels some of the hatred—I think that that is the appropriate word to use—towards asylum seekers and refugees?
I am grateful to Dennis Robertson for that intervention. I acknowledge the part that the media can play, but that only strengthens my argument that the Government needs to ensure that the facts are put into the public domain repeatedly—ad nauseam—so that we understand exactly what is happening in our various communities.
In that context, I commend the work of the Scottish Refugee Council, COSLA, the third sector, individuals across our communities and communities themselves for the work that they are doing to improve the nature of the reception that we offer asylum seekers and refugees in our country and the assistance that they receive on the stages that will lead, one would hope, to productive residence.
The “New Scots” report is to be welcomed and, in that regard, Scottish Labour supports the Government’s motion. We also support the amendment from the Lib Dems.
On an institutional basis, it has been indicated that successive Scottish Governments have provided £13.5 million to aid the integration of asylum seekers and refugees into our communities. In all truth, that is a modest sum of money over a 13-year period. No doubt the award of £2 million from the Big Lottery Fund to the Scottish Refugee Council will be a welcome benefit that will enable it to do the work that it delivers on our behalf.
It is well recognised that, as the minister said in his speech, generations of asylum seekers have benefited Scotland throughout the ages. There is no doubt that there are still great difficulties for asylum seekers coming here to attain refugee status, from the 28-day timeframe to move asylum seekers into mainstream accommodation and from the ability of the universal credit system to deliver financial support.
There are a number of questions for the minister. Can he assure us that some clarity of information will be forthcoming? Will he obtain accurate numbers, which are absent from the “New Scots” report, in terms of asylum seekers and those who are refugees in our country in order that we know what we are dealing with? Will he commit to ensuring that none of those categories of people will be taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers who would seek to take advantage of those people’s weakness?
The minister referred to the card system that is utilised. That system was brought into disrepute many decades ago when it was used for social security. It placed those who needed to use the cards in a very weak situation at a point when they were vulnerable, and the cards’ value was often discounted by unscrupulous shopkeepers who would not offer what was necessary. Evidence of that should be produced and utilised in order that we can get rid of the cards.
It would be helpful to know the numbers of employers who have been reported for taking advantage of those in the asylum and refugee community and the number of gangmasters who have been convicted in Scotland in that connection. I would support any commitment that the Government offers to local authorities, particularly Glasgow City Council, which we need to acknowledge has led the way in offering support in some very difficult circumstances.
I support the motion and the Lib Dems’ amendment.
We move to the open debate; speeches should be of five minutes or thereabouts, please.
15:52
It is not often that we take part in a debate that has the words “asylum seekers and refugees” and “humane system” in the same sentence. I want to focus on the issue of showing humanity and what that means.
About 13 years ago, when I was a Unison steward, I had a briefing from Margaret Wood of the Glasgow campaign to welcome refugees, and from that moment on I was involved in the campaign. At the same time, the Scottish Refugee Council started raising awareness, and I am very proud of this Parliament and this nation for marking refugee week every year.
One thing that was drawn to my attention when I worked in social work in Glasgow was the checks that young refugees were put through to determine their age. I do not mean to be totally alarmist, but the checks would have put Nazi Germany to shame, because wrists were measured, X-rays were taken and dental work was checked in order to determine a young person’s age—instead of just speaking to them and treating them as human.
Then we had the group who were fondly known as the Glasgow girls, whom we should all be very proud of, and their campaign against dawn raids. We witnessed on our tellies almost every night the people of Drumchapel, Castlemilk, Springburn and Sighthill standing up to UK Border Agency detention vans. Women in those areas were presented with Scottish women of the year awards. That shows a different Glasgow that is humane. Was the treatment of the refugees humane? That is the question.
I turn to the issue of Dungavel. For many years I have attended vigils at Dungavel run by justice and peace organisations from Lanarkshire and Ayrshire. The detention of innocent kids in Dungavel was brought to my attention because they were put next to some of the most notorious child traffickers in the world, who were awaiting deportation. Is that humane? I do not think so.
We should remember that those children are not criminals. I say to Alison McInnes that, although the Lib Dems ended the detention of children at Dungavel, the children just get shipped to Yarl’s Wood, Colnbrook or another centre. That is not a last resort. If members just listen to the testimony of people I know, they will hear that that is not a last resort.
UK Governments of all colours have been playing top trumps to see who is the hardest on immigrants, who is the hardest on asylum seekers and who is the hardest on refugees. Some of the things that I have seen over the years make me sick to my stomach.
Successive UK Governments have refused to sign up to EU directives to protect people, whether they are on asylum, men’s violence against women and children or trafficking. We have had go home vans and adverts. How disgusting.
The UKBA determines asylum status along with trafficked status and can deny a person protection all in the one envelope. That is disgusting and is not humane.
We have people who have been forced into destitution. We had the obscene pictures on our telly of Jacqui Smith chartering a plane, rounding up women and children at Brand Street in Govan, sending them back to the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo and telling them, “There, there—it’ll be all right once you’re home.”
We have the situation of young women from Moldova. Last week, we in the Parliament viewed the film “Nefarious: Merchant of Souls”. A young woman who was trafficked across Europe in horrific circumstances was brought to London. She was saved by the Poppy project, but she was denied refugee status and trafficked status and was sent back to Moldova. The decision was that she was not at risk. When she got there, the traffickers caught up with her. They abused her, beat her and did horrific things to her. A few months later, where was she? She was trafficked back to London. Is that humane? No.
Having an independent Scotland is one way to change that. We can have a humane system—a new asylum model that separates immigration from people who seek sanctuary. One of the most disgusting things about the process is the fact that people conflate those things, which dehumanises the individuals who are involved.
I want a system that provides protection, shows compassion and gives people dignity and support. I want a Scottish asylum agency that is underpinned by all those values and based on human rights. That is humane. That is the kind of Scotland that I want to live in.
