Plenary, 20 Sep 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, September 20, 2001

Official Report 731KB pdf

---

Sighthill (Community Issues)

The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S1M-2119, in the name of Paul Martin, on community issues in Sighthill, Glasgow.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament deplores the recent racist attacks in Sighthill that have been carried out by a minority; recognises that the community in Sighthill welcomes asylum seekers and that they require support and resources to ensure successful community relations; welcomes Glasgow City Council's introduction of an emergency action plan which will take a corporate approach to tackling many of the estate management issues that face residents in Sighthill, and considers that the Executive should ensure that Scottish local authorities share examples of best practice and expertise in implementing the dispersal programme, take steps to ensure that local police levels are kept to the maximum level possible, consider what additional resources can be allocated to assist communities with integration and the delivery of local services and develop an action plan that would work towards ensuring that councils and communities are assisted and informed during the dispersal programme.

I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight about the real Sighthill and the issues that face the area. A great deal has been written and said about Sighthill and the people who live there. Let me make it clear to the chamber that the people of Sighthill are decent people. [Applause.] For the record, we welcome asylum seekers to Sighthill and we always will.

The First Minister and the Minister for Social Justice, Jackie Baillie, who has new responsibility for asylum seekers, both visited Sighthill, as did the Minister for Justice and a number of other political leaders. Yesterday, the First Minister visited St Stephen's Primary School, where he displayed his professional football skills to the pupils, and saw for himself the integration that is taking place in that primary school, and in primary schools in other areas that are part of the dispersal programme. The media do not recognise how well our children are integrating. Many of them are learning a number of languages and are putting many of us to shame with their language skills.

The First Minister also had the opportunity to meet the real community of Sighthill. The Sighthill out-of-school care project is looking to develop an extension to improve its child care facilities. It is also looking to develop a drop-in centre for all sectors of the community, including asylum seekers. The friendship group, which has been going for some time under the chairmanship of Charlie Riddell and Fatim Ahmed, enables asylum seekers and the local community to work together to develop support for asylum seekers.

The Springwell tenant management co-operative is managed by volunteers such as Angela Beattie, Margaret Beattie, Bill Greer and John Sweeney. All those people have worked tirelessly, as have the people of St Rollox church, which has almost been turned into a drop-in centre to support asylum seekers. Sighthill is not a community full of bigots or people who are ignorant towards asylum seekers; it is a community of people who welcome asylum seekers and have welcomed people from all parts of the world for more than 20 years under an overseas student programme.

It is time for all of us—political leaders and people from all parts of society—to create a vision with the Sighthill community and take quick and decisive action. We must learn from past mistakes. Far too often, politicians and their leaders are not willing to accept that they have made mistakes and that they must learn from them. I admit that mistakes have been made—by me and by many of us in Sighthill—but we will learn from them. That is an important part of the process.

We must consider a number of measures to ensure that action is taken in Sighthill. I ask the Minister for Social Justice, Jackie Baillie, to consider publishing an action plan that can be adopted by the Scottish Executive, the Westminster Parliament and Glasgow City Council. I ask that a number of matters be considered in producing that action plan. I will not be able to address all the issues, but I will touch on a couple.

First, it is clear that there was a lack of consultation with the community prior to 393 families arriving in Sighthill. We must reflect on that. We should set in place a protocol to ensure that local communities feel part of the process, a point that has been made by the local councillor. We are not asking for the local community to take a yes or no decision. We are asking for steps to be taken so that the local community feels part of the process. Unfortunately, the lesson that we must learn from the Sighthill experience is that the local community did not feel part of the process because it was not consulted on or informed about the programme. I ask the Minister for Social Justice to consider putting in place protocols and bureaucracies, which we are good at putting in place when it suits us.

I touch on the issue of community facilities. A great deal has been said about the lack of community facilities within Sighthill; that point has been made on a number of occasions. However, there is a Sighthill youth centre, a community education centre and three excellent primary schools—St Kevin's Primary School, Sighthill Primary School and St Stephen's Primary School.

The genuine point to be made is that we must assist groups with their aspirations to develop local facilities. The point that was made to the First Minister and the minister with responsibility for asylum seekers is that groups must be assisted during that process.

Far too often the leafy suburbs with tennis clubs and golf clubs are successful in their applications for lottery funding because architects and surveyors assist them with that process. We should be clear that the people of Sighthill contribute to the lottery and they should expect to benefit from it.

