The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-14823, in the name of Maggie Chapman, on free bus travel for asylum seekers. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
16:01
Imagine a bus stop where a line of people is waiting. They are accustomed to waiting. They have all been waiting for more than a year for a decision on their asylum claims and their status as the refugees they know themselves to be. Some will wait for two years and some will wait for three, while some might wait for much longer.
Each of them has somewhere important to go. Ana is going to see her general practitioner about a lump that she has noticed, which she has been trying not to think about through the long sleepless nights. She has not seen the doctor before, and she hopes that she can communicate what she needs to say.
Ben is going to his English language classes. He hopes to resume his professional career when his claim is finally decided. In the meantime, he is volunteering for a local charity.
Carlos is going to see his solicitor about a worrying letter that he has received. He will have to get a bus again for his next Home Office appointment.
David is going to meet some distant relatives of his wife on the other side of the city. He is wondering whether there will be a discount supermarket on the way, where he can buy essentials at less than the exorbitant prices that are charged at the nearest shops.
Elias and Elisha are both going to pray, at different places of worship. Having been forced from their homes and families, moved between unsuitable forms of accommodation without notice or explanation and barred from working, they sometimes feel that the choice to practise their faith is the only form of agency that they have left.
Fred, who is afraid to use his birth name, does not know where he is going but hopes to find somewhere green and quiet where he can sit in peace for a while, and maybe even sleep. He was tortured in his old country, and now, when he is sharing a small room with a stranger who shouts in his dreams, the memories keep flashing back. If he cannot escape them, he is afraid that he will not be able to carry on.
They might not say so, but they are all exercising their human rights—their rights to healthcare, to education, to a fair hearing and to religious expression and association. They are exercising their right to life itself.
The bus stop that I have described is imaginary. In reality, most of the people who are waiting cannot afford to take the bus. Maybe they will miss their appointments, with all the consequences that will follow. Maybe they will manage to walk there. Maybe someone will help them. We do not really know. We are not really watching.
Why are we talking about human rights anyway? This is the beginning of a transport debate. Human rights, equalities and all that stuff come at the end, do they not? We devise the policy, draft the legislation and then, when we already know what we are going to do, we add an equalities assessment at the end. That is the right way round, is it not?
Seventy-five years ago, the world was wounded and traumatised by war, devastation and the horrors of fascism. Rebuilding was critical and urgent, but the priorities were not just physical and economic; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, three years later, the refugee convention were the moral bedrock on which a better world was to be built.
Human rights are not an epilogue, an afterthought or a niche interest that the right committee and the right third sector organisation will deal with; they are the responsibility of all of us, and we must begin by recognising them and the ways in which they are far from being fulfilled.
The United Kingdom’s immigration system is a disgrace—that is a polite word for it. It represents a systematic denial of the most basic rights: respect and dignity. The huge backlog of unmade decisions—the condemnation of vulnerable people to existential limbo—is one of its worst aspects. We in the chamber can do little, as things stand, to change that system, although we can take every opportunity that we have to try. We can dismantle some of the obstacles that stand between people seeking asylum and their fundamental human rights, one of which is a lack of—literally—affordable transport.
As deputy convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, I have had the privilege of hearing at first hand about those obstacles and of contributing to the committee’s report last year, which strongly recommended extending free bus travel to those seeking asylum. As Kaukab Stewart, who was then our convener, said in Paul Sweeney’s welcome members’ business debate on the issue a year ago, in October 2023, that is
“something that would make a huge difference to their lives.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2023; c 31.]
The situation is now even more desperate than it was then, when we held out greater hope that things would be different under a Labour Government in Westminster. Sadly, although the very worst and most egregious horrors of the Rwanda scheme have been abandoned, we are hearing rhetoric that is depressingly similar to that of the new Government’s predecessor. Meanwhile, third sector finances are under unprecedented pressure, inflation continues and the flames of violent xenophobia lick at our very doorways.
Now, if ever, is the time for Scotland’s rhetoric to become reality and for warm words of welcome to initiate acts of justice. It is not at times of plenty that our promises are tested, but in days such as these, when the temptation to abandon them is strongest.
I am so very grateful to all who have stood in solidarity on the issue with people seeking asylum, including those who have written to the cabinet secretary and the minister involved and who have used their voices in faith communities, as third sector experts, human rights activists and human beings. I thank members from across the chamber who will support the motion not just because they must but because it is a matter of basic rights and justice.
I ask the cabinet secretary to provide clarity on detail and a timescale for how, through working together across the chamber and with others, we can make that renewed promise a reality, both urgently and comprehensively, because some of the most vulnerable people in the world are relying on us to do so in order to exercise their rights as human beings.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that the Scottish Government should extend free bus travel to people seeking asylum as soon as possible and at least before the end of the current parliamentary session.
16:08
I take the opportunity to welcome Sue Webber and Claire Baker to their new positions.
I hope that everyone in the chamber would support the idea that people seeking asylum in our country should be able to access adequate financial support, including free bus travel. Those people are fleeing danger and seeking a better life for themselves and their families; they often leave everything behind to start again with very little. Of course, we should do what we can to help them to do so. Surely no one can take issue with the aim of the motion, but the issue is more about how best to do it.
Many of the services that support people seeking asylum are devolved, yet asylum policy remains reserved. Under present UK Government policy, the vast majority of people seeking asylum are restricted from working while they await a decision, and the financial support that they receive does not reflect the real costs of daily life. While that remains the case, access to free bus travel has the potential to be transformative for people seeking asylum in Scotland in supporting them to access essential services and integrate into the communities that they live in. Such free travel for asylum seekers does not yet exist.
Many people and organisations contributed their time and effort to developing the pilot proposal and were frustrated, disappointed and, in some cases, angry that the funding was not available this year to take it forward. However, we remain committed to trying to find a way through the budget processes that are left in this parliamentary session to fund that support.
