Refugees

– in the Scottish Parliament at on 15 September 2015.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick None

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-14245, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on responding to the global refugee crisis. I remind all members that we are extremely tight for time all afternoon.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

Does the minister agree with me in rejecting the suggestion that we should be deterring people from coming here? There can be no greater deterrent than the hundreds of thousands of people who have died in the Mediterranean Sea as a result of making that dangerous crossing. It is nonsense to talk about creating a deterrent in this country.

Photo of Kezia Dugdale Kezia Dugdale Labour

I visited the Scottish Refugee Council on Friday and met a number of refugee women in Glasgow. Their big request of the Government is for early support for language development, particularly English-speaking skills. Can the minister share with the Parliament information on any specific support that the Scottish Government could offer in that regard?

Photo of Humza Yousaf Humza Yousaf Scottish National Party

I think that I know the group of women that the member met, because yesterday I also met them. We will absolutely look to see how we can support English as a second language and teaching English immediately. In fact, as part of the vulnerable person relocation scheme, some funding is secured specifically for teaching English. English is a route into employment and education, and therefore the task force will examine that.

Scotland has well-established structures in place for integrating those who come here to seek asylum. In particular, Glasgow City Council has enormous expertise through its role in asylum dispersal over the years and its participation in the Syrian VPR scheme. Other local authorities have experience of a number of other refugee resettlement schemes. Scotland has a dedicated refugee integration strategy—“New Scots: Integrating Refugees in Scotland’s Communities”—which is now nearly two years old.

It is important that we do not kid ourselves. All members here have knocked on enough doors in their lifetimes to know that there still exist plenty of negative attitudes towards refugees and those seeking asylum. We will have to work hand in glove with local communities, and we will have to do work on getting integration, which is of course a two-way process, right from the very start.

With our focus on Scotland and refugee resettlement here, we must not forget or lose sight of the millions of refugees who remain in camps around the world.

Photo of Hugh Henry Hugh Henry Labour

Before the minister moves on to those who are located elsewhere, perhaps he could answer the question that I have today written to the First Minister to ask. Will Scots who wish to open their homes to refugees who come to this country require disclosure checks and, if so, will the resources be made available to Disclosure Scotland to ensure that there are no delays in the process?

Photo of John Lamont John Lamont Conservative

The whole country has been deeply moved by the on-going humanitarian crisis in Syria and north Africa. The heartbreaking coverage of desperate families and children trying to cross the Mediterranean to Europe demonstrates the plight of thousands fleeing their homes because of violence.

It is very difficult for us here truly to understand what those people are going through and what it is really like for people to have to flee their homes for fear of their lives and the lives of their families, or to witness their country being torn apart by brutal civil war.

Although emotions are, understandably, running high and we are all distressed by what is happening, we must use our heads as well as our hearts when deciding on the best and most effective response to this increasingly complex crisis.

Britain has a long and proud record of assisting those who are in need and it is a record that must continue. Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has been the second-largest Government provider of humanitarian assistance. Britain is the only major country in the world that has kept the promise to spend 0.7 per cent of its gross domestic product on aid. It is simply wrong to say that the UK has stood by and done nothing to help Syria in recent years.

Over the past few months, the crew on HMS Bulwark have been working hard in the Mediterranean and have transported 6,700 people to safety. Britain is the second-largest bilateral donor of aid during the Syrian conflict. A further £100 million that was recently announced takes the total contribution to more than £1 billion, which is the UK’s largest-ever response to a humanitarian crisis. Let us look at what that money represents. It is being used to provide more than 18 million food rations, to give 1.6 million people access to clean water and to provide education for a quarter of a million children. More than half of that new funding will support children, with particular priority for those who have been orphaned or separated from their families.

No other European country has matched that level of support. Without the UK’s aid to refugee camps, the number of refugees attempting the dangerous journey to Europe would undoubtedly be much higher. On the specific point about taking in refugees, the UK is also acting. Sanctuary has already been provided to more than 5,000 Syrians in Britain and a specific resettlement scheme has been introduced, alongside those that are already in place, to help the Syrian refugees who are particularly at risk.

The Prime Minister has announced that a further 20,000 refugees will be given safety in the UK and that a new Government minister will be responsible for co-ordinating the delivery of that policy.