I ask the minister to consider ways in which we can assist community groups in making applications for funding—a complicated process involving business and architectural plans and many other issues. I ask for specific funding to be put in place to deal with that.

I touch on the issue of public safety. As a number of asylum seekers and local residents have amplified, everyone wants to feel safe in Sighthill, regardless of their race. I commend Strathclyde police—I give them a difficult time in the Parliament, but I am sure that they will enjoy this statement—for introducing additional resources in the Sighthill area. It is on the record that I have called for additional resources in my constituency because of the public safety issue. I ask for that police presence to be sustained. The Minister for Justice is here and I ask him to make a representation to Strathclyde police that, for the foreseeable future, they will ensure that additional resources are deployed in the Sighthill area. That important issue has been raised a number of times by asylum seekers.

Much criticism has been levelled at Glasgow City Council. However, we must recognise a number of points. First, the dispersal scheme is complex. Secondly, if this was such a lucrative contract for the local council, why have other local authorities not formed an orderly queue outside the Scottish Executive to take part in the dispersal programme? It is important that we recognise that point. Glasgow City Council has taken part in the programme to engage with the programme's ethos, not just because there is a lucrative aspect to the contract. That is an important point to make. Glasgow City Council should be given credit and assistance for the work that it is has done so far, but it should also, as I said, learn from mistakes that have been made. We have assurances that those points will be taken on board.

Presiding Officer, I want as many members as possible to have a say in the debate, so I will conclude. I would like to mention a number of issues, but we do not have time.

I have been impressed by the determination of the Sighthill community. I know that the various ministers and political leaders who have visited the community have been particularly impressed by its determination. In that context, I must mention an incredible young man from Sighthill, Steven McMahon, who was successful in obtaining a scholarship to the Alvin Ailey American Dance Center School in New York. That was achieved despite the difficult circumstances of Steven's mother. The local community and various funding sources rallied round to ensure that Steven was able to take up his scholarship. Following the plane disaster in New York last week, I was delighted to learn from Colin McKay, my friend and journalist colleague—I do not know whether those terms go together—that Steven is safe and well. That was also reported on the ITN news.

I ask everyone concerned to give us time to improve the standard of life in Sighthill, to put the negative past behind us and to promote the real Sighthill. That, with commitment from all agencies and with the necessary resources, will allow us to build a new and healthy future for all.

Paul Martin is correct. A large number of members wish to speak. I ask members, therefore, to keep their speeches within the recognised time limits.

I thank Paul Martin for lodging the motion, which is perhaps overdue, but is welcome.

I know Sighthill well, as I worked there for several years. I also know the people of Sighthill well and I agree with Paul Martin that they are good people who have been given a difficult time in the press. By the people of Sighthill, I mean both the host community and the asylum seekers who live there.

In the past few months, I have made several visits to the area and I spoke to asylum seekers, local people and officials long before the issue hit the headlines. I was concerned about the lack of action and recognition of the situation. I am heartened to hear Paul Martin talk about learning from mistakes, because unless we are honest about the fact that actions were not taken as they should have been, we will not move on. Community consultation is at the heart of the matter, as many of the problems could have been avoided.

It took the tragic death of Firsat Dag to make many in authority sit up and take notice, but we are now turning the corner. I welcome the long-overdue investment in Sighthill and other areas in Glasgow that have refugees and asylum seekers. However, money is not all that is needed. Money itself does not change attitudes or tackle the hostile media that have, unfortunately, fuelled many negative views about asylum seekers, which we must acknowledge are more widely held than we would like them to be.

In the light of the tragic events in the USA last week, it is more important than ever that we send out a clear message that we will not tolerate any bigotry or racism, including that which uses last week's horrific events as an excuse to attack anyone from our ethnic minority communities. I am sorry to say that there have been reports of increased hostility towards our indigenous Scots Muslim community as well as asylum seekers. Investment is welcome, but what we politicians say and the language that we use about asylum seekers is important. If we get the language wrong or say what we should not, we will fuel the ideas of those who want to be less than welcoming towards our guests.

I will conclude now, as I know that many other members want to speak and I do not want to take up too much time. I hope that we have turned a corner. We have the opportunity to restore the reputation that we would like Scotland to have as a welcoming, tolerant country. In the past few months, I have sometimes felt that that reputation has been in question. An opportunity exists to prove that we can be that country. I hope that all members agree that that is the way to proceed.

I congratulate Paul Martin on his motion and the tone in which he made his speech, which contained sentiments to be supported by every member.

