I thank the Scottish Government for bringing the debate to the chamber and for lodging a motion that we can, I hope, unite behind. I confirm that we will support the Government’s motion. The debate is another opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to speak with one voice on the crisis; I hope that we do so.
We have already heard many moving speeches on the refugee crisis, including from the First Minister, Kezia Dugdale and Patricia Ferguson. The harrowing scenes that we have witnessed over the past few weeks and months have not been the beginning of the crisis, and I appreciate the opportunity that we had before recess to speak in Alex Rowley’s members’ business debate on the Mediterranean crisis.
The heartbreaking pictures of Alan Kurdi were the beginning of the public demand for action, which forced a welcome rethink of the UK Government’s position. The actions that the Government has taken—to increase the number of refugees that the UK will accept, to create a new ministerial post and to financially support refugee camps—are all welcome, but they are not enough. Those measures are all highlighted in John Lamont’s amendment and although I acknowledge the UK Government’s contribution, I have concerns about the choice of the word “sustainable”. We are in a crisis and need to ensure that our response matches that.
Even the pictures of Alan, the refugees marching down the motorway and the refrigerated lorry at the side of the road failed to fully express the sheer scale of the crisis. A report that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees published in June stated that one human in every 122 is now a refugee, is seeking asylum or is internally displaced. Fifty three per cent of all refugees come from three countries: Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia. More than 4 million Syrians have left their homes in search of safety and a further 6 million have been internally displaced. That is the scale of the crisis.
The crisis has been with us for some time. The Scottish Government has made representation to the UK Government calling for action. In our manifesto for the general election, Labour made a direct commitment to
“ensure Britain continues its proud history of providing refuge for those fleeing persecution by upholding our international obligations, including working with the UN to support vulnerable refugees from Syria.”
Yvette Cooper deserves credit for her work at Westminster on the refugee crisis and for trying to change the position of a UK Government that has, at times, proved to be reluctant to take action beyond the aid packages that it has sent to the region. I am pleased that she will now head a Labour task force on refugees.
I am also pleased that the UK Government has finally promised to meet our moral obligation to accommodate more refugees in Britain. However, although 20,000 over the duration of the current UK Parliament is welcome, it is not enough. We need to do more; the crisis is now. At this stage, we do not know whether the number will be front loaded, as has been requested by humanitarian charities, which understand the situation on the ground far better than any politician in the UK. The Refugee Council has stated:
“The programme needs to be frontloaded as the crisis is now and the expansion must happen as a matter of urgency as people are living in desperate situations in the region and cannot wait until 2020 to reach safety.”
It is also wrong that the Prime Minister has ruled out helping those who have already reached Europe but who still need accommodation and our help. We have seen the struggles that face Greece and Italy, which are in an impossible situation, and the negative reaction of countries such as Hungary, where fences have been erected to keep refugees out. We have also seen the contrast with Germany, which has made a huge contribution in offering asylum. However, it cannot do that alone. Our moral obligation must be extended to helping those who have felt it appropriate to risk their lives by making the dangerous journey to Europe.
The UK Government’s theory that taking refugees only from Syria and its neighbouring countries will prevent people from attempting to make the journey to Europe bears a remarkable resemblance to the theory that stopping search and rescue in the Mediterranean would mean that the boats would no longer come. This theory, too, will fail to match reality: people will still make the journey, and many of them will tragically die. We must work to ensure that there are safe and legal routes from overseas and that those who make the journey across the Mediterranean are treated with humanity.
Their number currently includes some 3,000 unaccompanied children, who are here without a mother or father. There can be no argument—political or moral—that concludes that those children do not deserve our help simply because they survived the gruelling and life-threatening trip to Europe. History has shown that Britain has been ready and willing to act in the past. In the lead-up to the second world war, 10,000 Jewish children arrived in this country. That was the right thing to do then; with 3,000 unaccompanied children in Europe now, it is again the right thing to do.