I am sure that the cabinet secretary will be aware that, last year, prior to the agreed money, a pilot in Glasgow and work in Aberdeen had been delivering free bus travel for asylum seekers. What role did those experiences over the previous 10 months take in shaping the cabinet secretary’s decision in August?
The experiences helped with my decision and position when I set out the Government’s position a year ago in the debate to which Maggie Chapman referred. I have talked to the people who provided the pilots, but what we are talking about here is free travel for all asylum seekers, as opposed to a pilot. It is clear that that initial work has informed what can be done in terms of the process.
I hope that members in the chamber who are sympathetic to or support the proposal also support the need to find a way forward through the budget processes in the Parliament. If members refuse to vote for the Scottish budget, this and other commitments will not get funded.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I need to move on, please.
Meanwhile, the Scottish Government remains firmly committed to supporting people seeking asylum, refugees and communities through the new Scots refugee integration strategy. We are working closely with partners across Scotland to deliver the remaining actions in that ambitious plan. That includes investment in this financial year of £3.8 million of grant funding towards the delivery of the new Scots refugee integration strategy in 2024-25. We are also funding third sector organisations to support refugee integration, with a total of £488,000 of grant funding this financial year.
As is set out in the delivery plan, we remain fully committed to ensuring that as many of the estimated one in three people seeking asylum who are already eligible for free bus travel via our existing national concessionary travel scheme are able to access that. People seeking asylum in Scotland who are under 22, are 60 or over or have an eligible disability are already entitled to concessionary travel. I strongly urge everyone who might be eligible to apply, and I have tasked officials to work with local authorities and third sector organisations to support people to overcome any barriers that they face in securing their entitlement.
However, without all the powers and resources of a normal independent country, and while immigration and asylum remain reserved, we will be limited in what we can do to support people here, and without more and better funding and commitment from the UK Government, our local authorities are in the same position. That is why we have repeatedly called for the UK Government to provide adequate financial support for people seeking asylum to better reflect daily living, including digital access and travel costs. The Home Office is reviewing asylum support, and I hope that we can unite in the chamber today to encourage the new Labour UK Government to change from the approach of its predecessor.
I move amendment S6M-14823.3, to insert at end:
“, and urges the UK Government to provide adequate financial support to local authorities and asylum seekers to ensure that they are not pushed further into hardship.”
16:13
Last November, the then First Minister, Humza Yousaf, confirmed the free bus travel for asylum seekers scheme and said that £2 million had been set aside to pay for it. However, during the summer, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, Shona Robison, said that spending cuts were unavoidable, and the Scottish National Party scrapped plans for the scheme.
We all want to do right by asylum seekers and help people in need, but it is on every politician in this building to spend public money on the biggest challenges our country faces. Everything we do in Parliament is built on taxpayers’ money. That money must be spent on the most pressing concerns of the people in this country. As commendable as it may be to many, the proposal to spend millions of pounds on giving asylum seekers free travel comes at the same time that the SNP and Labour are taking away winter fuel payments from our pensioners. People who have worked hard all their days are getting their winter fuel payment cut. They will be forced to make tough calls this winter. Some will choose between heating and eating. It is not right—it is, in fact, downright scandalous—to take money from pensioners in favour of this proposal. To people across Scotland, it looks like the Scottish Parliament has lost the plot.
Does the member agree that we should be funding winter fuel payments and free bus travel for asylum seekers? She was in the chamber for the previous debate, and knows that there is plenty of money around--it is about how it is distributed. At the moment, the money is being hoarded in the hands of a few rather than distributed to the hands of many.
I do not recognise the description that it is being hoarded by a few. The only tax that the Green Party seems to like is tax that other people are paying. There is no clearer evidence than this that the Scottish Parliament has lost the plot. Parliament is detached from the everyday lives of people across Scotland. No wonder so many people feel that it does not stand up for them or represent their interests. Taking money from pensioners so that asylum seekers can have free travel shows the disconnect between the Parliament and the people of Scotland.
Does Sue Webber recognise that it is extremely dangerous to pit vulnerable groups against each other and that there is no suggestion that money should be taken from those who have had their winter fuel payment cut to give to asylum seekers? We should be doing both. Pitting those communities against each other is extremely disingenuous.
I remind Ms Mackay that our pensioners are some of the most vulnerable people in Scotland. I am standing up for them. This plan shows what is wrong with Scottish politics and what needs to change. My party will oppose plans to give free travel to asylum seekers while taking money away from pensioners, but I am grateful that the cabinet secretary outlined that some asylum seekers are already eligible for free bus travel.
We believe that every penny of taxpayers’ money must be spent carefully to address the concerns and needs of people up and down Scotland. We believe that Scotland’s Parliament should be more focused on what matters to Scotland’s people. Under the Scottish National Party, public transport has become unreliable and far too expensive. Unless considerable action is taken, our public transport network will continue to decline. We are calling on the Scottish Government to
“introduce a national £2 bus fare for any single ticket on a bus route, to fully support the Community Bus Fund to allow local authorities to propose bus services in their area, and to implement integrated ticketing across all public transport”
because that will impact everyone positively.
I move amendment S6M-14823.2, to leave out from “extend” to end and insert:
“ensure that there are reliable and affordable bus services in every community across Scotland; acknowledges that the Scottish Government has failed to make the ‘public transport network cleaner, smarter and more accessible than ever before’, as was the stated aim of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, and calls on the Scottish Government to introduce a national £2 bus fare for any single ticket on a bus route, to fully support the Community Bus Fund to allow local authorities to propose bus services in their area, and to implement integrated ticketing across all public transport.”
16:18
I am pleased to open the debate, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the chamber. I recognise the contribution of Alex Rowley, who was previously in this role as transport spokesperson, in particular for his tenacious approach to improving Scotland’s public transport in the interests of passengers and workers.
I thank the Green Party for using its time to put pressure on the Scottish Government to reverse its decision to cancel the extension of the free bus pass scheme to people seeking asylum. As the cabinet secretary recognised, that announcement was met by disappointment and, at times, anger. Insult was added to injury as the announcement to withdraw that commitment came on the same day as the “New Scots Refugee Integration Strategy Delivery Plan 2024-2026” was launched.