As Shona Robison said, the debate takes place against the tragic background of last Tuesday's atrocities in America. As she also said, those events add a new dimension to the matter. The world will be a far more uncertain and hostile place than it was before. To accompany the sharpening of tension, a climate of greater fear, hostility and intolerance than ever before could come, here and abroad. It falls to us in Scotland and Glasgow to do what we can to reduce tensions and fears and ensure that people who come to our shores—of whatever colour or creed—are treated as individuals and not as pawns in some political numbers game.

I will set the matter in context. The dispersal system and its administration have been a discriminatory and bureaucratic shambles in some key respects. Plain humanity and common sense dictate that asylum decisions should be quick, sympathetic and equitable. Often, they are none of those.

The resources that have been put into the immigration department in Croydon seem woefully inadequate. The department's staff rarely write letters and cannot be reached by phone. People who are called for interview are not usually seen in Scotland. The voucher system is bureaucratic, inflexible and demeaning. That is the context that lies behind the debate.

Immigration dispersal policies are, by their nature, short-term and temporary. We need a permanent resettlement policy, one that is based on the fact that many refugees are people with talents who will enhance our country and add to our skills base. These are people who are likely to become permanent residents. A resettlement policy would encourage people to work. It would make them independent and supportive members of society and not, as is the case at present, dependent members of a somewhat different set-up.

There seems to have been little appreciation of the vast range of services that would be affected by the dispersal. That includes the effect on schools, doctors, social workers, housing officers and legal services. As Paul Martin rightly said, lessons are being learned and people are getting to grips with the situation, but it was a bad start.

Despite the reassurances of officials, I am told repeatedly by people at the coalface that there was no real pre-organisation. That was true of the legal services provision. It stands to reason that the arrival of hundreds of additional asylum seekers would create a need for lawyers with expertise in handling applications from asylum seekers. The cost of interpreters would also need to be met.

I understand that many asylum seekers do not use the western calendar. There has therefore been endless confusion about dates, which are so important for people who are processing applications for asylum. Lawyers have had to master complex material about the political situation in different parts of the countries from which the refugees originate. For some families, mastery of that complex material could be a matter of life and death.

My message to the Scottish Executive and the Minister for Justice is that they must ensure that adequate legal services, with lawyers of expertise, are made available. At present, the bureaucracy of the legal system discourages many potential immigration lawyers from getting involved. That problem must be tackled. The UK Government must ensure that major change takes place. It should allow people to be interviewed in their local areas; make funding available for interpreters; and speed up the system. Above all, the UK Government should consider abolishing the discriminatory aspects of the system, such as the voucher system, which causes so much resentment. That adds to tension.

We are living in an age in which we are seeing major movements of population. Over the past 10 years, the United Kingdom has received one fifth of the number of asylum seekers that has gone to Germany. We must keep the issue in perspective. The challenge is to manage the issue in the best way possible. It is unfortunate that Sighthill has taken the heat of the situation. The murder that took place was an aberration and it should be set against a background of improving community relations.

I support the motion and I congratulate Paul Martin on lodging it.

I also want to congratulate Paul Martin on lodging the motion and for the way in which he has conducted himself during a time that must have been extremely difficult for his constituency.

Paul Martin has recognised, as we all must, that the issue is one that requires to be dealt with sensitively and with common sense. We politicians are great adherents of the blame culture. As the UK Government's asylum policy is a shambles, I see no point in blaming individuals. Given hindsight, we can all have 20:20 vision, but we must start to move forward.

I was intrigued by some of the ideas that were proposed by Paul Martin, such as the suggestion that lottery funding should be used to assist people in Sighthill and similar areas. Lottery funding can do a tremendous amount for disadvantaged areas. It is true that people in areas such as Sighthill are disadvantaged in the formulation that is used to make applications for lottery funding when compared to people in other areas of Glasgow.

We cannot lose sight of the fact that where there is evil there is also a great deal of good. I am not at all confident that decisions that were taken by Glasgow City Council were for the best, although the council's approach to the matter has been, in some respects, entirely sensible. I am satisfied that the council meant well and I will not criticise it.

As Paul Martin stated, it is clear that in future, prior to the placing of a large number of asylum seekers in an area, we must involve the community. If problems can be sorted out at the start, the difficulties that arise will be less.