15:57
I, too, welcome refugee week Scotland and the events that are taking place across Scotland to mark it. I congratulate all at the Scottish Refugee Council on the work that they have done to prepare the programme for what is the 14th refugee week. As it says, the aim is to celebrate the warm welcome that Scots give refugees from around the globe who seek sanctuary, and the contribution, which we must remember, that refugees make to our communities. I thank the many groups and individuals, such as Margaret Wood and others, who have given asylum seekers help and support for many years.
Like Christina McKelvie and others, I have campaigned for many years for asylum seekers’ rights, because I truly believe—as I think most members do—that we should stand up for some of the most vulnerable people in our society, be they refugees, asylum seekers or anyone else who needs our help. I repeat the plea that I and many others have made to the minister before for the Home Office to give MSPs the right to stand up for and serve our constituents—that is what the people involved are. The Home Office continually denies us that right.
Like others, I have stood outside Dungavel and attended rallies. I have visited people who have been held in Dungavel and I have even had my fingerprints taken there, although I have not had them back yet. That is what goes on when a visit is made to anyone in Dungavel. I visited a family and gave a child a chocolate biscuit, but the biscuit was taken off the child because of its wrapper. Drinks and other items cannot be given, either. Dungavel is a detention camp. I have always called it that and I still call it that. It is a detention camp in Scotland, but it is outwith our control.
Some truly shocking stories have come out of Dungavel. The Catholic church has said:
“It is almost inconceivable that conditions such as we are now hearing about can exist in 21st-century democratic Scotland.
They display an alarming disregard of any consideration for human dignity. Immigration is a reserved power, but maybe the time has come for a Scottish solution for a humanitarian scandal on our soil.”
Despite outrage from the church, politicians and other organisations across Scotland, little has changed under the UK system, which is clearly not fit for purpose. That is why I am a little bit concerned about the amendments, which I will take in order.
The Conservative amendment includes the line
“supports the work being done by the UK Government to improve the asylum system”,
but that is really a kick in the teeth for the many people who suffer under that system. The Liberal Democrat and Conservative amendments mention ending the detention of children at Dungavel. Other members have mentioned that and I will go on to talk about it.
The UK Government’s infamous “go home” vans, with their clearly racist slogan, were the brainchild of the Liberals and Tories in coalition.
Let us not forget the posters in Brand Street in Glasgow that said
“Is life here hard? Going home is simple”.
That was another brainchild of the UK Government.
Here is where I turn to the Liberal Democrats. For the Liberal Democrats to claim that they ended child detention at Dungavel is ridiculous.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will finish my point and then take an intervention.
Many groups and individuals have fought for many years to end that practice, but it has not ended.
I back the member’s remarks on the “go home” vans, but not her suggestion that they were anything to do with the Liberal Democrats. She knows that the scheme was roundly condemned by my colleagues Nick Clegg and Vince Cable, and that I also signed the Scottish Parliament motion condemning them.
I thank Alison McInnes, but she knows what they say, and if you get into bed with someone, you have to take the consequences. Her Liberal Democrat colleagues went into coalition with the Conservatives and Westminster and that is what they got. They could have stood up for themselves in other ways.
The Liberal Democrats’ pledge on children in Dungavel unravelled as quickly as their pledge to support free education. As we learned, children were simply transferred to other detention centres. In some cases—and this is absolutely true—children are still being detained at Dungavel.
Jamie McGrigor said that his party supports the work that is being done by the UK Government. Does he mean the racist slogans on the vans that I mentioned? Does he mean his party’s drive to appear to be more racist and xenophobic than the UK Independence Party to appeal to voters? That is what it seems like to me and many others. I am not sure, but to say that the system is working is untrue.
We know that the Home Office is not fit for purpose and that refugees and asylum seekers are treated badly while being used as scapegoats for any of society’s ills. Rather than hiding from that, we need to look at how we can promote a fairer system, and how we can foster trust and respect rather than mutual distrust. “New Scots: Integrating Refugees in Scotland’s Communities” is a good starting place, but we must recognise that the Home Office and UKBA are not fit for purpose, and that we will be able to create a fairer and more inclusive refugee and asylum system only through independence and control of immigration.
16:03
The debate about this country’s relationship with refugees and asylum seekers is too often distorted, too unfair and misleading, and many of the most common assumptions about asylum seekers and refugees are unrecognisable to those of us who have first-hand experience of working with them. The Scottish Refugee Council has tried to challenge those assumptions by setting out simple and clearly referenced facts about the realities of asylum. I want to put some of those facts on the record today.
Eighty per cent of the world’s refugees live in the developing world, many of them in refugee camps having been forcibly displaced. Africa, Asia and the Middle East host three quarters of the world’s refugees, Europe hosts 16 per cent and the United Kingdom hosts just over 1 per cent.
It is true that asylum applications peaked in 2002 but by 2010 they were down to a record low. In 2012 in the UK, less than a third of refugees who applied for asylum were successful. We are no soft touch.
Asylum seekers are not automatically entitled to council homes. There are asylum seekers in “dispersed accommodation” but that is allocated by the Home Office; it is nearly always in hard-to-let properties and the number of asylum seekers in dispersed accommodation is equivalent to just 0.05 per cent of the population of Scotland.
Home Office rules prevent asylum seekers from working, so they are dependent on state support, which can be as little as £5 per day. According to Refugee Council research, asylum seekers do not come to the UK to claim benefits. In fact, most know nothing about our welfare system and have no expectation of receiving any financial support when they arrive.
I worked with asylum seekers before coming to the Parliament. I helped them to get into training, once their applications had been granted and they were able to look for work. They were not scroungers or chancers, and they were not here to take advantage of or abuse our hospitality. They were child soldiers who escaped African war lords, and people who were looking for a home because their own home had been taken from them.
They were grateful for the assistance that they received in Scotland, and they were thankful for the opportunities that they found in a country where they were safe and could make a new life for themselves, and where they could put destitution and persecution behind them. Those are the stories that the public need to hear, and those are the facts that the Official Report must record.
I draw members’ attention to the position of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender refugees and asylum seekers. The Kaleidoscope Trust’s recent report reminded us that homosexuality is illegal in 41 of the Commonwealth’s 53 member states, and documented just how pernicious and malign the inequalities in some of those countries really are.