The promise of free bus travel for people seeking asylum was widely welcomed last November. It followed a campaign involving the Maryhill Integration Network, the VOICES Network and others, with political support and leadership from Mark Ruskell, Bob Doris and my colleague Paul Sweeney, who led a members’ business debate on the campaign in October 2023. That followed work by the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, which recommended extending the free bus pass scheme to asylum seekers, saying that it would be “transformative”.
A budget has already been allocated for concessionary travel, and the amount that is required to extend it is not unachievable.
People who are seeking asylum are recognised as one of the most vulnerable groups in society, as Maggie Chapman described. The financial support that they receive from the Home Office is limited, which makes it difficult for them to meet anything beyond basic needs.
The ability to access public transport would support their integration into our communities and help to prevent isolation. It would support them to attend appointments that are important to their status and to access healthcare and educational opportunities. It would allow them to build a network by making it easier for them to meet friends and family and attend community groups where the people of Scotland provide a warm welcome and opportunities.
A promise was made, but the reversal of that promise followed the Green Party’s departure from Government. It is quite a cynical move from the Government to appear to be prepared to reinstate the commitment without setting out how it will fund or implement it.
The truth is that it was not a budget cut. The £2 million fund was never there in the first place and no funding for the policy was ever allocated in any budget portfolio. The policy should be ready to introduce if the funding is reinstated.
Although the cabinet secretary talked in the previous members’ business debate about the complexity of expanding the scheme, I assumed that there was a route map to delivery. In the Scottish budget, £2 million is not insurmountable, and the benefits of the policy are clear.
From the start, the promise of free travel for asylum seekers failed to be properly funded. If the Government is committing to implementing it today, it needs to provide assurances on funding and implementation.
The Scottish Government’s amendment is an attempt to deflect responsibility from a situation of its own making. When the First Minister announced £2 million, he said that we all have a responsibility to step up to ensure that we help as best as we can, and he took clear responsibility for the delivery of a devolved area.
It is not clear to me what the Scottish Government’s amendment is calling for. The Conservatives’ amendment seeks to remove any reference to asylum seekers and does not address the substance of the debate, which leads me to wonder whether they actually support the policy of free bus passes for asylum seekers.
The UK Government has made a start to improving the situation for asylum seekers, and the Scottish Refugee Council has recognised that, although there is much to do, some positive change has already been made, such as the scrapping of the Rwanda scheme, the processing of applications for people who arrived after March last year, and the opening of a route for Afghan family reunion.
There are steps that we can take in Scotland. Providing the funds to deliver a free bus scheme would be a clear indication of how we value some of the most vulnerable people who come here and of how we want to help them to integrate into Scotland.
I move amendment S6M-14823.1, to insert at end:
“, and further believes that public transport should be affordable, accessible and reliable for everyone.”
16:22
Unlike Sue Webber, I think that this is a very apposite motion to bring to Parliament, and I congratulate the Greens and Maggie Chapman for so doing.
First and foremost, the motion speaks to our values as a nation. It does not talk about a huge amount of money. I have long called for the extension of free bus travel to asylum seekers and to anyone who is on a refugee resettlement scheme. Why? Because mobility is intrinsic to integration.
The cost of extending the availability of such a scheme would be minutely low in the context of our budget, but the scheme would provide a tangible benefit to those who have arrived here in search of a new life.
In 2022, the then SNP-Green Government promised to work with third sector partners and local authorities to consider how best to provide free bus travel for refugees, because it recognised the imperative of doing so.
Despite the policy’s inclusion in the programme for government, we are still without it, and its delivery has been rolled back. I hope that, after today, the Government will rededicate itself to what it promised.
Dina Nayeri, who was just a child when she was forced to flee from Iran, summed up the imperative that falls to each of us, as decision makers, when she said:
“It is the obligation of every person born in a safer room to open the door when someone in danger knocks.”
I feel that sense of obligation acutely, and all the more so because of the dangerous and divisive rhetoric that refugees and asylum seekers have had to endure in recent times. This country has a proud heritage of offering safe harbour and a warm welcome to anyone who flees to our shores.
Would Mr Cole-Hamilton like to reflect on Sue Webber’s comments, which were inherently divisive and pitted the needs of pensioners in this country against people who are fleeing persecution and war? Is he prepared to condemn those comments, as most of us in the chamber do?
Of course I am willing to condemn those comments. It is wholly wrong to pit one vulnerable group against another, because they are not mutually exclusive, and to do so betrays the values of this nation. Some of our proudest moments have been when we offered shelter to those in need, whether through the Kindertransport, or to people from Biafra and, more recently, Ukraine. That proud tradition jars with the hostile environment policy and rhetoric of Sue Webber’s party.
When Robert Jenrick, one of the two remaining front-runners for the Tory leadership, was a Home Office minister, he asked for murals of Mickey Mouse to be painted over because the environment in places in which asylum-seeking children were housed was just not hostile enough. Shame on the Tories.
Asylum seekers have lived on barges that resemble floating prisons in conditions that foster feelings of hopelessness and, sometimes, suicide. Refugees and asylum seekers have been used as a political football. We saw the vitriol and fake news that sparked hate-filled riots this summer. We all have a duty to speak up in defence of those who come here. We should be welcoming them with open arms, not shaming them.
In June, 85,000 asylum applications were awaiting an initial decision in the UK. As things stand, during that process, asylum seekers are entitled to a roof over their heads, and very little more. They are not allowed to work and they have no recourse to public funds in the form of benefits and social security. Those rights are granted only if those people are recognised as refugees, and that process is also subject to horrendous backlogs. I am heartily glad that, in seeing the back of the Conservative Government, we also saw the back of the shameful Rwanda plan. I am pleased that the new Government seems to be striking a more compassionate humanitarian tone. I am also glad that the new Government has adopted the Liberal Democrats’ proposals for more dedicated caseworkers to process asylum claims faster and clear the significant backlog.