Save the Children is calling for a key campaign in that respect, and it has set out a five-point plan for Government action. The Scottish Refugee Council highlights in its briefing that we need an appropriate response to the increasing numbers of vulnerable women and children who are fleeing. We need clarity on what will happen, once they reach the age of 18, to children who come here. We must ensure that, when people look back at this point in history, Britain is not found wanting.
The UK Government has moved only under pressure. The increase in the number of refugees to 20,000 came not in the immediate aftermath of the publication of the pictures of Alan; it was announced only when it became apparent that the picture that was on the front page of most newspapers was beginning to change the mood of the country. That, along with pressure from the Opposition, is what has caused the Government’s U-turn.
On the refugee crisis, the UK Government has been reacting rather than leading. It must reconsider its refusal to participate in the EU reallocation scheme, and it is important that we as a Parliament continue to apply pressure on it on that issue. A joint letter that was sent last November by charities including Oxfam and the Refugee Council stated:
“While we applaud Britain’s generous aid contribution to the crisis, it is clear that aid alone is not enough. Syria’s neighbours are struggling under the weight of this unprecedented crisis and it is time we stopped asking of them what we are not doing ourselves.”
The choices that are open to us should not involve either only delivering aid or only accommodating refugees—our response needs to include both. We have seen poignant images of public support from Glasgow and Edinburgh at the weekend—the minister spoke about George Square—and a number of local campaign groups have sprung up throughout the country. That is something of which we, as a country, can be proud.
Following Labour’s calls for Britain to take at least 10,000 refugees, I was pleased that the Scottish Government confirmed that it is willing to take 1,000 as its fair share, and that that is a starting point and not a cap. Now that the UK Government has confirmed that it will take 20,000 refugees, I welcome the Scottish Government’s confirmation—not that I ever doubted it—that it will continue to take its fair share, which will now be 2,000 refugees. Is the Scottish Government able to say whether there is a way in which it can front load the numbers of refugees who will come to Scotland so that we can give help where it is most needed? Has the minister had any discussions with the UK Government and local authorities on increasing the initial calls to take 1,000 refugees? Will the fair share of 2,000 still not be considered a cap?
Scotland has led the UK in our reaction to the refugee crisis and we must continue to do more. I very much welcome the minister’s comments in his speech. I also ask the Scottish Government how discussions with councils have been progressing. Is the Government aware how many refugees are able to settle in each area? What resources, if any, from either the Scottish Government or the UK Government will be at councils’ disposal?
The Scottish Refugee Council has emphasised the importance of a national co-ordinated response allowing for the reduction of transitional costs, and it has called for a national reception centre. Perhaps the minister can, in closing, respond to those points.
Certainly, the number of refugees that we will welcome into Scotland is only the beginning; we must also look at how we integrate them into our society long term. Will the Scottish Government task force consider that important aspect of the crisis, and will it consider publishing a plan to set out how it will achieve integration?
Organisations such as the Fife Migrants Forum are well placed to support integration, but they need support for resources such as translators and volunteers—including financial support—as soon as possible.
As our amendment to the Government’s motion highlights, there are already positive measures being taken. The University of Glasgow, for example, must be congratulated for the action that it has taken in supporting refugee students by offering fee waivers. It has also extended its talent sponsorship scheme and is accommodating two Syrian academics as PhD students. I encourage other universities, colleges and businesses to look at that example and to think about how they can do the same. I hope that that can be achieved, with support from the Scottish Government.
For many refugees, their studies have been disrupted, their jobs and trades lost and their careers halted by the crisis. That, too, is something that we can help to tackle. We must offer people sanctuary and, when the time comes, if they wish—many will—to return to their home countries ensure that they are equipped with the skills and talents that will benefit their economy, their culture and their country in the future. Let us not give refugees in Scotland just a home; let us give them hope for the future. That is an achievement that we should all be working towards.
I move amendment S4M-14245.2, to insert at end:
“; notes the positive measures that the University of Glasgow has taken to support refugee students by offering fee waivers, extending its Talent Scholarship programme and accommodating two Syrian academics as PhD students, and encourages other universities to explore opportunities, with support from the Scottish Government, to offer places to students whose studies have been interrupted and whose education could benefit their home country in the future”.
15:00