We have seen the Scottish Government, councils, boarding schools, churches and individuals come forward to express their willingness to help. That reflects the wider generosity and care that has been shown by families and communities across Scotland and the United Kingdom.

In my area, in the Scottish Borders, I am proud that residents are doing what they can to help. They include April Humble from Lilliesleaf, who is travelling to the island of Kos to help, in person, refugees who are arriving there.

I am fully aware there has been disagreement between my party and others about the correct approach to this difficult crisis.

Photo of Humza Yousaf Humza Yousaf Scottish National Party

I agree with much of what John Lamont has said. He mentioned a constituent who is travelling to the island of Kos. I have been moved by the number of people who are travelling to Kos, Lesbos and other places. Does he agree that that demonstrates that there is a crisis in Europe? Will he urge his colleagues in the UK Government at least to explore getting involved in resettlement of refugees from Europe, just as his constituent is helping out people on the southern European coast?

Photo of John Lamont John Lamont Conservative

It is correct that the UK is taking in more refugees, but that is only part of the solution to an increasingly difficult and desperate humanitarian crisis.

Photo of Elaine Smith Elaine Smith Labour

The member is not giving way.

Photo of John Lamont John Lamont Conservative

More than 11 million people have been driven from their homes, fleeing the terror of Assad and Islamic State. According to the United Nations, by the end of last year, more than 60 million people had been forcibly driven from their own homes. Given that number of people, this is not a problem that Scotland and the United Kingdom can hope to solve themselves, for Syria or beyond. This is about meeting humanitarian responsibilities and doing all that we can to help those who are most in need.

That is why it is absolutely right that we should be prioritising the people who are in camps just outside Syria. Those who have already made the dangerous journey to the EU are, arguably, in a relatively safe place already, compared to the higher number of people who are left in refugee camps and who are displaced internally within Syria. By providing safety to those who are in Turkey, Jordan and the rest of that region—and crucially, by providing safe passage from there to the United Kingdom—we will stop more refugees getting on dangerous boats.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

The member is just closing.

Photo of John Lamont John Lamont Conservative

That approach balances the need to give sanctuary to a greater number of people while at the same time trying to dissuade vulnerable families from undertaking that dangerous journey across open seas.

I accept that the UK Government should look closely at the number of people that it is taking in to this country, but we must face the fact that simply taking in more people is not the solution to the crisis.

In Syria, we need a comprehensive solution that deals with the people who are most responsible for the terrible scenes that we see: President Assad, the butchers of Islamic State and the criminal gangs that are running the terrible trade in people.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

You must close, Mr Lamont.

Photo of John Lamont John Lamont Conservative

We need a solution that helps to stabilise countries from where refugees are coming. That should be a priority for Europe and America in the coming months.

I move amendment S4M-14245.1, to insert after “EU”:

“; welcomes the appointment of a UK Government minister to coordinate the delivery of this commitment; notes that the UK’s response has been further boosted by an extra £100 million in aid, taking the total contribution to the Syrian refugee crisis to over £1 billion, which is the UK’s largest response to a humanitarian crisis; notes that, while taking in a sustainable level of refugees is important, tackling the root causes of this crisis must be a priority for world leaders”.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I turn to the open debate. I am afraid that we are very short of time, so I ask for speeches of a maximum of six minutes, which might have to change later in the debate.

Photo of Sandra White Sandra White Scottish National Party

There are many times in the chamber when we wish that we did not have to debate something. This is certainly one of those times, when we see the images that we have seen and meet the people who are trying to survive in this horrific crisis.

I thank the minister and the task force for answering the pleas of many constituents—everyone’s constituents throughout Scotland, not just in my area—by putting forward a co-ordinated approach to the crisis. The launch of the website provides a direct contact for everyone, which is absolutely fantastic as the groups have been asking for it. When people make contact through the website, will they be directed to loading bays—collection points—where they can unload the things that they have gathered in? Will they get help with transport to take goods to those sites?

As human beings, we have a moral duty to help those fleeing the global refugee crisis. Sixty million people are displaced from their homes—half of whom are women and girls, believe it or not—and 30 per cent of the world’s refugees are residing in Pakistan, Lebanon and Turkey, and yet, as we have heard before, the UK Government has said that it will take 20,000 refugees from Syrian camps by 2020, which is in five years. As others have said, that is just not good enough.