My party wants to go further. We believe that asylum seekers should be allowed every opportunity to integrate and belong here. That starts with granting them the right to work. If we give them that right while they are waiting for their applications to be processed, they will repay that compassion and generosity tenfold. That would save the taxpayer tens of millions and it would allow those people to generate wealth, income and taxes. They are hungry to contribute and to give back to the society that is offering them home and sanctuary. We should allow them to do so. It is my belief that everyone, no matter who they are or where they come from—
Mr Cole-Hamilton, you are over your time. You need to conclude, please.
I will draw my speech to a conclusion. I absolutely support the Greens’ motion and thank the party for securing it for debate.
We now move to the open debate.
16:27
It is a pleasure to follow that speech and I congratulate Alex Cole-Hamilton for many of the points that he made.
I begin by putting on record my thanks to many of the organisations that are working to support refugees and asylum seekers in our communities and, frankly, the awe in which I hold them. They include organisations in Glasgow, where a great many refugees and asylum seekers have been located over the years. I acknowledge Refuwegee—I invited Selina Hales as my local hero to the Parliament’s recent 25th anniversary celebrations—the Scottish Refugee Council, and Bikes for Refugees (Scotland). Using bikes is another way of enabling refugees to be able to access all parts of our community safely, healthily and cheaply.
I acknowledge that across most, although not all, political parties, there are a great many individuals, as well as local colleagues—not just members of the Parliament—such as councillors, who have worked hard to try to ensure that refugees and asylum seekers are welcome and are made to feel welcome in our society.
For most, although clearly not all, people, empathy and compassion are part of our human nature: they are hard wired in us. Maggie Chapman was right that we should not be reliant on the work of voluntary organisations and of individuals who choose to try to make a difference to support others. We should value that volunteerism highly, but if compassion and empathy are parts of what we want in our response to the needs of asylum seekers, then it is for all of us, including the state, to offer them.
The UK’s current brutality against asylum seekers did not begin with the Tory Government in 2010; the previous Labour Government also dehumanised asylum seekers. I have to admit that I struggle to have high hopes for a fundamentally new direction, given some of the rhetoric that we heard from Labour politicians during the election campaign. In response to Claire Baker’s comments, I say that I want to be able to hope for a genuine and profound change of direction in the way that the UK Government treats asylum seekers.
In the meantime, irrespective of whether that change at UK level happens, my constituents need help. The policy would cost only a small amount of money but would have a profound impact on the lives and wellbeing of those people, many of whom are the most marginalised, the most vulnerable and the most desperate of our constituents.
I ask members—as, I think, Maggie Chapman’s speech did—to consider the real-life impact of what access to a GP appointment or a hospital appointment means; of what access to volunteering means for human contact and keeping a person’s motivation and skills fresh and alive; of what access to English classes or other education means; and of what access to each other and to community means. Those are fundamental to our ability to have a decent life and to feel part of a community. That goes for all of us, and it absolutely goes for asylum seekers, as well.
Asylum seekers in uncatered accommodation are provided with about £7 a day to live on. One return trip on Glasgow’s buses would take up almost all of that. Those who are in hotel accommodation are expected to live on just £1.36 a day. That is less than half the price of a single bus ticket. The idea that we say no to that basic provision—that simple and compassionate move—should appal any of us.
On the SNP amendment, there is nothing in it that I disagree with. In its own right, I support it, but we need to be clear that, if we are agreeing to the motion, we are agreeing to the commitment, and that is not contingent on UK change. If we pass the motion tonight, as I hope we will, the Scottish Government needs to fund it.
16:31
When the topic was debated in the Scottish Parliament last October, I said that we must find a way to deliver free bus travel to all asylum seekers. I also said that I had been pleased to work in partnership with colleagues, particularly Paul Sweeney and Mark Ruskell, on a cross-party basis. I know that many others are involved. I put on record that there were also sympathetic voices, at that stage, from the Conservative Party. Members should reflect on Jackson Carlaw’s comments during the debate at that time. That partnership work has been a key strength of the campaign for free bus travel, and that remains the case.
During that debate, I also paid tribute to the voices network, and Maryhill Integration Network, which is based in my constituency, for their dedication and tenacity in leading the campaign, and I do so again this afternoon.
That begs the question: what has changed since that debate? Clearly, the Scottish Government’s fiscal position has been deeply undermined by the UK Government’s real-terms cuts to the Scottish budget. However, I do not wish to dwell on that this afternoon, because I wish to seek and build consensus. Indeed, we must build consensus, given the lived experience of many of our asylum-seeking communities, which Maggie Chapman outlined eloquently in her opening speech.
I hope that we can agree that one of the most compelling reasons for delivering free bus travel is the incredibly low level of support that the UK Home Office makes available to asylum seekers, while simultaneously denying them the right to work.
The delivery of a free bus travel scheme almost feels like an exercise—at least in part—in mitigating another UK Government policy that is damaging to a particularly vulnerable group in society. We have already heard that asylum seekers are living on £7 a day for food, travel, clothes and other basic essentials. If board is provided, they have £8.86 a week to live on. A bus day ticket in Glasgow costs £5.60. Mr Harvie made that point, too.
The impact on asylum-seeking individuals and families is clear. What difference would free bus provision make? I have previously mentioned the success of the Refugee Survival Trust’s asylum seeker free bus travel pilot, which supported asylum seekers to attend appointments related to their asylum cases and health-related appointments. It also allowed them to stay in contact with family, with friends and with support networks. It vastly improved their mental health and tackled social isolation. It was also advantageous to the Scottish and UK states, because the onward issues that would be created by not nurturing mental health and by tackling social isolation would be costs in themselves. However, it is just the right thing to do.
This afternoon, the Green’s motion reasserts the clear policy commitment to deliver free bus travel for asylum seekers, and the Scottish Government amendment will ensure that we work together not only to identify how it will be funded, but to tackle the underlying issue of insufficiency of funds for asylum seekers and, frankly, our local authorities.
