Official Report 736KB pdf
Asylum Seekers (Accommodation)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the housing of asylum seekers at Cameron barracks in Inverness.
I was deeply disappointed to learn about the Home Office’s plans to accommodate people seeking asylum in Cameron barracks in Inverness from the media yesterday, rather than through, at the very least, a formal notification—or, as should have been the case, as part of a collaborative discussion before any decision had been made.
On hearing that Scottish Government officials had been notified that the Home Office was considering Cameron barracks, I wrote to the Home Secretary in September to seek an urgent meeting. I have been clear with the Home Office that the plans must fully consider the impact on the local community and the appropriateness of the site to accommodate that group of people. I understand that a meeting is in the process of being scheduled.
I am a bit confused because, when Alex Norris stood up in the House of Commons at 2 o’clock today to answer an urgent question, he said:
“My officials have been engaging directly and regularly in advance of this announcement with the Scottish Government, the relevant councils and local service providers, and will continue to do so.”
That does not quite chime with what the cabinet secretary said.
My constituents are rightly concerned about their safety—not on the streets but in relation to their health. There are simply not enough resources in the Highlands. Inverness general practices are creaking at the seams, Raigmore is unable to keep up with appointments, and there are not enough dentists to go round. What assurances can the cabinet secretary give me that people in the Highlands will continue to get some level of health cover, with the extra 300 people who will be moving into Cameron barracks?
I am happy to give Edward Mountain further detail on the timeline in writing, because it is important that we deal with the issues that his constituents have raised.
I say again that, when we had word that the move was being considered, I raised concerns in a letter to the Home Secretary, and those concerns have not been answered. If that is what the UK Government considers to be a collaborative piece of working, we will have to agree to disagree on that point. I hope that I will meet the relevant UK minister in due course, because I have written to the Home Secretary again today to raise a number of concerns.
I say at the outset that Scotland welcomes refugees and asylum seekers, and it is important that we have our moral and international responsibilities at the forefront of our minds as we look to do that. That is exactly why such decisions should be taken collaboratively between the UK Government, the Scottish Government, local authorities and local service providers.
Given the way in which the decision was announced, I can understand why there are concerns about the provision of health services and about other local services. That is exactly why I have written to the Home Secretary to ask specifically for reassurance that full wraparound services will be provided in such a way that there is capacity on site to deal with the health or other requirements of those who may be moving. I would like us to have that at the forefront of our minds when it comes to how we can support asylum seekers and deliver local services. However, I can do that only if the UK Government works with the Scottish Government and local government.
It sounds as though the cabinet secretary has been in negotiation with the UK Government for some time. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
It was deeply concerning for constituents across the Highlands to find out about this only on Monday. According to what the cabinet secretary just said, the issue was raised back in September. It may have been raised before then—clearly, Alex Norris believes that it was raised well in advance, as that is the evidence that he gave to the House of Commons. Surely the point now is that it is up to the UK Government to start speaking to elected representatives, Highland Council and service providers to make sure that we have the appropriate services in the Highlands.
I reiterate that highlanders have always opened our doors to allow people to come up. We welcomed Afghan people who had worked with the British Army to stay in Cameron barracks. This is a different ball game. Three hundred young men are moving to Inverness and we do not know what their requirements are or what the services are. Highlanders themselves are not even getting housing services.
Again, we will have to agree to disagree on whether there has been a negotiation. I have laid out the concerns that I have raised with the UK Government on behalf of the Scottish Government.
I think that we can get to some agreement with Edward Mountain. Some of the points that he has raised are exactly the points that I have been raising and not getting answers to from the UK Government. That is why there was a concern. For example, on Monday, when the UK Government eventually informed Highland Council, the Scottish Government, despite being asked whether we could attend that meeting, was not able to attend it, because we had not been told about it. Again, there is a degree of frustration among ministers over how we can attempt to work together to be able to reassure people.
I say to Edward Mountain that the Scottish Government is working as closely as possible with local service providers and Highland Council. My officials have met Highland Council regularly, and I have reached out to meet Highland Council leaders, too.
Mr Mountain points out that there has been successful welcoming of cohorts in Inverness. That is an example of how the UK Government and the Scottish Government worked together to ensure that the planning for the Afghan cohort, in the very same barracks, was successful, because we did it collaboratively. If we could do it once, we can do it again. However, that requires the willingness of the UK Government.
Mr Mountain says that that was a different cohort. That is right, Presiding Officer, but they are also people who are seeking asylum, and we have an obligation to support them in a way that reassures local communities about the services that they require.