I reject absolutely the suggestion that Glasgow people are racist. There has been some unfortunate publicity in that respect. Some of them may be racist, but the vast majority of Glasgow people have, over the generations, done everything possible to welcome refugees to their midst. Refugees from all parts of Europe and beyond have come here. We have a large and thriving Asian community in Glasgow, which exists to the benefit of us all. I reject absolutely any suggestion that there is a racist element of any significance in Glasgow. I agree with Robert Brown that the tragic murder of Firsat Dag was an aberration. That unfortunate man happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I call upon all concerned to proceed with sensitivity and determination. Sensitivity is necessary to recognise the difficulties—difficulties that, unfortunately, have been created, in many respects, completely outwith the control of the people of Sighthill. At the same time, there must be determination to overcome those difficulties. I am confident in the assertion that the common sense of the Glasgow people generally, and the people of Sighthill in particular, will contribute to a substantial resolution of those problems.

I will do no more than echo Bill Aitken's comments on Paul Martin and what he has done in recent weeks. The debate is important in the light of recent events in Glasgow. I do not know whether I am the only person in the chamber this afternoon to have seen the film "Gas Attack". It was meant to be fiction, although it carried a health warning. By the time it was released there had, tragically, been a murder in Glasgow. It was all too close to events. I found the film moving and worrying.

For obvious reasons, much of the attention in Glasgow in relation to the dispersal of asylum seekers has been on Sighthill. However, there are other parts of the city that have taken asylum seekers over the past year or so, albeit in considerably smaller groups. I refer not only to Castlemilk but to Kennishead, both of which are in my constituency. The key here may be smaller units, such as those that exist in Battlefield and Cathcart. There is one example of a house with several units in it. It is important to consider different types of housing when dispersal is taking place and not simply to fill voids in difficult-to-let areas. That may offer a way forward.

A number of speakers have referred to the importance of preparing local communities for the arrival of asylum seekers. There was a welcome group in Castlemilk, which was warned not only about who was coming but about the area that they were likely to come from. The difficulty is that since the national asylum support service was set up, all the support for asylum seekers has been taken away from local authorities and centred in Croydon. As often as not, I have found that the agencies in Glasgow—Glasgow City Council and voluntary agencies such as Glasgow the Caring City—have been unable to find out where people are from or when they are arriving so that they can, if at all possible, allocate groups together that at least have languages in common, if not entire cultural backgrounds.

It has been frustrating not to have such information. Croydon has been asked for it but has been unwilling to supply it. Someone sits in an office in Croydon and decides where someone should go in a part of Glasgow that they have never visited and do not have a feeling for. That has to change. The Glasgow City Council support unit is doing a first-class job. The work that Brian O'Hara—whom I met recently—and his colleagues are doing in difficult circumstances and with stretched funds is as much as could be expected of them. That preparatory work for communities is very important.

I would like to say a bit about allocation. I have come into contact with some asylum seeker families. Unnecessary problems are caused by not linking people from a similar cultural or linguistic background and even families have been split. I have had two cases where one part of a family has been in the north of the city and the other in the south of the city. I could not get them together. I had slightly more success with a family that was split between Glasgow and Peterborough. Such ludicrous situations should not be allowed to arise. We are building up unnecessary difficulties.

It is appropriate to talk about the work of Strathclyde police. I have found their reaction to be very positive. They have appointed liaison officers and committed more resources. On any occasion when I have raised issues with them, I have found them to be sensitive to what was involved.

I pay tribute to local people and particularly to the Reverend Baxendale and his supporters at the Baptist church drop-in centre in Castlemilk, who provide a very worthwhile facility. Malcolm Chisholm visited the centre recently and I am sure that he would agree with me about that.

The Scottish Executive's review of devolved issues as they affect asylum seekers has to concentrate on the short-term and long-term housing needs of asylum seekers. When leave to remain is gained, asylum seekers have only 14 days in which to find alternative accommodation. That is often impossible and that problem must be examined. We have to examine the sustainability of the assistance that we provide to asylum seekers once they move beyond that status.

I welcome the debate and put on record the fact that the SNP very much welcomes the extra money that was announced yesterday. Many members have said that there are lessons to be learned and I hope that we will learn a lesson from Glasgow. When we have dispersal programmes to different local authorities across the country, I hope that we will take on board everything that has been said today and has been said many times over the piece. Preparation and knowledge of what is happening is the key.

I also welcome the appointment of Jackie Baillie—and presumably of Margaret Curran as her deputy—to spearhead the approach to refugees and asylum seekers in Scotland. It is important that we have someone heading up that work.

