Meeting of the Parliament 10 January 2024
I am delighted to take part in this debate, but not because of the Scottish Government’s position in its motion. Its attack on UK Government migration policy was predictable and the minister’s conclusion was predictable, with its jarring and inappropriate reference to independence.
I point out to Karen Adam that the SNP Government’s 2013 independence white paper said that an independent Scotland would have a “robust” asylum policy that would include the need for “forced removal” of failed asylum seekers. It is ironic to be lectured about dignity, equality and opportunity when those words can be found in the prospectus for independence that the SNP put forward to this country.
However, the debate allows me to shed a little light on the asylum system from a personal perspective, as a result of professional experiences that I gained as a lawyer representing asylum seekers in Scotland. As an advocate in that regard, I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests.
My experience was gained in the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal—as it was then called—in Bothwell Street in Glasgow. Interestingly, that was at a time—I am betraying my age here—when the Labour Party was in government at Westminster. It is important to remember that the Labour Party ran the system for many years.
In the late 2000s, representing asylum seekers was a challenge for any lawyer. I never won a case arguing for asylum to be granted. It was almost impossible to consult with clients beforehand or even to meet them face to face. Asylum seekers were kept in that tribunal, in what most people would view as prison cells, and they would be brought out for their cases before being returned.
Cases would be dealt with very swiftly—too swiftly, in my opinion. The Home Office presenting officer—or HOPO, as they were known colloquially—would present the case on why asylum should be refused. The immigration judge would respectfully listen to people such as me, but it was hard to make submissions about the facts on the ground in countries in the developing world and argue that asylum should be granted in the UK in light of dangerous or risky conditions in the applicant’s home country that were directly applicable to that particular individual, such as fear of persecution, and to do so with any credibility and confidence.
What can we draw from that experience? I can only speak about how it was in the late 2000s. The system did not appear to work for those who were seeking asylum, and it did not answer the wider legitimate concerns that many people had and still have about migration. Even looked at impartially and independently by a professional simply trying to work in the system, it did not appear to be effective. Trying to act in the best interests of a client was undeniably a challenging experience. I wonder whether much has changed in the 15 years or so since I was in that tribunal.
However, there have been some changes. There has been an administrative overhaul of the tribunal system and, in defence of the UK Government, it should be recognised, as our amendment states, that the UK Government spent £3.7 billion in the fiscal year 2022-23 to support refugees. It should also be recognised that the same UK Government continues to provide asylum seekers with financial support to cover essential living needs and that it is committed to delivering an asylum system that protects individuals from persecution based on their protected characteristics.
On the other points that have been raised in the debate, I have very little to add to Miles Briggs’s skilful and measured opening speech and the fundamental point that he closed with—that the Scottish Government and the UK Government should work together. It is a shame that we are yet again debating a reserved matter and not a policy that falls within the Scottish Government’s remit.