We should not be taking only those who are in the camps but the terrified people who have risked their lives, their children’s lives and their family’s lives fleeing violence and persecution. Why would people try to do that if they were not absolutely terrified for their life? Why are they any less to be saved than the people who are already in the camps?

As the minister has already said to his UK counterparts, they have to rethink their plan. They have to take people who are lying in terrible suffering. We should look at what is happening in Hungary, too—imagine it was any of us or our relatives. As McIlvanney once said, we are a land of mongrels. We in Scotland all have immigration in our past and we have a moral duty to ensure that we take as many people as possible out of the terrible situation that they are in at the moment.

I agree absolutely with the last sentence in the Conservative amendment, which says:

“while taking in a sustainable level of refugees is important, tackling the root causes of this crisis must be a priority for world leaders”.

Of course it must be, but I remind the chamber and people outside it that the west has a moral obligation to the refugees. Many years ago, some of the dictators that John Lamont mentioned were friends of the west. We must look at what is happening in the middle east. Governments in the west have a responsibility to help people there. Yes, absolutely, we must get to the root causes, but we should look at the root causes as human beings, as well as elected politicians.

That will take a long time, but the refugees do not have time. We must help them as best we can. Everyone has a different idea about what the root causes are—I know what mine is; it might be different from others’. When we get to the bottom of the root causes, we need to ensure that conflicts in the middle east—which is basically where the problems are all happening—are resolved to the benefit of the people, not some Government and certainly not the arms trade, which I feel very strongly about.

I turn to the Labour amendment, which mentions the University of Glasgow. I was there at the freshers fair today, where such a lot of good work is going on. I met people from Mary’s Meals and many others who are helping with the refugee crisis. I must mention a couple of other people in my constituency. Margaret Woods from the Glasgow campaign to welcome refugees leaves for Lesbos on Thursday. Travelling with Margaret is Pinar Asku, who was a refugee at Dungavel—look at what she is doing now. Amal Azzudin, who is one of the Glasgow girls and a graduate of Glasgow university, is also going. They are going to help.

I should also mention Glasgow university’s support for Syrian refugees, which, I understand, was kick-started by Fiona Hyslop a number of years ago. Allison Phipps has done loads of work with GRAMNet—the Glasgow Refugee, Asylum and Migration Network—to put forward the case for refugees. Finally, I should mention all the ordinary groups and people throughout Scotland who are helping as much as they can: from people who were in George Square in Glasgow, people who are collecting and people who are opening up their houses to refugees. Hugh Henry asked a good question on that issue—people have asked me about what will have to be done.

This is great debate. We must remember that refugees are human beings and we are human beings. We have a moral obligation to ensure that they can live a peaceful and happy life. We do not just need to bring refugees here; we need to look at the long-term conflict and ensure that people, not certain Governments, get what they deserve.

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour

Since the issue was raised at First Minister’s question time two weeks ago, the UK Government has made a welcome change to its policy on accepting refugees from Syria. It did so because of mounting public opinion and real anger in this country that our Government’s response was so inadequate.

That the number of refugees that the Tory Government has promised to take has risen to 20,000 over five years is indeed welcome news. What is still extremely disappointing is that number is so low and that the Government has refused to offer resettlement to refugees who are already in Europe or to participate in the EU’s proposed refugee resettlement and relocation schemes.

I welcome the UK Government’s financial support for aid to the region, but I fundamentally disagree with its approach to refugees. It says that it wants to help those who are most vulnerable and that that is why over five years it will take 20,000 people from the region. However, the point that the Government seems to miss is that to be Syrian today is to be vulnerable. Many Syrians who have made it to Europe are extremely vulnerable indeed. I will return to that point later.

I do not intend to repeat the statistics that we have already heard, as that would add nothing to the debate. However, I will say that, as we have heard, it is estimated that the number of refugees from Syria will reach 4.27 million by the end of the year, and Lebanon already has the largest refugee population in the world, with 1.5 million in a country with a population of only 4.5 million.