Next month, athletes and visitors from around the world—including from those 41 countries—will come to Glasgow to celebrate the Commonwealth games. We can send out a powerful message of hope by showing that gay athletes and LGBT people are welcome here in Scotland. We can also make a practical difference by ensuring that our asylum system treats LGBT people with dignity and respect. The review into the intrusive questioning of gay asylum seekers is welcome, but we must ask searching questions about a system in which LGBT people have been deported back to countries in which they face persecution.
The aspiration that the Scottish Government sets out in its motion—the desire for a more humane asylum system—is one that my Labour colleagues and I share. However, we must be clear about the fact that, to build support for a humane and dignified asylum system, we will have to take on all-too-common misconceptions, let people hear the facts and make the case for a more tolerant, welcoming and understanding society.
16:07
I am delighted to follow an excellent speech from Margaret McCulloch, in which she mentioned some of the common misconceptions with which I was going to begin my speech.
I think that society is a lot more tolerant towards immigrants to these shores than is suggested by attitude surveys, and I will explain what I mean by that. People may use generic terms and describe floods of immigrants coming to the country but, if one breaks it down and engages with people on the basics, the view is different. If one talks about international students, who are keeping our higher education system afloat by paying huge fees to come to this country, people tend to say, “Well, of course that is okay.”
If one explains that many Scottish people and people from across the UK are taking benefits in other European countries, because they are staying there and have made a life for themselves, and when one outlines the facts about Scottish people going to other European countries and other people coming to Scotland, people tend to say, “Actually, that seems to be okay.”
When one explains to people, as members have mentioned today, that asylum seekers are fleeing war-torn countries—I have had direct experience of dealing with constituents in that situation—they tend to say, “Yes, that’s okay.”
However, those views are not what we tend to read in the mainstream press. If the narrative is correct and deals with the facts about immigration to these shores, the people of Scotland—and, I believe, of the United Kingdom—are far more tolerant and inclusive than certain attitude surveys let on. We, as politicians, all have an opportunity to show leadership in putting the facts about the situation on the record.
I will share a brief story about a constituent of mine called Ako, who was in my office the other day. People would see him and say, “Oh, there’s another immigrant coming to my country.” I will not get into the personal details of his story, but he was looking to be returned to Mosul. I do not think that he will be going there any time soon.
I represent a swathe of constituents in relation to asylum and refugee cases. Quite a lot of them are Kurds, because of the connection that I have with the Kurdish community in Glasgow. They are dependent on the court ruling in the case of Bakhtear Rashid—apologies to Kurds and the legal profession for my pronunciation—which I believe refers to when someone came to the UK, whether they came to it from the Kurdish region or from the rest of Iraq and whether Saddam Hussein was in power when they came. All of that is used to determine whether people are allowed to stay. The people whom I meet have been here for a long time and, frankly, this is their home. They make an incredible contribution to our country. That gives a flavour of the kind of refugees and asylum seekers whom I meet, and of immigrants to our shores more generally.
Politicians often talk about the good work that other people do rather than the work that we do, so I put on record the work of the police in relation to asylum seekers. I remember when I became an MSP in 2007 meeting Constable Harry Faulds, a community police officer in Sighthill in Glasgow who has since retired. He did exceptional work to bring communities together. I also mention the Maryhill Integration Network, which my colleague Patricia Ferguson will know well and which does fine work on inclusiveness and integration in Glasgow, the area that I represent.
The Scottish Government strategy is called “New Scots: Integrating Refugees in Scotland’s Communities”. Members could speak in support of that strategy irrespective of their position on the constitution and an independent Scotland, as it makes no attempt to raise the issue of independence. It contains a set of principles on integrating people in our communities that we would all like to see in society. That is the tone in which I make my remarks.
On the needs of dispersed asylum seekers—I hate the term “dispersed”, but there we are—the strategy states:
“The long-term strategic planning of the dispersal of asylum seekers in Scotland is informed by the needs of asylum seekers and local communities leading to an increase in integration”.
When that is done well, it benefits a community, but it has not always been done particularly well. Initially, there were difficult and challenging situations at Sighthill and Red Road, but things have improved since then. I pay tribute to everyone who has been on board in relation to that.
My intervention on Alison McInnes was on housing, so I should refer to that issue in my remaining time. Significant concerns have been raised by the Scottish Refugee Council and a number of my constituents about the housing contract that UKBA has in relation to asylum seekers and refugees in Glasgow with Serco and Orchard & Shipman. We have been working on a cross-party basis to deal with that. I made representations to Margaret Burgess on what the Scottish Government could do through housing standards and regulation. It can do almost nothing, but I will continue to press on the issue to encourage constructive dialogue.
Some of the social tensions in relation to housing for asylum seekers and refugees are exactly the same as those relating to homeless people. There are a series of supported tenancies across the city of Glasgow with a high turnover of individuals, which is not good for sustainable communities. We must turn some of those tenancies into permanent ones so that we embed people in the heart of their communities, but that is not how the system works.
Presiding Officer, thank you for indulging me, as always, in sneaking an extra half minute into my speech. I thoroughly support the Government motion.
16:13
I am often asked by some of the many young visitors to the Parliament what I think is the best thing the Parliament has delivered for the people of Scotland. I am sure that MSPs from across the Parliament give many answers to that but, for me, it is the 2007 decision to extend the education rights that are enjoyed by Scotland-domiciled students to the children of asylum seekers.
A Government press release from the time stated:
“Children of asylum families are to have the same access to full time further and higher education as Scottish children under plans announced today.”
The then education secretary, Fiona Hyslop, said that the changes would give
“asylum children who have spent at least three years in Scottish schools the same access as Scottish children to full time further and higher education”,
and that the Government would work with councils
“to implement HMIE recommendations on providing nursery places for 3 and 4 year-old children of asylum families.”
She also said:
“This government believes that regardless of where they come from and why any child living in Scotland should receive care, protection and education.
We recognise our responsibility for all children in Scotland”
and
“our obligations under the UN Convention on the rights of the child”.