However, I sound a slight note of less than optimism. There is so much that can be done in Scotland and so much that can be done to help Sighthill. Much can be done to help people once they come here, but I feel that the systems that we have in the UK, over which Scotland has no control, are creating problems too. I hope that part of the ministers' remit will be to ensure that there is proper co-operation between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government on the strategic issues surrounding asylum seekers and refugees to make practices a bit better.

Robert Brown mentioned problems with NASS. Many MSPs, as well as local volunteers who work directly with refugees and asylum seekers, have tried hard to get some sense out of the prevailing systems, but we have found it very difficult. Small things can cause problems. For example, a bus load of asylum seekers may arrive, but the welcoming people may have lists with different names on them. I heard of a couple in Sighthill who had to go to Liverpool for an interview, but were not sent their tickets and had to borrow the money to get there, in terror that they would miss the interview. They have still not had their money refunded; when people are living on vouchers, that is a ridiculous situation.

I have also heard of people who go down to England for an interview and take their children with them, but who have no money to buy food. In some cases, they may not have eaten for 24 hours by the time they have got down there and back again. That is difficult for anyone to cope with, but when English is not their first language and they are jaunting about a country that is completely alien to them, it is even more difficult. I hope that Jackie Baillie and Margaret Curran will be able to take such examples on board. Even if they cannot insist that NASS opens an office up here so that people can go for local interviews, they should at least try to do something to streamline the procedures. I have no doubt that they will try to do that.

Dungavel detention centre is in the area where I live. I have visited the centre and I have no doubt that the people who work there, 95 per cent of whom are local, want to do the very best they can for the people who are detained there. However, there are restrictions. I have found that, even for a local MSP, it is very difficult to get information about what is happening there. I do not know whether detention will be part of the ministers' remit, but I hope that they will monitor detention closely. We should be monitoring detention in Scotland, asking for information in Scotland and insisting on getting that information in Scotland. It is only then that we can make bland statements such as "Scotland welcomes asylum seekers," or "Scotland's not racist and welcomes refugees." We have to grasp the opportunity to insist that we are a welcoming society. I ask the minister to acknowledge that in her winding-up speech.

I, too, thank Paul Martin for securing this much-needed debate. A meeting took place in the chamber last Friday, on the 25th anniversary of the passing of the Race Relations Act 1976. It is my duty to inform members that a number of the delegates at that meeting, representing civic Scotland and anti-racist groups throughout Scotland, would not agree with some of the descriptions that we have heard today of the murder of Firsat Dag as an aberration. I remind all members that racism and the number of racist attacks are increasing significantly. That does not mean that Scotland is racist and it certainly does not mean that Glasgow is racist, but racism exists and, unfortunately, the evidence shows that the number of racist attacks has increased. Therefore, the Parliament cannot be anything but extra-vigilant in its actions and attempts to face up to that fact.

I am glad that Paul Martin referred to the local churches and voluntary groups. In that context, I mention the Fountainwell tenants association and people such as Norrie Gower and Charlie Riddell, who, sometimes against great odds, have faced people down and explained the need to have basic humanity at the front of our hearts. It should be remembered that 1,103 of the 3,391 asylum seekers in Glasgow are children. Given those statistics, it is time that we, as a Parliament and as a people, opened our hearts and offered a hand of solidarity instead of a fist of fury.

I have voiced some legitimate criticisms as an MSP and as a former councillor on Glasgow City Council and will voice more in the future. However, I ask the minister to acknowledge the fact that Glasgow City Council has stood alone in welcoming refugees. Other authorities are now beginning to talk about accepting part of the dispersal, but that is too little too late. It is time for the rest of Scotland to come to the aid of the asylum seekers.

I hope that the minister will be prepared to make representations about health spending in the areas that need attention. Asylum seekers need extra health spending—for interpretation services, if for nothing else. There are now 22 different languages spoken in the Sighthill area, which is putting huge pressure on the interpreting services, yet there is no recognition of that fact or of the need for extra health spending in Westminster budgets. If no help is going to be received from Westminster for such things, we need extra help from the Scottish Executive.

A similar problem exists in policing. Some members have mentioned the fact that the police have committed extra resources—that is marvellous. However, the problem is that the police's budget does not receive any more money in recognition of the presence of asylum seekers: it is from their existing budgets that they have to increase spending on the service. That fact deserves special recognition, so that the police budget can be increased appropriately.