It is hard to imagine what life must be like in Lebanon for Syrians or the native population. At the weekend, I heard reports that the United Nations Children’s Fund is running out of money to be able to support refugees in Lebanon. Not all of them are in camps; some live in shanty towns and elsewhere. The money to help them is simply no longer there, because of the scale of the problem.

As we know, the politics of Lebanon are fragile. We must do more to support it and its neighbours, who are on the front line in this situation, particularly if we want to avoid further humanitarian tragedies in the region.

David Cameron must give a lead and not allow his party’s fear of the issue of immigration to colour his response to a humanitarian disaster. We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world and we cannot shirk our responsibility.

Earlier, I spoke of the most vulnerable of refugees and the fact that the UK Government has said that it will accept 20,000 of them into our country. I now want to focus on a group of vulnerable people who will not be offered help by the UK Government: the children who have made their way alone to Europe.

So far this year, approximately a quarter of those making that dangerous journey and seeking refuge in Europe have been children. Unaccompanied children are at the greatest risk of all refugees and migrants. Many of them are already in Europe and are travelling alone without family support. They face particular dangers such as abuse and exploitation. Aid agencies are calling on the UK to recognise their particular plight and their particular vulnerability and to offer some of them a home. I echo that call.

More than a year ago, in a speech about Syria, I made the point that there was a real danger that an entire generation of young Syrians might be deprived of an education. Since then, the situation for those young people has worsened beyond our understanding. These are the young people who now find themselves in Europe, often alone. We owe them a chance to fulfil their potential, to realise their ambitions and to contribute to the success of our local communities and our country. If we need examples of how to integrate people into our society, we need look no further than the Maryhill integration network, which I know that you are familiar with, Presiding Officer. Its work in that area is remarkable.

To their credit, most of Scotland's local authorities have offered their help in this crisis, and Glasgow is no exception. My city has a proud record of assisting refugees and asylum seekers to settle and make their homes among us, and it was a privilege to be able to join so many of my fellow citizens at the vigil in George Square on Saturday. However, our local authorities will need support to allow them to do the job as well as they can. Help to support our health and social services and our schools will be needed. For example, 134 languages are spoken in Glasgow’s schools and we must ensure that the support is in place to manage the practical difficulties that such challenges present.

Support for and from the housing association movement will also be required. I know that the Wheatley Group has already offered help, which is welcome, but I am aware that Mr Dornan has been closely involved in that issue and might want to speak about that later, so I will not dwell on the point.

John Lamont was absolutely right when he said that we can look back with pride on the way in which our country has welcomed refugees from around the world in times of crisis. We have to ask ourselves how future generations will judge us. My fear is that they will judge us harshly. I very much hope that the UK Government will reverse its policies on bringing refugees to this country and will ensure that that fine tradition of hospitality and openness continues in the coming months.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I make a plea to members to keep their speeches to six minutes so that we do not have to cut members’ time later.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

In this debate we are sending a pretty powerful message, not just to the UK Government, which has been a focus of the debate, but to the public and to people who are seeking refuge, safety and freedom in this country. The message is: Scotland is ready and willing to take our share of people and to support people who are in difficulties.

People tell me that they are keen to contribute in any way that they can do. I have had emails, as I am sure that other members have done, from a variety of people who want to step up and help. Co-ordinating the response will be a considerable job, because contributions are coming in from across society.

Some responses in Scotland have been extraordinary, but the most extraordinary response has been that of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has really stepped up. She has accepted huge numbers of people, including people who have been stuck in Hungary. When I saw how German people welcomed refugees at a railway station, it made my heart skip—just watching that on television was tremendously uplifting; I cannot imagine what it must have been like to have been there. That was a lesson for us in Scotland and for the UK Government: we need to step up and follow Germany’s lead in showing compassion and humanity.

The decision to resettle 20,000 refugees in the UK is welcome, but it is not enough, as members said. When I heard the number 20,000 I thought, “That sounds significant”, but when I heard that that was over five years my first impression dissipated in an instant. I hope that the UK Government will revise its plans and do more, because more needs to be done. The Germans have taken more people in a single weekend than the UK Government plans to take over five years. That puts the issue in context.