I choose that commitment because it was important as it established Scotland as a country of compassion, of fairness and that takes its international obligations to asylum seekers and refugees very seriously indeed.
In the debate about independence, we often say that Scotland has a unique set of values, one that distinguishes our choices from those made elsewhere in the UK. No area more easily demonstrates that than immigration and asylum.
From those values, campaigns like the Glasgow girls’ flourished. That campaign against dawn raids was an inspiration to our country. Those young women took their protest to the door of the Home Office to say that dawn raids were not wanted and not expected in Scotland.
Our values have developed policies such as the Scottish guardianship service, which is highly important for unaccompanied young people, many of whom have been trafficked. It is held up as a model of excellence to the rest of the UK, as the BBC reported in 2013.
However, independence can make a huge change in the policy area. Evidence given to the European and External Relations Committee on 15 May, when we discussed independence, citizenship and immigration, is informative in the debate. Gary Christie of the Scottish Refugee Council said, talking about the proposals in the white paper:
“We welcomed the proposal in the white paper to create a separate asylum agency; it is what we suggested should happen if Scotland voted yes. The rationale behind the proposal was about creating specialism and expertise and trying to move away from the culture of disbelief in respect of which we would criticise quite a lot of Home Office decision making, to a culture of protection.”—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 15 May 2014; c 2036.]
What a great ambition and what a damning indictment of the current UK settlement that that is how asylum seekers are treated in our country.
It was welcome that the minister mentioned that asylum seekers could contribute much more to our communities if some of the legislation that prevents them from working and taking a full part in our economy could be removed.
I was taught in my degree course by a refugee. I have fond memories of Dr Jose Menoz, who was a Chilean refugee. He was a fantastic lecturer and a world expert on data modelling and databases.
With great interest and pride, I read the reports last year about the Chileans giving thanks to Scotland for the welcome that they received when they came to this country. I read the stories of the Cowdenbeath miners band piping the refugees into the town—a town that had fundraised to help to bring the refugees from across the Atlantic to Scotland. The Chilean community gave thanks to Scotland for that warm welcome into the communities and for the homes.
That is the Scotland that I recognise. It is not one that is driven by Daily Mail or tabloid journalism, fear or some of the other damaging opinions that come from elsewhere in the UK. It is the Scotland to which we must all aspire.
Many members have mentioned Dungavel. People often sing Hamish Henderson’s “Freedom Come All Ye”, and I hope that Scotland will be a hoose where
“a’ the bairns o’ Adam”
will
“find breid, barley-bree and painted room.”
I call Dr Elaine Murray. Members now have up to five minutes.
16:19
Following on from Clare Adamson’s speech, my tangential knowledge of the experience of a refugee relates to Hector Fuentes, who came to the UK in 1976 having been expelled from Pinochet’s Chile after three years of imprisonment during which he was tortured physically and psychologically. He was told on more than one occasion that he was to face a firing squad purely for having left-wing political opinions.
Amnesty International campaigned for many Chilean prisoners to be released, and Hector thought that he was going to go to Paris. However, one grey morning, he found himself in Sheffield instead, with very little English. Clare Adamson has just described how the miners in Scotland supported and welcomed the Chileans, and Hector and his comrades were supported and welcomed by the people of Sheffield. He lived there for a period of time and eventually married my younger sister. He has lived in the United Kingdom for almost 40 years now, contributing to our economy. His is a success story. The only thing that he still finds difficult is the British winter weather.
In advance of the debate, I read through the contributions of Lord Roberts and Baroness Lister to the debate on the Immigration Bill in the House of Lords on 17 March, and I had great sympathy with some of the points that they made. For example, Baroness Lister argued that the time limit debarring asylum seekers from accessing the labour market should be reduced from 12 to six months—she did not say that it would go altogether—in order to reduce the danger of asylum seekers being forced into the illegal shadow labour market and being subject to totally unregulated exploitation and exposure to criminal elements involving trafficking and other horrendous abuses. She also pointed out that the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on its inquiry into the treatment of asylum seekers considered that, in a number of cases, their treatment breached the threshold in article 3 of the European convention on human rights for inhuman and degrading treatment. The report stated that the policy of enforced destitution should cease, that the system of asylum seeker support was a confusing mess and that a coherent, unified, simplified and accessible system of support for asylum seekers should be introduced. That ought to have happened but it has not.
Yesterday, Jack McConnell argued that the UK could have a regionally flexible immigration policy that would recognise that the issues are different in different parts of the country. We know that he piloted a form of that when he was First Minister, through the fresh talent initiative. I do not know the detail of his proposals and whether he also imagined the approach extending to asylum, but I am attracted to the idea of a flexible UK policy, because I think that it would avoid some of the difficulties that could present themselves if an independent Scotland had a very different immigration policy.
I accept Dr Murray’s point about Jack McConnell and his sincerity in trying to change the situation. I have a great amount of respect for Mr McConnell. However, does that example not show why the current devolution system simply does not work? We had a Labour Government in the UK and a Labour Scottish Executive, yet a Labour First Minister could not, for example, prevent dawn raids from happening or the fresh talent initiative from being withdrawn.
My argument is that we can achieve some of what we are talking about through devolution. I think that that is also Jack McConnell’s argument. As far as I can see, the problem for an independent Scotland is that, if it had a very different asylum and immigration policy from that in the rest of the UK, and if there was a more right-wing UK Government—one that might involve the UK Independence Party—Scotland could be seen to be a back door into the rest of the UK, and the rest of the UK could set up border controls. That worries me. We need to look more widely at the issue. Political instability, war, climate change and natural disasters are forcing people out of their own lands across the globe, and I think that we need an international response to the issue of asylum seekers, rather than having a response as a small nation.
I want to touch on public attitudes to asylum and immigration. Sometimes, we are a little complacent about views in Scotland. I was shocked when more than 13 per cent of the voters in Dumfries and Galloway voted for UKIP. I believe that the average UKIP vote across the south of Scotland was 11 per cent. If that were replicated in 2016—I hope that it will not be—it could mean that we had people from UKIP in this Parliament.