Several members have mentioned the response of the media. We have no control over the media, but I say to members that anybody who thought that we had a responsible media will no longer believe that, following the events of the past few months. Reports in papers such as The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Record have been telling us about the £300 a week that the asylum seekers have been queueing up to get. Such nonsense and lies fuel the flames of hatred and intolerance and we should condemn those reports absolutely. Similarly, the treatment by the media—particularly the Daily Record—of the murder of Firsat Dag was a disgrace to journalism. Those responsible should be ashamed of the way in which they presented that coverage.

I know that these issues are reserved to Westminster, but we are talking about treating people with compassion and basic humanity. Why are we detaining families who have committed no crime? We should not accept detention centres for asylum seekers. They have committed no crime and do not deserve to be detained. I ask the minister to make representations on Dungavel and on the vouchers, which are racist to the core.

Asylum seekers are given not the minimum level of income that is needed to survive but 70 per cent of that level and—to add insult to injury—only £10 of that is given in cash. To treat people like that is a disgrace and it needs to be challenged. If we are to build a tolerant Scotland, I hope that the minister will make representations to Westminster saying so.

Would it be possible to move for an extension of business by 10 minutes to allow the remaining members to speak?

Yes.

Motion moved,

That the meeting be extended by 10 minutes.—[Paul Martin.]

Motion agreed to.

I welcome the signature role played by the constituency MSP for Sighthill, Paul Martin, and I note his measured speech. Paul Martin and his father, the Speaker of the House of Commons, are to be commended on their hard work on this issue in Sighthill.

When devolution dawned, there was a lot of rhetoric about what the new Scotland would produce. A lot of that rhetoric proved to be overblown. Change is brought about in places by leadership and people's actions. I am therefore delighted that it is a Labour MSP who secured this debate.

It is important to stress, as Paul Martin did, the genuine welcome for asylum seekers that there has been in communities across the north of Glasgow—and, for present purposes, we can count Strathkelvin and Bearsden as being in the north of Glasgow. That welcome is also extended in the south of Glasgow and elsewhere in the country. Now, more than ever, we need to send the message that diversity is a positive force in Scotland and that Scotland draws strength from the diverse communities that have come here over the years. It is perhaps particularly apt that some of the most prominent voices in sending that message belong to people whose ancestors, only 70 years ago, were referred to in this room as "an alien race". I am particularly proud that Paul Martin should issue that message of welcome. His solid work in sending that message has met wide support across the north of Glasgow and elsewhere.

Parts of what Linda Fabiani and Tommy Sheridan said were almost a counsel of despair. A great many of the everyday problems that asylum seekers and their families experience can be addressed by local authorities, the Scottish Executive and local communities. I suspect that that point lies at the heart of Paul Martin's motion.

Paul Martin has support from the Labour benches—and, I trust, from other parties in the chamber—in his campaign for additional resources to assist—

I feel compelled to ask Mr Fitzpatrick to acknowledge that this is not a debate for party-political point scoring. I hope that he acknowledges that all members, from all parties, should come together to do the best that we can for asylum seekers in Scotland.

I am happy to acknowledge that—hence my reference to the other parties in the chamber. However, I am also happy to recognise the particular contribution that has been made by the member for Sighthill, who happens to be a member of my party. I make no apologies for that.

I ask the minister to take into account Robert Brown's cogent points on the better delivery of legal services. There are problems both with identifying solicitors with the right expertise and with making them available to those who have the need for legal services.

I invite the minister to deal sensitively with the pressing, compelling and—I imagine—continuing points that Paul Martin and others will make on resources and I invite her to commend Paul Martin for securing this debate.

I congratulate Paul Martin on securing the debate and on his speech. I associate myself with the points that Robert Brown and other members made about the defects of the United Kingdom asylum policy, which has been badly run by successive Governments. I hope that the minister and those of us in more humble stations will put pressure on our respective parties in Westminster to sort that out. What we can do in the Parliament is important but limited.

Some weeks before the recent disaster and murder, I visited the YMCA, which has a block just outside Sighthill that is entirely full of asylum seekers. I found that the YMCA was doing a good job, although there were defects in the system. The YMCA pointed out the lack of joined-up government from which we still suffer. Anniesland College wished to run an English language course for asylum seekers but seemed unable to get funding to run the course because of some technicality. I have drawn that to the attention of ministers, who I hope will be able to sort it out.

The Parliament and Executive can take a lead in encouraging our fellow citizens not to take foolish, mob action against incoming communities. I have lodged a motion on that subject. A good many members have signed it and I hope that more will. The Parliament should make it clear that, over the years—going back to Flemings in the middle ages, the Irish in the 19th century, Jews, Italians and a lot of other people before we come on to the Muslims, Indians and others—the incoming communities have made a huge contribution to life in Scotland. The Parliament should also make it clear that incoming communities are valued and that we totally oppose any of our fellow citizens blaming them for the actions of a few lunatics far away.