I very much hope that the UK Labour Government will step up and ensure that the Home Office provides adequate support in a way that the previous UK Government simply did not. That said, let us work together to secure the funding and delivery of the policy intent. I believe that the political will to do so will be there across Parliament if we work together. That is the challenge for all of us. We have to identify not just the cash, but how to deliver the policy.
In the brief time that I have left, I say that I think that the estimated cost of £2 million is an overestimation. I was looking at the funds. The cabinet secretary is shaking her head, but I will compare some statistics in relation to this. I think that £189.5 million is used for the under-22s travel scheme, to which about 752,000 youngsters have signed up, so for 5,000 asylum seekers, that figure—
On a procedural point, Mr Doris, you will need to bring your remarks to a close, please.
The point is that we come together as a Parliament, and we agree on the matter.
16:36
I, too, welcome Sue Webber to her new role.
We have heard contrasting views in the debate today, but all of us want to see support for people locally who are struggling. In Moray, we had a hotel converted to an asylum hostel where asylum seekers were placed, and they got a lot of support from the local community. The Elgin Sports Community Trust at the Gleaner arena offered free football sessions and provided kit and football boots, and the community came together to support people as much as they could.
However, what we have heard about from members so far today are specific cases of asylum seekers struggling to get to hospital appointments or a doctor’s surgery. Patrick Harvie said that that is a “real-life impact”. Maggie Chapman spoke about Ana. I am also hearing about such things in Moray, not from asylum seekers but from general constituents. There are people living in rural communities in Moray who cannot get to a hospital appointment or a GP surgery because the local transport network has been downgraded because of cuts to local government funding and—centrally—bus routes have been removed. Those bus routes are crucial not just for asylum seekers but for people living throughout our communities. That is why I think that Sue Webber is right to highlight in her amendment that we can improve our local services in order to benefit everyone.
We also have to look at choices. There was concern—I would go close to saying significant concern—from Green members and SNP members who supported the interventions on the comparison that Sue Webber made between the winter fuel payment being withdrawn and free bus travel not being taken forward. People were saying that we cannot conflate the two, but here is why I believe that we can. The Government’s amendment today is asking for more money from Westminster to pay for the proposal, and says that it will do it. The Government’s motion yesterday was asking for more money from Westminster for the winter fuel payment, and said that the Government would then do that.
[Made a request to intervene.]
The link is that the current Scottish Government would like to do all those things if it had more money from Westminster. I will give way if Gillian Mackay is trying to come in.
My question to SNP and Green members, or any member, is this: what is the current budget of the Scottish Government? How much money does the Scottish Government have to spend?
No member has tried to come in on that. It is £60 billion. That is the size of the budget that is set by the Scottish Government. It then comes down to choices. There are choices to be made by this Government about what it will spend that money on. It is a choice of the Scottish Government not to spend money on the proposal, just as it is a choice of the Scottish Government not to help pensioners this winter.
Will Mr Ross acknowledge that the economic choices of his party are partly what has got us in the mess that we are in now?
It is also considerably disingenuous to continue that rhetoric of pitting communities against each other. Does he condemn that line from Sue Webber about pitting those communities against each other? Does he think that it is ethical to pit pensioners against refugees?
Thank you. The intervention was a bit long.
I am sorry if Gillian Mackay did not hear me. I was actually saying the exact opposite of what she is saying.
I support what Sue Webber said, because the Government is proving that that is the case in its amendment. The Government says that it would do all those things if it had more money. It has £60 billion with which to set its budget every year and, as Bob Doris just said, what we are discussing today might be less than £2 million. The winter fuel payment is £150 million to £160 million. Those are choices for the Scottish Government, but its choices impact on our constituents and local communities. That is why I urge members to support the amendment in Sue Webber’s name.
16:41
I begin with the words of the great poet Tom Leonard, who wrote:
“I am a human being
and I exist
a human being
and a citizen of the world
responsible to that world
—and responsible for that world”.
That is what this debate is about—not the fiscal rules or constrained budgetary circumstances. It is not about looking for someone else to blame, cabinet secretary; it is about who we are. It is about us accepting our responsibility to the world—our responsibility for that world. It is about our common humanity. That is what this debate should be about.
That means for me that the new Labour Government cannot just pick up where the old Tory Government left off in its selection of language and in its courses of action, because the facts should trouble all of us. In this country, asylum seekers are banned from working. Many of them live in Scotland’s biggest city, where, over 50 years ago, the workers occupied the shipyards to fight for the right to work. It is that same city that stood in solidarity with asylum seekers as they lived in fear of a lock-change programme, of dawn raids and of forced evictions by Serco. The No Evictions network, the people, the activists and the neighbours who stood firm in Kenmure Street against immigration enforcement—that is who we should be allied to.
This is challenge poverty week, but wearing badges is not enough. Currently, asylum seekers have to prove that they are destitute. Why do we not challenge that? They are excluded from most social security benefits. The magnificent campaigning organisation Positive Action in Housing tells us that
“97% of all beneficiaries live in poverty or deprivation”.
That is 97 per cent. They are expected to survive on less than £50 a week.
This Scottish National Party Government likes to label asylum seekers as “new Scots”, so when I look at the Scottish Government’s new Scots website, it lists the eight cities and the five international airports of Scotland, and it talks at length about travelling around Scotland by bus and by rail but, on £49.18 a week, how are asylum seekers expected to do that? It is offering them an invitation in the certain knowledge that their circumstances prevent them from ever being able to accept it.
The Government has a new Scots integration strategy delivery plan—it was just published in July. The plan has six outcomes. It talks of forced migrants, including people seeking asylum, being able to
“access well-coordinated services”
and being able to
“pursue full and independent lives”,
and, under the heading of “Transport”, it tells us that
“both affordability and availability”
are “critical”.
What is the point of having a delivery plan if you have no intentions of delivering it?
