|

Failed Asylum Seekers (Scotland)

Mr. Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab): My aim in raising the issue of the removal of asylum seekers in Scotland is to put a United Kingdom matter in a Scottish context, and to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a couple of questions about the progress of Government policy.

I want to mention some resources that I found extremely useful when trying to understand a matter that directly affects relatively few people as yet, but which most people place quite high on their list of priorities when it comes to public policy. The ATLAS partnership is based in Glasgow city council. ATLAS—Action for Training and Learning for Asylum Seekers—was set up to help organisations in Glasgow to respond to the dispersal of asylum seekers to Glasgow, which started in 2000. The partnership is led by Glasgow city council, and includes Falkirk college in my constituency.

I find ATLAS interesting for two reasons. First, it has produced a publication, "Asylum Matters from Scotland", which reads very well and is a useful resource. Secondly, the way in which people perceive ATLAS's role—whether they consider helping asylum seekers to find training while they await judgments to be a central or a peripheral aspect of the asylum process—will tell them something about their perception of the overall concept of asylum.

The Scottish Executive have produced a number of excellent documents describing the way in which asylum seekers awaiting a decision are supported by local authorities and other agencies. One report, "Asylum Seekers in Scotland"—which does more or less what it says on the tin—was produced by Barclay, Bowes, Ferguson et al at the university of Stirling in 2003. Leaving aside the happy coincidence that I am a graduate of that excellent university and the fact that it is on the doorstep of my constituency, I found the document measured, informative and useful. Since it was written in 2003, and as subsequent practice in Scotland appears to conform quite closely to its main tenets, I think that the document was influential in framing public policy at both Executive level in Scotland and local authority level.

I want to mention the Central Scotland Racial Equality Council, which is based in my constituency.

It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Watson.]

Mr. Joyce: Dispersal in Scotland is only to Glasgow, of course, but there are from time to time people seeking decisions on asylum who appear in my constituency and who in one way or another are sponsored by local organisations. The Central Scotland Racial Equality Council therefore interfaces with the issue on a fairly regular basis.

As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, while his Department and its agencies liaise with local authorities and other regional assets in England, in Scotland the

picture is a little different. Scotland, uniquely in the UK, legislates for all the areas of policy devolved to it through an Act of Parliament, the Scotland Act 1998. That includes education, health and social services. As those services play important roles in supporting people awaiting asylum decisions, and as the media pay close attention both to public dialogue around those policy areas in general and to the issue of asylum, there is a tendency among some in the media and public life in Scotland to see matters of asylum and immigration through the prism of locally provided services.

There are many good aspects to that perspective, if I may put it that way, and the small size of Scotland in comparison with England means that those involved in the local provision of services can have a more direct relationship with legislators in those policy areas. Many more give evidence to parliamentary Committees, for example. Proportionately speaking, one has a 10 or 15 times greater chance in Scotland of doing that, so there is a bit of a closer link between the two.

Here, I make a distinction between the subtleties and trends of debate among those with a particular interest in the areas of asylum and immigration, and Scottish public attitudes in general. I have surveyed a great many of my constituents and find that, for the large part, Falkirk folk do not deviate from UK norms in their views on asylum and immigration. In my experience, most people want an asylum system that is well administered and an immigration system that is right for the UK, which is fair and designed to benefit economically both the UK and those who settle here through our immigration system. It is true that people often confuse asylum and immigration, and I wish to say a word or two about that in a moment. The point I make here is that in Scotland, for good or ill, it seems that sometimes the opinions of those who have special experience of a given area diverge to a higher degree from public opinion than is the case across the UK as a whole.

Whether or not my perception accords with reality, it is the case that there is a lively public debate among those closer to the issue of asylum removals in Scotland, and that is reflected in media coverage. I am struck by the extent to which debate in Scotland on the matter of asylum is anchored around the Scottish Parliament and its Members rather than the UK Parliament and its Members. As I have already noted, that is because of the Scottish Parliament's legislative powers in the areas that support those awaiting asylum decisions. In my view, one effect of that trend is that MPs tend to be sent material by interest groups that looks pre-cooked; it begins to look rather polemical. It has already passed through a political filter, as it were. By the time it reaches us here in the House, it is almost impossible, in some cases, to have meaningful dialogue.