The UK Government has drawn a distinction between people who have remained in camps and those who are making the potentially deadly journey to Europe. Some 2,500 men, women and children have drowned in the Mediterranean this year. If making that perilous journey—putting one’s family’s lives in the hands of unscrupulous people traffickers—is not an indication of dire need and desperation, I do not know what is.

The existing plans offer those refugees little hope. If they reach Calais, they are simply greeted by barbed wire and new, higher fences. My colleague Tim Farron was deeply affected by his visit to Calais earlier in the summer. He was convinced that the vast majority of the people he met were not economic migrants but refugees and should be treated as such.

The risk is that we will offer refuge to people who are comparatively safe and well housed and fed in camps—although income in camps is going down—but neglect people who are suffering elsewhere. We have seen images of holiday makers enjoying their holidays on Greek islands alongside refugees who are struggling to get something to eat, which send a pretty chilling message. I hope that the Parliament will join me in urging the Home Secretary not to ignore the people who are already travelling to Europe in search of safety. We should not unjustly punish someone for making the most difficult of decisions.

We need to work with our European partners in responding to the biggest humanitarian crisis in a generation. Piecemeal, unilateral action is not the answer.

The Conservative amendment asks us to agree that

“tackling the root causes of this crisis must be a priority”.

The only sustainable solution in the medium to long term is to bring about the conditions that are required for people to want to remain in Syria and the surrounding region. The UK Government intends to raid the international development budget to fund domestic resettlement efforts. If we think that keeping people in the region is the best thing to do, why are we cutting the international aid budget to fund efforts over here? We should be boosting our spending. We have a great record on our target to spend 0.7 per cent of our gross domestic product on aid, but during this crisis we should be doing more, not less, in the international field.

The Prime Minister’s response throughout the crisis has been confused. He cannot decide whether those travelling to Europe are economic migrants or refugees, he cannot decide whether to erect barriers or to embrace our humanitarian responsibilities, and he cannot decide whether to work unilaterally or with our European partners. I urge the Prime Minister to choose compassion, to choose to embrace our moral, social and political obligations, and to choose to be part of a co-ordinated international effort. We cannot wait until the war in Syria ends before we act for the people who need help here right now.

I urge those on the Conservative benches to echo the words that have been spoken in this chamber today, because we need their support to get through to the UK Government and to make it see the sense in having a co-ordinated, compassionate effort. That way, we can make a real effort.

Photo of Stewart Stevenson Stewart Stevenson Scottish National Party

The origins of the catastrophe that faces us today lie with Governments, but the most effective response to what has happened has been with individuals, and that has often been the case down the paths of history. In 1898, Émile Zola, a French literary giant, took on the power of his Government when injustice was done to someone in the army. His efforts were recognised by two consecutive nominations for the Nobel prize for literature and he eventually overcame, but posthumously. In 1968, we saw Jan Palach immolate himself in Wenceslas Square in Prague as part of the Prague spring, which eventually led to change in his country and indeed in the Soviet bloc, and in 1989, in Tiananmen Square, we saw a single individual stand in front of the tanks. Those people did not do that for personal glory or for any reward from anyone else. In fact, to this day we do not even know the name of the man who stood in front of the tanks in Tiananmen Square.

When we look at the Scottish response to the situation, we look at the response of the individuals in our community, which has been excellent. The same is true throughout the United Kingdom and in countries across Europe. People from our countries have historically been welcomed to other countries. It is now our turn to welcome those in their extremity to our shores and to our support. I welcome the launch of the website www.scotlandwelcomesrefugees.scot; I see an excellent contribution there from the Scottish Refugee Council on fundraising and how practical help might be given. I hope that many people will look at that.

It is worth looking at our own situation in Europe. We are the home of colonising nations, benefiting enormously over hundreds of years from countries around the world. Now, in their extremity, it is our turn to help those who actually helped us to build the wealth that we depend on today.

Of course, the whole thing is not just about money, although money is the most important thing that many of us will be able to contribute. In fact, it is hardly about money at all. As Sandra White said, it is a moral issue. No man, woman or child stands alone in the world. In the palm of our hands is the future of desperate people around the world. Their very lives depend on us. Physical threats drive people from countries, as do violence, lack of shelter, lack of food and lack of water. None of those is new, but the scale of the problem today is, alas, very different from what happened previously.