I heard what Bob Doris said about social attitudes, but a recent social attitudes survey said that 60 per cent of Scottish residents thought that immigration should be reduced. It worries me that those views still exist.
I am supportive of the Government’s motion today, but I think that there is a lot more that we can and must do to counter the negative stories that are perpetrated by certain sections of the national media. We all know who they are. They are poisonous, and we should all be doing what we can to counteract the view of asylum seekers that they are promulgating.
16:24
Glasgow, Scotland’s greatest city, is a city built on immigrants. Many folk from Ireland, Italy, the Indian subcontinent, countries across Africa, the rest of Europe and everywhere in between chose to call Glasgow home and helped shape the city across many generations.
My constituency of Glasgow Cathcart is one of the most diverse, multifaith and multi-ethnic parts of Scotland and it is a better place for that. We see that through the setting up of a range of networks that bring people together, such as the Greater Pollok Integration Network, which is based in my constituency and which helps ensure that asylum seekers are housed adequately, represented properly and able to feed and clothe their families and defend their inalienable human rights, as well as becoming an important part of the local community.
That is highlighted by the many voices who shared my dismay at the Home Office rhetoric in its go home campaigns, including the poster campaigns that were mentioned earlier, which were piloted in UKBA centres in Glasgow and London. As Sandra White said, using such phrases as
“Is life here hard? Going home is simple”
and
“This plane can take you home. We can book the tickets”
is not the action of a humane organisation.
A central truth seems to have been forgotten by the Home Office throughout those campaigns: for many people who have to visit UKBA centres regularly, going home is simply not an option, regardless of how hard life might be for them here. That lack of thought or care about the wellbeing of people who have lost everything and had to seek refuge in a safer place is, in my view, the worst part of the campaigns. I do not think that the impact of the word “home” on people who equate home with unimaginable pain and suffering was ever a concern for the Home Office, which appears to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Thankfully, the weight of public opinion forced the Home Office into not extending the pilot, for which we should all be grateful.
Listening to the rhetoric from the Westminster parties, people might think that the system is creaking under the vast weight of asylum seekers. That is just not so. The UK receives 8.4 per cent of people who apply for asylum in the EU. Germany gets 23.2 per cent, which is the highest, followed by France, which gets 18.3 per cent. Sweden, which has the same population as Scotland, gets 13.1 per cent, followed by Belgium, which has one sixth of the UK population and gets 8.5 per cent, followed by the UK.
Asylum seekers make up less than 0.5 per cent of the population of Glasgow, where the vast majority of asylum seekers in Scotland live. If all the refugees and asylum seekers in Scotland gathered at Hampden park stadium in my constituency, it would be less than 40 per cent full.
One of the few motions that the SNP group and the Labour group on Glasgow City Council have ever agreed on was the one put forward by my predecessor as group leader and councillor for Langside, Councillor Susan Aitken, which condemned the forced destitution of asylum seekers in Glasgow through changes to the provision of housing, which Bob Doris mentioned. The motion noted the restrictions that had been placed on local authorities, hampering their ability to provide help and assistance to failed asylum seekers, and it called on the UKBA to change its policy to allow Glasgow to assist refugees in danger of destitution. To date, that cross-party call has not been heeded.
That perfectly encapsulates all that is wrong with the UKBA and our asylum system. Even when the UKBA is given the opportunity to make life better for people and when local authorities want the power and responsibility to help, it refuses to delegate that power. The UK system would rather keep asylum seekers and refugees in a state of destitution than give the power to those who would use it to help, because that would not fit into the narrative that it is creating, whereby we need to be strong on asylum and immigration, whatever the human cost.
I suspect that I speak for the majority of people in Scotland when I say that I do not want to encourage people to go home without any thought for the consequences. I do not want any truck with such a xenophobic, regressive campaign. I want an asylum system that is fair, just and humane and which takes each case on its merits. I want a system that works for people and which says, “For as long as you are here, we will treat you with respect and dignity.” Given the record and rhetoric of both Labour and coalition Governments over the past few generations, that is not going to happen under a Westminster Government.
When the people of Scotland vote yes in three months, we can work to ensure that the Scottish asylum agency that we will create to oversee asylum applications will be robust, fair and socially responsible and will clearly adhere to human rights, equality principles and the rule of law.
I greatly look forward to the day when our hopes for a Scottish asylum system that is fit for Scotland’s needs and the needs of those who need our support come to fruition.
16:29
I associate myself with Margaret McCulloch, whose speech stuck to the facts and put in context the problem, which is sometimes overstated—perhaps not in the chamber but certainly in the press and in the wider context of Scottish society.
In his opening remarks, the minister said, “Welcome.” We should be a country that opens its doors, and we should open our hearts to asylum seekers and people who seek refugee status in our country.
My Aberdeenshire West constituency is in the north-east of Scotland, which probably does not see the same numbers of people who seek asylum or refugee status as other places in Scotland do. That was not always the case, of course. In the past, because Aberdeen is a harbour port, many merchant seamen used to jump ship and seek asylum, certainly back in the 80s and 90s.
Aberdeen has always welcomed people from all nations and migrants from all parts of the world. I remember my very first encounter with someone from a different country. My aunt’s husband came from Lagos in Nigeria. Unfortunately, when he returned to Nigeria, he died as a reporter in the wars there. My nephews were deemed to be different at that time, but not because of a sense of annoyance or hatred; they were just seen as different. In the early 60s, there were very few people from a black ethnic minority in the very small place where I lived.
Before the debate, I wondered what the process is for someone who wants to seek asylum, who perhaps underwent horrendous difficulties in getting to these shores. When they get here, who do they turn to? What is their first thought? Where do they go? When they want to seek asylum, what is the process? I applaud the wonderful strategy put forward by the Scottish Government, COSLA and the third sector, and I thought that if I was an asylum seeker fleeing a country where I was in fear of not just the military but the police, would I want to go to a police station to ask for asylum? Perhaps not.