I have also been struck by the fact that sometimes, although not always, the crux decision points faced by Ministers in this place are evaded, not always intentionally, by some involved in public debate in Scotland. I believe that there is room for a more productive relationship between Members of this House and Scottish groups with an interest in those issues.

Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): The hon. Gentleman is redressing the fact that this matter has not been debated thoroughly in this House.

I think that he will recognise that there is a raging public debate in Scotland, particularly when the removal of asylum seekers' children is involved. He has talked about people who are involved in this public debate. Perhaps he recognises the words of the children's commissioner for Scotland, Dr. Marshall:

She continues:

Surely he recognises that when such activities happen the public in Scotland have every right to be concerned and anxious about what is going on.

Mr. Joyce: I studied Dr. Marshall's remarks closely, and I think that she could have chosen her words better. I am not sure whether what she said is a fair reflection of the hard work of officials who deal with such very difficult removals. I am about to address one or two of the dilemmas that have to be faced but which are sometimes not being faced in the public debate in Scotland. That subject lies at the core of my speech.

I chose to discuss removals in this debate because in any discussion about asylum policy, that is the point at which reality bites. That is the hard edge, and the last option—but most people would agree that if we are to have a system at all, removals sometimes have to be made. Although I have encountered few people who do not accept the need for an asylum and immigration policy, and therefore the need, as a last resort, for removals, some organisations oppose every removal as a matter of course.

I am not in a position to say whether any given removal is valid or not, and of course no system is infallible. Yet the adoption of a de facto organisational policy decision to oppose every removal as a matter of course, as sometimes happens, is incompatible with the acceptance of the requirement for an immigration policy. It is hard to have intelligent dialogue in such circumstances.

Some people in Scotland argue for a different immigration policy for Scotland. Leaving aside the implications for the UK as a constitutional entity, I still have to say that such arguments are rarely accompanied by an acceptance that that would require a means of controlling movement between what would then be two jurisdictions—in effect, a border mechanism. That argument is impracticable to the point of nonsense, yet it surfaces regularly in Scottish public debate.

Another contentious point in Scotland—as, of course, in the rest of the UK since 2002—is that those awaiting a decision on asylum are unavailable for work. It is often argued that people should be able to work while awaiting a decision, bringing their skills to help the communities to which most have been dispersed. In Scotland, that means Glasgow. That is an interesting point of view, considering that the Government and the Scottish Executive fund programmes of work experience and tertiary education for those awaiting a final decision, and in some cases for people presently falling under section 4—those who have had a final decision but are awaiting removal to a country that is not now deemed safe.

Of course it is desirable that those who are successful in their application should be as well prepared for their new life as possible, but it seems to me dangerous to make a leap from there to factoring in skills to the asylum decision, as is often argued in Scotland. It must be frustrating in the extreme for people awaiting decisions who have valuable skills not to be able to use those skills, to all our benefit, in the meantime—but to argue that the Government should factor those skills in to the asylum decision would be anathema in human rights terms.The purpose of an asylum system is to ensure that someone fleeing for their life from a dangerous regime is protected and able to carry on their life safely in a new country. Any suggestion that applicants' skills should in any way be a factor in the decision would be wholly wrong. It is fundamental to the human rights principles that underpin the concept of asylum that all applicants should be assessed as equals, on the basis of the threat that they may face in their country of origin.

The meaning of the word "refugee", at least in terms of public policy in Scotland, is often misunderstood. For the purposes of asylum policy, a refugee is a successful asylum applicant. However, in my experience such people do not always want to be labelled in that way. Why should they? They want to get on with their new lives as full and equal members of their own local communities. That is not to say that support services should not exist for those who want them—quite the opposite, in fact. However, the term refugee, I find, is usually used in public debate to mean something closer to the wider dictionary definition, and includes those moving from state to state for economic reasons. Of course, the UK Government, like all others, recognise the huge benefit that such economic movement brings—a recognition that is formalised in the form of an immigration policy. But obfuscation through misuse of the terms "asylum", "immigration" and "refugee" removes the clarity so important for intelligent public dialogue.

I conclude by asking the Minister to confirm that he has, over time, had effective dialogue with the Scottish Executive and other UK bodies representing more local populations—perhaps on a regional basis, or perhaps on a more specific basis. Is that helping to form his views and, ultimately, Government policy, on the whole process of dealing with those who seek asylum in this country?