In the late 1930s, we supported Jewish children in particular out of the hands of the Nazis. There were tens of thousands then, but the numbers are orders of magnitude greater now. Forty years ago, I visited a refugee camp in the West Bank and I remain moved by just thinking about that visit. I know that others in this Parliament have visited refugees in many places around the world.

It was only towards the very end of my father’s life that I discovered that he had briefly worked with a Christian charity and had been based in an office in Brussels getting Jewish children out of Germany in the late 1930s. Indeed, he told me that he was arrested by the Gestapo in Cologne in 1938. Being my father, he talked his way out of the situation, but today’s refugees cannot simply talk their way out of their extremity. They need us to speak for them.

The Conservative amendment talks about underlying causes. Those are not simple; they are diverse and there will be future challenges to our morality and our practicality. As the minister who took the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill through the Parliament, I return to that subject as something that will cause huge problems in the future. As the climate changes and we benefit, people around the world will find themselves migrating.

In recent times, we have seen many other examples of migration in Europe. One of my friends has just spent many months out in Bosnia, working with people who were affected by the war there. Let me remind the chamber that Syria and the adjacent areas are important to our history and where we are today. Sumeria, which is part of Lebanon that is adjacent to Syria, was the origin of money as the transition from a herdsman culture to an agrarian culture gave rise to the need for money. Our number system comes from there, as do many of the intellectual underpinnings of our society, while Damascus is the oldest continuously occupied city in the world. The Poles came here in the 1940s and 1950s, but the Scots went to Poland in the 1830s.

We do not demand action because it is easy; we demand action because life is incomparably more difficult for refugees if they are denied help. More than ever, it is for us to provide that help in the refugees’ extremity.

Photo of Neil Bibby Neil Bibby Labour

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Our response to the current global refugee crisis that we face, both in Parliament and throughout the country, should start from the principle that we should treat our fellow human beings as we would want to be treated in such a crisis. No one sets sail across a sea in an overcrowded rubber dinghy if they are not desperate, nor do they put their families’ lives and their own in the hands of people traffickers if that is not their only hope. No one wants to die crowded in the back of an overheated lorry.

Just last week, we saw on the news that people in Syria are being subjected to chemical attacks. The use of chemical weapons is truly shocking—no wonder people are fleeing that and the many other atrocities. Everyone has been shocked by the horrific scenes and deaths as millions of people from Syria and other countries seek refuge, thousands of them in Europe, but the truth is that it should not take a refugee crisis in Europe and the public outrage at the death of Alan Kurdi for the Prime Minister to take action. The humanitarian crisis requires to be dealt with with the utmost urgency. People need to access help and refuge as soon as possible. The Prime Minister has given a commitment to take 20,000 refugees over a five-year period, but, as Claire Baker said, that is not enough, particularly given the fact that millions of people are affected and 20,000 is the same as the population of Renfrew spread throughout the whole UK. We need to take the long-term view that, if people need refuge and we are offering it, why should they have to wait five years for us to meet our commitment?

I believe that we need to see countries not just making commitments but delivering on those commitments now. I am sure that some people will disagree with that. To them I say that, although 20,000 refugees might sound like a lot, as the minister has said, Germany has taken many more. As David Miliband said last week, the United Kingdom gave refuge to 75,000 people during the Kosovo crisis. Britain’s and Scotland’s response to the Kosovan crisis, when our intervention was necessary, demonstrates that we have led the world previously during such humanitarian crises, and we should do so again. In 1999, my mum was a social worker for Renfrewshire Council and met young children and their families from Kosovo off the plane at Glasgow airport. We should welcome refugees from Syria now in the same way that we welcomed those from Kosovo 16 years ago. I am sure that lessons can be learned from how we did that successfully then.

We need to show the way again. We all have a responsibility to offer refuge to those who need it, and all Governments in Europe need to accept their responsibility. However, sadly, that has not been the case. As has been said, the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, has appealed for Europe to take 160,000 refugees this year. That proposal needs to be put into perspective—that number equals the population of Renfrewshire spread throughout the whole of Europe. We need to do more.