Would I use modern technology to find out what the process was? I might have access to the internet if I had just arrived in Glasgow, Edinburgh or Aberdeen. However, I looked at the websites of Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council, which make absolutely no reference to asylum seekers or people seeking refuge. I contacted one of the councils, pointed that out and asked it to investigate. It came back to me and said, “You’re right. There’s nothing on our website.”
If I was someone coming to this country who was in fear of going to the police because of past experience, who would I turn to? I ask the minister, in all sincerity, whether we have thought about how people who seek asylum and refuge in this country embark on that first step. It might be that we do something as simple as putting something on the internet—Google or whatever—but we need to ensure that people have access to the first step of the process.
I condemn the Azure card system, which is absolutely dreadful. We moved away from the voucher system because that removed people’s dignity and stigmatised them. The card system does exactly the same—it does nothing other than stigmatise people. It does not give them the freedom to go into a shop and buy what they need, when they need it, and it does not give them the freedom to use public transport, because it is not accepted on public transport.
I believe that the strategy that has been put forward by the Scottish Government in collaboration with COSLA and the third sector is the right way to go, and I commend the Government’s motion.
We move to closing speeches. I remind members who have taken part in the debate that they might wish to return to the chamber.
16:34
It is clear that every member who has contributed to the debate is driven by a strong desire to see a more compassionate, sensitive and fair system. We have all acknowledged the terrible events that drive people to flee their country and seek sanctuary in Scotland, and we have condemned the increasingly negative and hostile attitudes that some—particularly some of the media—display towards asylum seekers and refugees.
Members have referred to the Home Office’s pilot go home campaign. I do not blame them. I share the view that that scheme was offensive and discriminatory, and I am glad that voices around the United Kingdom—not only in Scotland—including those of my senior colleagues Nick Clegg and Vince Cable, halted that utterly disgraceful episode.
We have also heard broad agreement on the kind of system that we want to see in Scotland and, indeed, across the UK. That is a system that is focused on individuals and characterised by empathy and compassion. However, some members would have us believe that that can be achieved in one swift, decisive move through a yes vote on 18 September. I whole-heartedly reject that. The solutions are not as simple as constitutional change.
Building a system that is transparent and accessible to those in genuine need while ensuring that it is robust enough to deter abuse is not simple, but I believe that, over the past four years, the UK Government has made progress towards building the kind of system that we want to see. We have ended child detention at Dungavel, ensured that there is more support for families that are seeking asylum, and tried to reassure communities and the public that the system is compassionate towards genuine cases but that those who seek to abuse the system will be detected.
Meeting the needs of those who are seeking a fresh start is not simple. It has consequences for all the different policy areas—health, education, housing, culture and the economy. We need to recognise that that means that systems must constantly evolve and that support services need to be ready and flexible enough to meet ever-shifting needs and demands.
The “New Scots” report is a welcome step in the right direction in advocating multi-agency working and on-going evaluation of what works to help to integrate refugees in Scotland. Its focus on housing, education, employment and welfare will help to ensure the integration of the broad range of services that are necessary for those who want to build a new life in Scotland.
The theme for refugee week Scotland this year is “Welcome”. We should not underestimate the significance of local communities and the importance of a warm welcome. I know that communities across Scotland recognise the benefits that those who are seeking refuge bring. Other members have spoken about that. Those who are seeking refuge bring new skills, new cultural norms, customs that we adopt and practices that we welcome in our multicultural society.
We should be proud of our willingness to welcome refugees and we should continue to celebrate our joint future. That is true of communities across the United Kingdom. Together, we have a proud history of accepting friends from countries in which they would face persecution on the ground of race, religion, political beliefs or sexuality, and we have a proud history of supporting refugees who have sought safety from countries ravaged by war, famine and drought.
There is no doubt that we can and should do more to ensure that those who are seeking safety and protection get a warm welcome and the opportunity to get on in life. I believe that the best chance of achieving progress is as part of something bigger—as part of the United Kingdom. That does not mean that we should not celebrate and recognise achievements and challenges in Scotland, as we have done today. However, as part of the UK, we can seek solutions to the challenges together and build a system of which we can all be proud—a system that is built on fairness, openness, compassion, mutual trust and respect.
16:38
The debate has been simplistic and polarised at times; at other times, it has shed some light on a difficult situation that we all want to concern ourselves about. The truth is that, for many, the debate has simply been an opportunity to campaign once again for an independent Scotland. That has often been put forward by members who, as ever, have confused the opinions of the Scottish National Party with those of the Scottish people. Let us try not to do that during the debate.
We in the United Kingdom have an enormously successful record of providing asylum for those who have required it. Over much of the last century, there have been examples of this country providing asylum for those fleeing from regimes in central Europe and from other parts of the world. We should be proud of that record and we should take into account that history when we consider our future engagement with the asylum system. However, we do no service to anyone who relies on that system if we seek to confuse the process of seeking asylum with that of economic migration. Too many people confuse the two processes, not least those who seek to exploit the asylum system to achieve their goal of economic migration.
It is the case, of course, that the current system is an evolution of previous systems. It is ironic that some of the strongest speeches that have been given in the debate were given by speakers from the Labour back benches; nevertheless, the record of the Labour Government on asylum is not one that they can be proud of. A process that contained delays so long that people were essentially growing up in this country awaiting decisions, only to be faced with that knock on the door and deportation after having received the hospitality of this country for so long, is not a system that we should be proud of. In fact, it would be described by many as cruel and unusual treatment.
It is therefore the case that the asylum system in this country must pass some key tests. It must be able to distinguish between those who are entitled to asylum and those who are not. After all, we have recent experience of those who are guilty of persecution in their own countries changing their identities, losing their identities and attempting to hide as asylum seekers in this and in other countries. We have a duty to root such people out and make sure that they are not allowed to do that.
We have a duty to ensure that those who seek asylum in this country are given our support while the decision is made. If the decision is made that they are entitled to refugee status here in Britain, they should be given the full support of our Government, our economy and our people. If, however, they are not entitled to refugee status, they are entitled to a quick decision and a quick return from whence they came. That is reasonable treatment.