That is why I am proud to support Labour’s amendment in the name of Claire Baker; that is why I am proud of Paul Sweeney’s leadership on this cause in Glasgow; and that is why we are speaking out in support of and will be voting for the Greens’ motion this afternoon. This is about human rights and social justice. It is a question about what kind of society we want to live in. We have the levers in this Parliament and, yes, we do have the resources, so let us use them. Let us make the right political choice. Let us be on the side of humanity.
16:44
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I appreciate what Maggie Chapman outlined in her opening speech and her examples of what people face, including in relation to GP or health appointments.
Scotland is pursuing its ambition to be a good global citizen by hosting vulnerable people who have fled war and persecution in adherence to the United Nations refugee convention and the European convention on human rights.
All levels of government need to work together and provide tangible improvements for refugees and people seeking asylum in the UK. The Scottish Government, unlike the UK Government, has demonstrated that. We need to build consensus. Faced with renewed austerity and brutal Westminster cuts to public services, the Scottish Government is having to make very difficult decisions to deliver a balanced and sustainable spending plan for the 2024-25 financial year.
As a result of being forced to make £500 million of direct cuts, Scottish ministers found that it would be unaffordable to progress piloting free bus travel for asylum seekers in Scotland at this time. That doesnae mean that they do not want to do it; it is just that, at the moment, it is not possible.
The cabinet secretary mentioned that many people seeking asylum in Scotland, including those under 22 and over 60 years of age, as well as those with disabilities, are already eligible.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not think that there is time; I am sorry.
People are therefore already eligible for and in receipt of free bus travel through national concessionary travel schemes. I encourage any person in Scotland who is seeking asylum to ensure that they submit their claim.
In addition, the Scottish Government is supporting people seeking asylum through the new Scots refugee integration strategy. The Scottish Government is working collaboratively with partners, including local government and the Scottish Refugee Council. The new Scots strategy delivery plan outlines specific actions that partners will take, and when they will be undertaken, with the aim of ensuring that new Scots live in safe, welcoming and inclusive communities, are able to access well-co-ordinated services, and understand their rights, responsibilities and entitlements in Scotland.
Guided by the strategy’s principles, communities across Scotland are already providing support to refugees and asylum seekers so that they can rebuild their lives and actively participate in society. That is happening well in Dumfries and Galloway, where the local authority has co-ordinated a refugee support network that comprises local people who have stepped up to offer support, clothing and help to refugees in the area.
As migration and refugee policy is reserved to Westminster, it is important to point out the Westminster Government’s failings when it comes to its legal obligations in relation to refugees. Asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants are being shamefully demonised to mask Westminster’s failings. Causing division between different vulnerable people is absolutely deplorable and should be called out. It is time for the UK Government to step up, get rid of the legacy of the Tories’ hostile environment and hostile immigration policies, and support those who will come to Scotland and contribute to our society.
One practical way that that could happen is by allowing asylum seekers to work and contribute to society, so that they have meaningful activity. The Scottish Government will always do its best with the powers that it has, but they are simply not a substitute for independence and determining our own policy in relation to migration and asylum.
With the powers of independence, Scotland can finally deliver a fairer asylum and migration system that meets our values and needs as a progressive, forward-thinking nation. Having independent, progressive policies in this place is what we need to do for all our vulnerable people.
16:48
I thank the Scottish Greens for using their Opposition time to shine a spotlight on the Scottish Government’s shameful decision to scrap the free bus travel for asylum seekers pilot earlier this year. I and the Labour Party will support the motion in Maggie Chapman’s name.
I pay tribute to Mark Ruskell, a member for Mid Scotland and Fife, and my colleague in Glasgow, Bob Doris, the member for Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn, with whom I have worked constructively on the campaign since it launched in 2021. Mr Doris made a powerful point about the marginal increase in costs that we are talking about. The strapline of the campaign all along has been that such a small change can make a huge difference.
We know that 2.3 million Scots currently benefit from the free concessionary travel schemes in this country, and we currently have around 5,300 people seeking asylum in Scotland. The policy would equate to a 0.2 per cent increase in the number of people in Scotland benefiting from the free concessionary bus travel scheme. It is a rounding error in the Scottish Government’s finances; to be frank, the notion that it is unaffordable is simply for the birds. There was simply a lack of political will, because it was seen as politically expedient to get rid of the proposed scheme. That was an unfortunate moment in the Government’s budgetary process.
I absolutely refute what the member has said. It is clear that the issue is, and has always been, funding. I am sure that my Green colleagues would confirm that there was a question mark around the funding in relation to the original agreement. As soon as we can provide the funds and it can be agreed in our budget, I would want to pursue the policy.
I am glad that the cabinet secretary is minded to pursue the policy, but—as we learned today—the budget was never allocated in the first place. It is simply unacceptable to lead people on like that when they are in the most vulnerable situations.
Since the campaign launched, it has garnered robust support across civil society and the third sector, and cross-party support in this place. I say to the minister that if she is seeking to generate economic growth, which should be a key objective of her portfolio, she should note that it has been independently assessed that concessionary travel schemes, for every pound that is invested in them, generate £3.79 in economic benefits. That should be factored into the calculations that are being made, bearing in mind that the increase in the number of people would be 0.2 per cent, which is a couple of high schools-worth of people added to the under-22 scheme. It is equivalent to a rounding error, or to natural churn, and it could probably be funded through the underspends in the existing programmes.
The merit of the policy is clear. In the region of Glasgow that I represent, the cost of an all-day bus ticket is more than £5. People who are seeking asylum rely on a financial allowance of just £6 a day to cover their cost of living, if they are living in flatted accommodation. For those who are provided with hotel accommodation, that allowance can be as little as £1.15 a day—that is little more than a can of Coke from a vending machine. Having to fork out £5 for bus travel to attend medical, social or essential legal appointments is, therefore, simply not an option for those people, unless they go without food or other essentials.