The Executive could take action on that. For example, it could get the police to record, in a way in which they do not at present, crimes related to religious hatred, sectarianism and racial hatred. If the police were to get better figures on such crimes, that would make them pay more attention to those crimes.

The Executive could also have discussions with community groups and the police on, for example, Muslim women, who are very identifiable and therefore open to pressure. I know of a group in Edinburgh that is now allowed to meet only in the mosque and nowhere else.

Things could be done in the meantime. I hope that, in due course, Parliament will have a chance to consider a bill that I am proposing on sectarian and religious hatred. That will be some months away because of our slow system.

We must give better help to all communities before they create trouble. It is a defect in government—it is not party-political issue—that, when people get riotous, they get goodies. We should give the necessary support to our poorer communities. That would help the residents and they would not then feel aggrieved because of what they perceive as incomers getting an extra-special deal.

That will cost money. There is no way round that. We must put more into supporting the community facilities and voluntary activities that are the foundation of a good society in our rural and urban communities throughout the country.

Some weeks ago, I had the good fortune to hear Mr Martin on the radio in the early morning. The words that he used then and what he said tonight carry considerable weight.

One of the most poignant experiences that I have had in my life was visiting the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. One of the terrible difficulties that many of those concerned faced was that they could not get out in the face of persecution, harassment and eventual death. That is why I have always believed that refugees—whatever their race, nationality or religion—should be treated well, effectively and in good time. Tragedies such as the Holocaust should not be allowed to arise.

Those who have compassion, humanity and respect for human dignity would strongly support that. Those who merely wish to improve their standard of living are not in the same category as those who are genuine refugees fleeing from persecution. The First Minister was right to set the tone of Scotland's welcome to those who are genuine refugees when he said that we want to ensure that people who have been through a trauma in their own country are welcomed.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will, but I have a number of points to make.

If a family is fleeing famine in its country, it is obviously trying to improve its standard of living. Are those people genuine refugees?

Obviously, if someone is facing great adversity in circumstances that make it impossible for them to live in their own country, that would be taken into account, as a matter of humanity. One would have to come to the most appropriate decision in those circumstances. However, if someone merely wishes to improve their standard of living when they have a lower standard of living but their way of life is not under threat, that is a different matter. I am sure that Tommy Sheridan appreciates that.

From what I have said, it follows that some applications are taking far too long to determine. I understand that an application can take up to two years to process. That is wholly unsatisfactory. Similarly, the voucher system is not only expensive to administer, but somewhat chaotic—it, too, needs attention. I ask the minister to make appropriate representations to Government ministers in Whitehall—she may already have done so.

Most important, if Whitehall wishes Scotland to take many more asylum seekers, the UK Government should reimburse the full cost. It is not doing that in respect of education needs and social work. I hope that the minister will fight Scotland's corner and ensure that our concern is registered strongly with the UK Government. The minister has made it clear that she is finding a way forward with the provision of funds and assistance for language teaching. That is an important contribution and we look forward to her words tonight.

Both Margaret Curran and I are proud to have been given responsibility for co-ordinating the Executive's interests in asylum seekers and refugees. We are grateful for the early opportunity to speak on the matter and we are particularly pleased that the occasion is a debate instigated by Paul Martin, who has worked tirelessly in the interests of Sighthill and today has powerfully articulated the key issues.

I was pleased to have had the opportunity to visit Sighthill yesterday. During our visit, the First Minister and I met all sorts of people from across the community: community representatives, shopkeepers, the local dentist, asylum seekers, schoolchildren and many others. We also met people who are working to support the community and the asylum seekers and to assist the process of integration: representatives from Glasgow City Council, from the police, from the churches and from community and voluntary organisations.

It was important for me to hear at first hand the experiences of all those people over the past few months. What I saw in practice bears out what Paul Martin said. I saw a community working hard to address and overcome some of the real and difficult challenges that it faces. I use the term "community" deliberately, to include established residents and the more recent arrivals.

The First Minister and I visited St Stephen's Primary School—where it is true the First Minister tried out some of his footballing skills—talked to the tenant management co-operative and called in at the youth drop-in centre. We were enormously impressed by the efforts that were being made to help all those living in the area to integrate the new arrivals and to make them welcome.