However, the debate has deteriorated into the usual mudslinging. Sandra White asked us to foster a relationship of trust and respect but we also heard comparisons drawn with Nazi Germany, which was contradictory. At other times, we saw opportunities taken to throw in the usual digs at the UK Government. The suggestion that the universal credit system is somehow disadvantaging asylum seekers is, I suspect, well ahead of any evidence to support such a conclusion.
There has also been the usual attempt by many members, especially Government back benchers, to cast suspicions on the motives of anyone who questions or disagrees with the Scottish Government’s position.
We have also heard concern about the press. There is a serious problem with the expression of opinion on asylum seekers and on immigration in certain parts of the press.
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is in his final seconds.
It is unfortunate that such opinions are expressed as often as they are, but to suggest that the press is wrong and the Scottish National Party is right is to fail to understand the critical and desperately important balance that we must achieve with regards to asylum seekers.
I support the amendment in Jamie McGrigor’s name.
16:44
As we celebrate refugee week Scotland 2014 and its theme of welcome, I am pleased to have the opportunity to close this important debate on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party.
Labour acknowledges the positive contribution made by the Scottish Refugee Council to the lives of asylum seekers and refugees. As well as the important support afforded by local authorities and other third sector organisations to those who have fled violence and oppression, my party also recognises the significant work that has been carried out in this policy area by Governments of all political complexions at Holyrood.
The particular focus of this debate is signalled in the motion’s title, which refers to
“The Need to Create a More Humane System”.
The aim, of course, is the swift integration of refugees as productive members of our society. As colleagues are well aware, I am a native of the city of Glasgow and I am immensely privileged to represent the Springburn and Maryhill constituency, where so many asylum seekers have settled and now live.
I am extremely proud of the fact that at the turn of the last century Glasgow City Council’s Labour administration decided to welcome asylum seeker families and offer them refuge in my home city. I am also privileged to have been part of the Labour-led Executive in the first two parliamentary diets that, in co-operation with council colleagues, had a good record in accommodating asylum seekers, assisting them in the process of integration, investing money in integration projects and language classes and ensuring that expert legal advice and representation was available. Again, the establishment of the Scottish refugee integration forum, the introduction of measures to integrate asylum seekers’ children in schools and the core funding of the Scottish Refugee Council are practical policy decisions in which we can all take a measure of pride. I also readily acknowledge that, since 2007, the Scottish Government has followed the same fundamentally progressive direction of travel.
With regard to the Scottish Refugee Council, however, I put on record my regret that it no longer has the contract to offer advice to asylum seekers and refugees. That was a retrograde step, because it had built up a great deal of expertise and the sort of trust that is fundamental to this issue. Similarly, I regret the decision to take away from YPeople the contract for accommodating people, many of whom are in my constituency.
In my constituency, asylum seekers have played a very important role and are involved in much of the activity that goes on. I want to single out the Maryhill Integration Network, which was established in 2001 and has been led so ably by Remzije Sherifi, who was once a refugee herself. Her determination and compassion shine through, and the network does a truly astounding amount of work, ranging from gardening to dance and from photography to food preparation. It is a joy to be involved with such an organisation and, even more important, it makes a tremendous difference to the lives of all it touches, whether they be new or old Scots. To those who might have had to leave their families behind, the organisation offers a surrogate family with support, assistance and entertainment, and its work is typical of the work carried out by many other organisations.
However, none of us can be proud of the manner in which a number of families were forcibly evicted from their homes by immigration snatch squads in the so-called dawn raids. They caused justifiable public revulsion and led to the then minister Malcolm Chisholm condemning the practice as “absolutely appalling” in a debate in September 2005. My colleague Mr Chisholm was right to characterise that unacceptable practice in that way, and the protocol agreed in March 2006 between the then First Minister Jack McConnell and the UK Government showed the direction of travel that needed to be taken in a sensitive area in which devolved and reserved responsibilities overlap and in which constructive co-operation between Holyrood and Westminster is paramount.
Would the member welcome it if the asylum seeker process for those in Scotland were to be carried out in Glasgow instead of their having to go down to Croydon?
I certainly would, and it was a source of great regret to many of us that no other local authority stepped up to the plate and offered to take part in that particular scheme. Perhaps if it were to be recreated, which unfortunately does not look likely, others might join in.
A great deal remains to be done. As the minister has pointed out, we still have the unacceptable situation in which asylum seekers awaiting a decision on their asylum claim are deprived of the ability to work. There is no evidence to suggest that granting asylum seekers permission to work during that period leads to more asylum applications.
Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that there is public support for allowing that to happen, and it would surely better aid the smooth integration of those who are allowed to stay. I believe that there is an unanswerable case to be made in favour of such a development, particularly if we look at the skill sets of many of the refugees who come to our country. They could make a productive contribution, as they so desperately want to, to the country that they have come to be involved with.
Intergovernmental co-operation must be the approach that is adopted if we are to be able to build the more humane, fair and holistic system that the motion mentions. Margaret McCulloch was absolutely right to identify the intrusive and appalling investigation of LGBT people coming to our country. It shows at best a lack of understanding, but perhaps at worst outright hostility to their concerns and their problems. I am pleased that Labour is committed to treating immigration and asylum separately and is calling on the UK Government to remove refugees from the net migration target. I very much welcome the fact that a Labour Government would make that policy pledge a reality in parallel with its commitments to combat exploitation in the field of immigration policy. I look forward to seeing that come to fruition.
In a debate about asylum seekers and refugees, it would be remiss of me not to mention Syria. Margaret McCulloch rightly identified that many other countries do much more than we do, and Syria is a case in point.
You should draw to a close, please.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Lebanon has seen a 25 per cent increase in its population because of asylum seekers from Syria. We could surely do more.
Asylum seekers and refugees have proved themselves to be an asset and not a liability. Scottish Labour believes, with members across the Parliament, that they are our friends and not our enemies. They are our brothers and our sisters and they are welcome here.