There is a great deal of interest in this item. I am keen to enable as many members as possible to take part, so succinct questions and responses will be appreciated.
I am sure that the cabinet secretary shares my frustration that elected members at all levels were made aware of the decision to use Cameron barracks as asylum accommodation only through the media yesterday morning. That is a clear example of the disastrous management that is under way at the Home Office as it battles to outdo far-right parties with failing policies.
Over the past day, Inverness politicians have been receiving confused correspondence from constituents as the UK Government seems to be going out of its way to contribute to the hostile environment that it inherited from the Tories. Will the cabinet secretary advise what engagement she has had, and anticipates having, with the evidently chaotic Home Office?
I agree that proper engagement on this is critical at all levels of government. Following my initial letter on 26 September, I have written to the Home Secretary again today to flag up the concerns that remain, and we are keen to work with her during the process.
The member is quite right to point out, as she has done on numerous occasions, that Scotland—and, indeed, the Highlands—has a long history of welcoming refugees and asylum seekers. If the Scottish Government were going to implement a policy that delivered for local communities and asylum seekers and ensured community cohesion, it would not go about it in this way. That is exactly why there is an intense level of frustration in the Scottish Government. In saying that, we stand ready to work collaboratively with the UK Government, should it wish to do so.
I am in full agreement about the need for joint working across the UK on these issues. However, let us be clear that the UK Government inherited a policy disaster from the Tories, who broke the asylum system. Under Labour, double the number of asylum decisions have been made, removals have increased by 30 per cent and the number of asylum hotels is down by close to 50 per cent from its peak under the Tories. It is going in the right direction, and we want to see that. The use of military barracks as a temporary measure is a practical step that will deliver better value for the public.
Mr Swinney and his Cabinet ministers certainly talk the language of supporting asylum seekers, but when the Scottish National Party-run Glasgow City Council wanted to pause refugees coming to Glasgow, the First Minister backed it to the hilt. Now, when the Home Office has proposed army barracks as an alternative to housing asylum seekers in hotels, the SNP appears to be equivocating on some of the issues. What actions will the cabinet secretary stand ready to take to ensure that this works?
With the greatest respect to Michael Marra—I have to give him some kudos for attempting to deflect as much as he could—he cannot blame the Conservative Government for how the current UK Government handled the announcement yesterday. That had nothing to do with the Tories. There is lots that we can blame the Tories for, but let us accept where responsibility lies.
The Scottish Government recognises that there is a need to provide safe, supported accommodation for people seeking asylum—of course there is—and we agree that the long-term use of hotel accommodation is not suitable and that alternatives must be sought. All that we are asking is that Labour considers the cohort, works out what services that cohort requires and then works with local government, the Scottish Government and local service providers to find the best place to accommodate people. The approach should not be to find somewhere to put people and then try to shoehorn everything else in after the decision has been made.
We all want to work with the UK Government, but that requires the UK Government to say what it will deliver on site, after which we will know more about the pressures that Mr Mountain raised and that people are concerned about. That is how we collaborate to implement a cohesive policy.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that we need to have a rational, calm discussion about these matters and that people have genuine concerns, which are not at all born out of racism but rather arise because of various practical matters that must be considered rationally and thoroughly?
Does the cabinet secretary also agree that it would have been better had there been a prior negotiation between the two Governments about which locations are suitable and which are unsuitable? Does she understand that Inverness has a very strong view that the central location of the barracks, which are beside a residential development and a school, is not the right location? Will she publish the letter that she shared with the UK Government?
I had a briefing on the matter with the Home Office this morning. Does the cabinet secretary suggest, as I believe, that Mr Norris, the relevant UK Government minister, should visit Inverness, give an explanation to people there and be open to questions from the press about what will happen and when, not least because the barracks are extremely cold and unfit for human occupation at the current time? The Home Office admitted that this morning, yet it said that it would be all ready in a couple of weeks’ time—I will believe that when I see it.
I want to work with the cabinet secretary. I would like to see the two Governments working together—
Thank you, Mr Ewing.
—but, above all, having a rational, open discussion, so that we do not get involved in charges of racism here, which we all want to avoid.
Thank you, Mr Ewing.
Mr Ewing’s suggestion that a UK minister visit Inverness is a very sensible one. I would suggest that it is perhaps something that should have been done before the decision was made. It is very important that people from local communities are able to have their voice heard on this. I am sure that local representatives will do that at council level and in the Scottish Parliament, but the UK ministers have a responsibility, too.
We are here to represent our communities, and, of course, local residents have a number of concerns. I believe that many of those concerns are based on a concern about local service provision. That is exactly why I have written to the Home Secretary twice to lay out specific concerns, and I am certainly more than happy to make those letters available.