The concessionary bus travel scheme also allows people to integrate into their new home country, explore their new place of residence and begin to restart their lives. That is why the Scottish Government’s decision to scrap the nationwide pilot is so disappointing. It would be better to be honest with campaigners, but the Government’s dishonesty in this respect has been completely unforgivable. For nearly a year, the SNP was happy to lead on a working group of stakeholder organisations such as the Maryhill Integration Network and the VOICES network, knowing full well that the money was not even allocated to deliver the policy. It is some cheek for the Scottish Government to use its amendment today to try to deflect the blame on to the UK Government for its own financial incompetence and false promises, for what is such a trivial sum of money.
We agree that the people in the asylum system in Scotland are some of the most vulnerable and, as members of this Parliament, we should consider what we can do in this Parliament to help them.
This was a simple measure that would involve a relatively small increase in public expenditure, within devolved competence, to make a big difference. The way in which it was casually scrapped earlier this year was a serious concern to us all. The media coverage concerning the delivery of the pilot, just one month before the minister announced that the scheme was to be scrapped, highlighted that the scheme was being planned and was in the works, yet it was suddenly jettisoned. That caused significant shock and anxiety. Some stakeholders were verbally told the news before the minister announced publicly, at the launch of the new Scots refugee integration strategy, that the pilot would not be going ahead—
You must conclude, Mr Sweeney.
I am keen for the Government come to the table again and revisit the stupid decision that it has made, because that decision will have a massive effect on our communities. I urge the Government to do that without delay.
16:53
I am pleased to speak in the debate. I am sad, though, that it seems to be concentrating purely on buses. That does not surprise me, however, because it was brought to the chamber by a party that is fixated on buses and which has not, to my mind, concentrated enough on trains and ferries.
Let us look at buses and what options they bring. In the Highlands, there are not that many of them, and we therefore rely on other forms of transport to get around. I have reminded members in the chamber in the past that those who want to leave Inverness to get back to Aberdeen in the evening have to leave by 9.30 pm—and goodness help them if they want to go back to Inverness, having been up in Wick for the day. They have to leave at 4 o’clock in the afternoon.
There is complete dis—I cannot think of the right word. There is complete discombobulation between buses and transport, when we should be looking at trains.
I should also say that people in the Highlands and Islands rely distinctly on ferries. We have been waiting for the Glen Sannox since 2018, and just this week we have heard that it is still not able to drop its anchor or use its engines without tripping alarms.
I want to talk about the ferries on small islands, because they are the buses that we should be talking about. That is why they must be considered when we consider this motion.
I am trying to bring Mr Mountain back to the topic that is being debated, which is free bus travel for asylum seekers. He mentioned trains. Is he suggesting that we should extend the national concessionary scheme to asylum seekers on our rail network?
Interestingly, I had a conversation with a constituent on the way down to Edinburgh on Monday. She talked about wanting to be more able to travel around the Highlands. She was a Ukrainian refugee and was struggling to get around. She told me that there were no suitable buses to enable her to get around and she felt particularly isolated, which is why I am bringing up trains and why, for refugees who end up on islands, it is important that we have ferries. It is not just about buses, which is what the member is concentrating on.
I want to go back to talking about the ferries to islands. If people want to go back to Shapinsay from Kirkwall, they have to leave at 4 pm in the evening. That gives them little option to do anything else. Surely that makes people feel marginalised.
If we are concentrating on buses, we must ask how the buses will get around. It will not be on the A9, which was supposed to be dualled by 2025. There is a section of the road that we are still working on, the contract for which should have been awarded in 2021 at a certain price. It has now gone up in price and will be delayed.
It is important that we consider all the aspects of transport, not just buses. We also need to understand the cost pressures, which Sue Webber talked about. I welcome Douglas Ross’s comments about how Moray is welcoming refugees, but it is not just, as he pointed out, asylum seekers who struggle to get buses.
I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport can explain something that I have never been clear about. Concessionary travel on buses is funded partly by Government grant and partly by the bus operators. Who was going to fund the free travel for asylum seekers? Was it to be totally funded by the Government or would it also have been funded by the operators? Had the Government discussed that with them before it made the promise on which it then reneged?
16:57
I want to come back to the motion that is in front of us.
I thank most members for their contributions and the many committed individuals and third sector organisations that work tirelessly to improve the lives of people seeking asylum in Scotland. The support that they provide and the work that they do so that people who have experienced the asylum system can make their voices heard is hugely important.
Although we do all that we can, the responsibility for ensuring that people seeking asylum are provided with adequate financial support lies firmly with the Home Office. It is hard to conceive how people manage to live on as little as £49.18 a week to cover all their food, clothing, toiletries and other needs and as little as £8.86 a week if they are in catered accommodation.
I agree with other speakers that, in that context, access to transport has the potential to provide a marked improvement to quality of life for those seeking asylum who live in Scotland. Free bus travel would enable them to access essential services such as healthcare and legal advice, and it could support them in allowing them to accompany their children to school and to take part in community activities. At this point, I put on record my thanks for the invaluable contribution of asylum seekers in Bathgate, who helped create our new community garden in Boghall in my constituency.
The report on the travel choices project makes it clear that having access to public transport supports the concept of integration from day 1 and not only enables people to do the things that they need to do but offers them opportunities to explore where they live. In the past, the vast majority of people placed in Scotland were settled in and around Glasgow and had access to a support network—including specialist and expert services, which have developed over the years—but in 2022 the Home Office introduced its full dispersal policy.
The cabinet secretary makes an important point about how essential the third sector organisations that support people seeking asylum are to our communities, so will she take the opportunity to apologise on behalf of the Government for the haphazard way in which the policy was announced, given that it caught them completely off guard and caused their clients a lot of anxiety?
In my opening speech, I said that I understand how people responded to the news, and I know that the Minister for Equalities said the same when she spoke to those organisations at the time.
However, we should not underestimate the financial pressures that the Government is under. The Home Office’s full dispersal policy has created an assumption that asylum accommodation can be procured in any local authority area in Scotland, which means that people seeking asylum can be placed in any local authority area, including isolated rural areas.