16:51
The tone of most of the speeches in the debate has been fantastic and exemplary. It was exactly the dignified tone that we want in a debate on such an important area of concern. All of us rightly started by saying how proud we are of Scotland’s history of protecting and giving sanctuary to those who have sought asylum, from the days of the great hunger in Ireland right through to the modern day and age, and even to difficult conflicts that are continuing, such as the one in Syria that Patricia Ferguson mentioned.
The issue is clearly close to many members’ hearts; it is close to mine. My mother came here as an Asian who had been living in east Africa—in Kenya—at the time of the rise of a narrow ethnic nationalism, through Idi Amin in Uganda and Kenya in the time of Jomo Kenyatta. She had to leave, and she came here, as many Asians from east Africa did.
I will turn to points that were made in the debate. We cannot accept Jamie McGrigor’s amendment. Although I accept that the system that was inherited was—to be polite—a bit of a shambles, the system is not becoming any more efficient. The United Kingdom Parliament’s Home Affairs Committee suggests that there is still a backlog of 32,000 cases from the period to 2011. Jamie McGrigor’s amendment also suggests that the system is becoming fairer. I will return to that point later.
I, too, pay tribute to the many third sector organisations that members have mentioned. The Scottish Refugee Council is an exemplary organisation, but there are many others too, including uniting nations in Scotland, which is a new organisation; the refugee women’s strategy group; the Glasgow girls, who were mentioned; and Police Scotland, which Bob Doris mentioned. Members may have seen the article featuring police officer Dario D’Andrea, who got a well-deserved award yesterday at a Scottish Refugee Council launch for the work that he has done.
Many members mentioned the media and the role that they play in stigmatising refugees and asylum seekers. I associate myself with all those remarks and with the people who reject such practices. We have to speak up about the good stories from our communities about the contribution that asylum seekers and refugees have made. Just a couple of days ago, I did an interview with STV on the positive impact of refugees and asylum seekers—there are some good media, as there are some bad.
Politicians, too, have an important responsibility to ensure that the tone is dignified and responsible but also positive, much as it has been today. That is a challenge for my colleagues, particularly those who are members of Parliament in the House of Commons. All of us need to speak positively and to challenge misconceptions. James Dornan said that if all the asylum seekers in Scotland gathered in the national stadium, which is in his constituency, it would not be even 40 per cent full. If those who are currently seeking asylum gathered in Hampden stadium, it would not be even a tenth full.
However, as Graeme Pearson said, we have to be frank about the fact that there are tensions. We knock on enough doors to know that there are tensions and that there is racism in Scotland—let us not shy away from that. I have felt the brunt of it, as have many others. However, I am awfully proud for Scotland and the Scottish people because for every idiot or bigot who says to an asylum seeker or refugee, “This is not your home,” there are 1,000 others who say, “This is your home.” We are proud of that.
The proposals that we have put forward on asylum and refugees, and how we propose to treat asylum seekers positively, more humanely and more compassionately, are not a huge vote winner. People do not necessarily vote for Governments because they are progressive in respect of asylum seekers. We are acting that way because we believe that it is the right thing to do. I am proud of the proposals that we have included in “Scotland’s Future”, the white paper. The fact that we will separate asylum and immigration has been welcomed by the Opposition. I am proud of the fact that we say that housing should be provided either by charities and the third sector or by local authorities, and I give credit to Glasgow City Council for the work that it has done over the past 13 or 14 years.
Alison McInnes said that we have a devolved responsibility for housing, but the problems with housing in the asylum system arise because a private contractor—Serco—is involved. That contract does not belong to the Scottish Government and we cannot put it out to tender; it belongs to the UK Government. There are some areas in which we have responsibility but, by and large, the responsibility lies with the UK Government.
We want to give asylum seekers the right to work. That will not encourage more economic migration—asylum seekers could do that right now—but it will take asylum seekers out of the black market. More than that, it will humanise them by giving them the dignity of work that they deserve. It will also tackle the misconception that asylum seekers are scrounging off the system or taking our benefits, when they are actually working and contributing to our society.
I am especially proud of our proposal to end dawn raids. The Glasgow girls, who have been mentioned throughout the debate, are the best of our country. Successive Governments have tried to end the practice of dawn raids, with Jack McConnell providing an example of that. I do not for a minute doubt Jack McConnell’s sincerity—I very much respect it—in trying to end the practice of dawn raids, but it showed the absolute failure of devolution. A Labour First Minister appealed to a Labour UK Government and a Labour Prime Minister to end dawn raids, but was humiliated by a member of his own party and sent back from London to Scotland saying that dawn raids would continue, regardless. That is an absolute failure of devolution, not a success of devolution.
The proposal to close down Dungavel is one of the proposals in the white paper of which I am most proud; that pride is shared by all SNP members. Alison McInnes said that child detention should be the very last resort, but I think that it should be no resort; it should not be the first resort or the last. We can never justify the detention of children, who have committed no crime, so it will be a proud moment when we close down Dungavel.
We have talked about the fact that this year’s refugee week theme is “Welcome”. I am proud that that is the theme, but I take issue with Jamie McGrigor’s amendment, which talks about the system becoming fairer. I do not agree with that; we cannot say that the system is becoming fairer when UKBA officers are busting down somebody’s door at 4.30 in the morning during a dawn raid. We cannot say that the system is becoming fairer when we are detaining people in Dungavel and detaining children down in Yarl’s Wood. We cannot say that the system is becoming fairer when asylum seekers are being left destitute and when they are inhumanely given a plastic card because they are not trusted with money. I do not think that the system is becoming fairer when asylum seekers are being refused the right to work. It will be with immense pleasure that, when we have the full powers of independence in Scotland, we will create a compassionate and fair system.
As MSPs, many of us have managed, with difficulty, to get a victory for people from the asylum-seeking community by getting them the status that they rightly deserve. We often get thanks for that, but politicians often do not do what would be right: we do not thank those who have come to make Scotland their new home. On behalf of the Scottish Government, I thank every refugee for the culture, the art and the music that they have brought to Scotland, and for their children, who have helped to increase educational attainment in our schools. I thank them for making Scotland their home. This is their home—they are the first and the last citizens of Scotland, and they should be treated equally with everyone else.
Next
Decision Time