We are here to represent communities, but we are also here to reassure our communities, where at all possible, that asylum seekers can be part of our community. Indeed, they are part of our communities in many parts of Scotland, and the people who live here currently and those who may move here in the future can work and live together very well if practical matters are dealt with.
We have much interest, so I would be grateful for concise questions and responses.
People in Inverness and the Highlands are concerned about this issue, and part of their concern is about the way that it was announced. However, a large part of it, as Fergus Ewing and Edward Mountain have discussed, is about the availability of services, which are already stretched and will be put under more pressure.
If the cabinet secretary has accepted in Parliament today that she has been discussing the matter with the Home Office since September, can she outline what discussions the Scottish Government—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Ross.
The cabinet secretary wrote to the Home Office about the proposal in September, and she is going to publish that letter. What discussions has the Scottish Government been having since September about education, justice, local government and health, which would be impacted by 300 individuals coming up to Inverness? Does the cabinet secretary believe that any planning permissions are required at Cameron barracks to house those additional individuals? As Fergus Ewing said, that will not be sorted in a matter of weeks—it will take months.
The issue of planning is, of course, one for Highland Council to consider as the authority that makes planning decisions, so I will leave that to Highland Council to discuss.
I am loth to get caught up in the semantics of this, but if sending a letter and not getting a reply is the member’s idea of a discussion, we will have to agree to disagree on these issues.
I have raised concerns about the issue because it is important that we recognise that there will be an anticipated high level of support for those who may arrive in Inverness in a reasonably short period of time. We—the Parliament, Highland Council and other local service providers—need to be able to reassure ourselves about what the Home Office is going to deliver on site, and we must ensure that that delivery is on site and is available for people. We also need to be able to reassure ourselves about what financial support will be made available to cover any increased costs that will fall on local public services as a result of any decision that services are not delivered on site. Until we get some more information from the Home Office on those two points, I will continue to raise those points with it.
Forcing people who have fled war, persecution and violence into isolated institutional accommodation will do nothing to improve housing or community relations but everything to help private companies line their pockets with more cash. Will the cabinet secretary give an assurance that she will advocate for a migration and asylum policy that reflects Scotland’s values of compassion and dignity and that she will seek devolved powers to manage asylum accommodation in a way that respects local communities and the rights of displaced people?
I reassure the member that, when I met with the previous Home Secretary, not long after she came into office, I made exactly those points about the need for a different approach to asylum and migration. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government’s calls on that have been rebuffed. However, those points were reiterated in the letter that I sent on 26 September to the new Home Secretary, which not only talked about the issues around Cameron barracks, but set out the Scottish Government’s principled stance on asylum and migration. It is very important that, as we rightly discuss the concerns of local people and local services, we remind ourselves that we are talking about people who are fleeing war, persecution and unimaginable horror in different parts of the world. We can never forget our moral and international legal obligations in relation to those issues.
The lack of notice to, or involvement of, elected representatives at all levels in Inverness is unforgivable. Had they been consulted, they would have told the UK Government that it is simply moving asylum seekers from one kind of unsuitable and costly accommodation to another. Compassion must guide our approach, but so, too, must common sense. Inverness is a welcoming town, but the centrality of the barracks will give rise to the same concerns—particularly about the impact on local services—that are leading the Government to end the use of asylum hotels in the first place. Does the cabinet secretary agree that alternative space must be found and that, with urgency, the UK Government should recruit 2,000 new casework officers to clear down those asylum claims?
The context that Mr Cole-Hamilton provided is important. Compassion and common sense are not too much to ask for in relation to a policy that deals with asylum seekers and people who are fleeing war and persecution. There is a requirement for us to ensure that suitable accommodation is provided. That is a requirement for the UK Government and the Home Office, but in the Scottish Government and, I am sure, on the part of councils right across Scotland, there is a willingness to work with the UK Government on it; indeed, we recognise our responsibilities in that regard. The UK Government is responsible for accommodation for asylum seekers, but there are devolved services involved.
Once again, I point to the fact that, where people have managed to come together—whether for the Afghan cohort, Syrian refugees or Ukrainians—there are demonstrations of how that can work, but it takes all levels of Government to do that. I am disappointed by the way that the announcement has been handled, but there is now the opportunity for the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government and others to make the correct decisions, as we go forward, on the use of Cameron barracks and on the policy in general.
Thank you. That concludes the urgent question. My apologies to those members whom I was unable to call.
Air ais
Maternity Services (Safety)Air adhart
Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3