It is considered that the best way of implementing the policy of free bus travel for asylum seekers—and this is important in relation to the substance of the debate—would be to amend eligibility for the concessionary travel schemes. However, that would require primary legislation, and we would not be able to enact such legislation in what remains of the current parliamentary session. In developing that option, we should learn from the development of the proposed pilot scheme, continue to have close engagement with expert third sector organisations and learn from the free bus travel pilot scheme that recently concluded in Northern Ireland if we are to deliver the best support possible with our available powers and resources.
When there is an agreed way forward in policy and practical terms, careful consideration will need to be given to the Scottish Government’s devolved powers to implement the proposal. That will depend on funding being available and, as I have highlighted, on members and parties in the chamber voting in support of any future budget that contains support for the policy.
The Government remains absolutely committed to exploring how to extend free bus travel to all people seeking asylum before the end of the current parliamentary session, but we all know that, ultimately, we can do only what is possible with the limited tools and resources that are available to us. To comprehensively change how asylum seekers are treated and supported in Scotland, we need a more humane approach from the new UK Government or, best of all, we need the powers of independence in order to make our own decisions and send a clear message to people who have fled violence, war and disaster that they are safe and welcome in Scotland. The Conservatives might want to remove those people from the motion that we are debating. Let the rest of us ensure that they do not do so.
17:02
In closing the debate, I offer an apology to all the people in Scotland who, having fled persecution and war, are languishing in the asylum system, because the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament made a promise to them that they would receive a small but very important freedom—a free bus pass—which, in the words of Kaukab Stewart, would make a “huge difference” to their lives. That apology needs to be made.
I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government appears to be recommitting to the policy, but caveats are already starting to be introduced. The policy is apparently dependent, in part, on the budget, and the Government has said that, if we want to go down the route of a national entitlement card, there will be timescale issues. Frankly, those of us who have been working on the issue and the asylum seeker community more generally have heard those excuses over many years, and we are fed up with them.
We want to see practical progress and a timescale for implementation. We want Transport Scotland to implement the policy, not to continually workshop it, talk about it and push things out to pilot projects. A lot of work needs to be done to restore faith within the asylum seeker community in Scotland that the policy will actually be introduced.
Let us be clear: we are talking about people who are living in state-enforced destitution. As many members have pointed out, they simply cannot work—they are not allowed to work. I am thinking about the 180 people in Perthshire, in my region, who are living in hotels on £8.86 a week. That forces them to make unimaginable choices. If they wanted to get a day pass to get around Perthshire, they would have to spend half their weekly allowance on one day pass to get the bus. If they wanted to get the bus to see their friends and family or even their immigration lawyer in Glasgow, that would cost £13. They would have to spend weeks and weeks saving money just to make that essential trip. Those choices are impossible.
Patrick Harvie has already spoken about GP appointments, and I am seeing evidence of asylum seekers being unable to access out-patient appointments. These are people who have gone through mental and physical trauma. Some of these people have come from war zones. They absolutely need the medical care that they deserve. They are having to make impossible choices. Do they top up their mobile phone with extra credit or do they buy food for their kids? Can they afford to see their immigration lawyer? Those are the real-life choices that are being made.
I will turn to some of the comments that were made by Sue Webber. I am so disappointed in those comments, which I feel were frankly disgraceful and bring this chamber into disrepute. Pitching asylum seekers—
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I have heard enough, frankly.
Pitching asylum seekers against pensioners—we should always call that out in this chamber, and I call it out now. I am grateful for Alex Cole-Hamilton’s very passionate speech, which underlined the values of our nation. Emma Harper made similar comments. These issues should be beyond party politics. As Richard Leonard said, we are the Scotland of Kenmure Street. Those values are embedded in this Parliament. It is beyond party politics.
Bob Doris reminded us that we have had Conservative colleagues in the past, such as Jackson Carlaw, who have taken a humanitarian approach to the question. They left their party politics at the door. They understood this from the perspective of people in the asylum system who are desperate. I commend the work of Paul Sweeney, Bob Doris, Jackson Carlaw and many other members who have championed the needs of people in the asylum system.
Douglas Ross commented on the investment in bus services in Moray. Of course, that is important, but this debate is not about a choice. If he had cared to notice, investment in concessionary travel leads to a reimbursement rate, and many services across rural Scotland have been saved as a result of that. This debate is not about a choice or about pitching rural bus services against asylum seekers; it is about human rights.
Mr Ruskell makes a very powerful point. Many bus companies have said that implementing the scheme would improve the viability of many routes that are currently marginal and make losses.
Absolutely. I look at the bus services in Perthshire and I see community organisations running bus services that would welcome asylum seekers, who would help to improve their viability.
In the time that I have left, I will focus on some of the comments on the budget. The £2 million that was committed is a tiny amount of money in the context of the overall Scottish budget. As Paul Sweeney said, it is effectively a rounding error in the context of the wider budget for concessionary travel, which runs to hundreds of millions of pounds. It is 0.2 per cent of that budget.
The cabinet secretary said that we need to find a way forward in the budget process, but that does not fill me with confidence. There needs to be better financial management. Claire Baker pointed out that there has been a failure in allocating that £2 million to particular budget portfolios. That should not be the case. We have to see commitment following budget and delivery coming on the back of that.
A number of comments have been made about the amazing voluntary organisations that are supporting people who are languishing in the asylum system across Scotland. Patrick Harvie mentioned Refuweegee and Bikes for Refugees. There are many informal groups of people who are supporting asylum seekers across rural and urban Scotland, but the important point was made that that help cannot be an alternative to state support. We absolutely need state support to give asylum seekers that basic right.
In the words of Maggie Chapman, we need to turn warm words of welcome into acts of justice. We need to do that. We need to commit to that policy. People in the asylum system need free bus travel and they need it now.
Previous
Budget Priorities 2025-26Next
Business Motion