From our visit, it was clear that a significant amount of good work is going on, on all sides. Solid progress is being made and there is already good practice of the kind that will be of enormous value as Scotland continues to welcome refugees and asylum seekers. We must value and build on that good work and not allow those responsible for it to become discouraged by being told continually—by those who know no better, frankly—that Sighthill is a problem.

None of that means that we are complacent. The difficulties that are being encountered in Sighthill in particular, but also in other communities across Glasgow, are complex and multifaceted. There are problems in addressing the challenges that asylum seekers and refugees face in trying to establish a new life in a new country, including the problems of tackling racism wherever it appears. I agree with Shona Robison's comments, particularly against the background of the tragic events in the United States last week. There are problems of language and culture and of all aspects of integration. There are also equally important issues about the communities themselves and about how they cope with the influx of new people, who are often from very different cultural backgrounds.

It is important to acknowledge all the work that has already been done. I pay particular tribute to the police, who have been incredible in their efforts in Sighthill, to the army of volunteers and community activists, who are working there every day, and to the asylum seekers themselves. However, the communities and those who are helping them are telling us that more can be done and that, in some cases, what we are doing could be co-ordinated more effectively. My colleagues and I have to listen carefully to those messages. Where there are areas in which we can deliver improvements or enable others to do so, we will act.

For my part, following the visit that the First Minister and I made yesterday, I intend to hold discussions with a number of the key players, including the Scottish Asylum Seekers Consortium and the Scottish Refugee Council. The purpose of that is to identify areas where the Executive can add value to what is already going on, where we can remove obstacles and where we can helpfully co-ordinate activity. We must also identify what role we might play in spreading good practice. I will consider the points made by Robert Brown, Tommy Sheridan and Brian Fitzpatrick about legal services, health services and translation and interpreting services. On a general note, I am happy to consider any evidence of problems that have arisen and of improvements that people think are required.

Within the Executive, we have put in place a dedicated unit of officials to take forward work on asylum and refugee issues. That unit will be working not just with local authorities, health boards, the police, voluntary organisations and others, but with the communities themselves, to ensure that everyone is pulling in the same direction. I stress that any action that we take will be developed in partnership with the communities, the asylum seekers and refugees and local people. As others working in this area have recognised, we will get nowhere if we impose solutions on communities. There has to be a true sense of community ownership of the agenda.

We are taking direct action. I will shortly be establishing the Scottish refugee integration forum, which I will chair. The forum will bring together many of the key players to ensure that we plan effectively for refugees, as equal citizens in our society.

As the First Minister announced yesterday, we are allocating £700,000 to the Glasgow Alliance to help communities in Glasgow to face the new challenges arising from the location of asylum seekers and refugees. Critically, a whole-community approach is being adopted. The alliance will be responsible for deciding where and how that money is spent, although there are clearly identified requirements, including extra child care services, community integration work, advice and support services, which are to be provided on an open-door basis, and, of course, the key area of language, specifically the provision of translation and interpreting services.

Today, we announced in the answer to a parliamentary question that the Scottish Executive is committed to working with the further education colleges to ensure adequate support to those who require assistance. That includes asylum seekers and those in other categories who are also new to Scotland. I am pleased to announce that the Executive intends to provide £1.7 million of new funding in the current financial year and in future financial years to support a package of measures to strengthen the ability of the colleges to undertake a range of work, including language work. That sum comprises half a million pounds to boost college provision specifically for asylum seekers and a further £1.2 million for other groups.

That sum will be channelled through the Scottish Further Education Funding Council. The package of measures will include the waiving of the residence and settlement criteria that until now have governed the ability of a college to claim funding and to reclaim the cost of waived fees. I note that representatives of Stevenson College, who will welcome that announcement, are present in the public gallery. Funding is being made available to allow colleges to provide books and support with travel. A new discretion relating to asylum seekers will allow colleges to approve continued studies beyond the level of basic courses.

Paul Martin referred to the need to adopt best practice and to develop an action plan. I am happy to give that commitment. We have a programme of support on the ground, through social inclusion partnerships, but I am willing to consider what more we can do to help communities to help themselves.

We have a reputation as a fair, caring and tolerant nation. The vast majority of Scots are proud of that reputation and want to maintain it. I see the qualities of fairness and tolerance in abundance in areas such as Sighthill, Castlemilk, Pollok and Toryglen. That makes me confident that we will achieve the full integration into our society of asylum seekers and refugees—often people who have suffered greatly in their own countries—so that they can live their lives safely and to the full as valued and equal citizens.

Meeting closed at 18:06.