We know that Germany has offered refuge to many people, but many countries have not. The scenes of refugees in EU countries fighting to get on trains or walking in their thousands down motorways are deeply disturbing. I want Scotland and the UK to offer refuge, as we are doing, but there needs to be an effort by all EU countries. The Hungarian Prime Minister denying the crisis and saying that it is Germany’s problem is not the sort of leadership that we need right now.

It is often in the worst of situations that we see the best in people. In recent days, people across the country have shown how willing we are to offer help to those who need it. It is critical now that we match our words with action. In my region, we have seen the work of many caring and selfless people, such as Jade O’Neil from Renfrew, who has set up a group called Renfrewshire refugee aid to collect and transport much-needed aid and supplies to people in camps in Calais. Yesterday, I joined a summit at St Mirin’s cathedral in Paisley organised by Bishop John Keenan, at which churches, charities, local councils and many MSPs, including Hugh Henry, came together to form the Renfrewshire refugee support group.

At that meeting, there was a consensus that the council was best placed to co-ordinate the response at local level and praise for the arrangements that are already in place. I trust that any strategic and practical responsibility will be devolved from the task force to councils, working in partnership with other civic organisations, local charities and churches, to organise the response.

There was also a recognition that it will not be easy. I welcome the funding that the Scottish Government has committed to give to local authorities. Although that will contribute to the work of councils in helping and settling refugees, I know that they will need to add to it from their own resources. I welcome the fact that the minister has said that he will keep the issue under review. Currently, the Scottish Government assistance works out at around £1,000 per refugee, and it will be £500 per refugee if we take our full share of the UK Government’s target.

Photo of Humza Yousaf Humza Yousaf Scottish National Party

I recognise what the member says, but it is important to note that the VPR scheme comes with money already allocated to local authorities. I do not often give credit to the Home Office but, in fairness to it, it has shown a flexibility and an openness in engaging with local authorities and the Scottish Government to find out how much more local authorities might need to integrate refugees. There is a willingness on the part of all partners to ensure that the financial package is suitable for those who are resettling refugees.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

You must begin to close, Mr Bibby.

Photo of Neil Bibby Neil Bibby Labour

I welcome what the minister said, because it is critical that we ensure that refugees have the right support, whether in education, social work, housing or translation services.

Our communities and our people have an energy, a purpose and a willingness to act. We now need our councils, the Scottish Government, the UK Government and other EU Governments to work together and act, because people in other countries will see if there is a difference between what we are saying and what we are doing.

Photo of Christina McKelvie Christina McKelvie Scottish National Party

The statue of liberty faces towards Europe, drawing in the immigrants from across the world who have made the USA what it is today. It says:

“Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

However, in the current case, what we find is politicians and the media hiding behind a term—“migrants”—that is both incorrect and dishonest. The tens of thousands of people who are seeking refuge in Europe are not simple migrants, and it is that dishonesty—that hypocrisy—that drives me to speak in today’s debate.

I see that dishonesty and hypocrisy in the UK Government. My friend Sandra White spoke about dictators. Maybe the Conservative Party will tell us in its summing-up speech how it helps any of the affected countries to have a huge arms fair in London today, to which many of the regimes involved have been invited along at taxpayers’ expense. Hosted by the UK’s arms sales export unit, it is the largest arms fair in the world. Maybe the Conservatives will be able to explain that. If they cannot, that is just utter hypocrisy.

The people who are seeking sanctuary from Syria, Afghanistan and other countries are not making a choice about where they might live and work; they simply know that they cannot go on living where they are. In other words, those people are asylum seekers and refugees. They are not dumping all their worldly goods, their homes and their familiar culture, friends and surroundings because they want to leech off the UK benefits system: they are seeking sanctuary.

Europe has a responsibility to protect the vulnerable and respect the rights and human dignity of all people arriving at its borders. The rights guaranteed in the 1951 refugee convention are sacrosanct and all Governments must respect them. A few keen Tories were involved in setting up that convention, and perhaps some Tories should now look back at their history.

As colleagues have said, the UK response of taking 20,000 Syrian refugees from camps by 2020 is welcome but more must be done, especially on a Europe-wide basis. The Scottish Government’s task force can help in the medium term, but right now we need action to manage those anguished and destitute people so that they can find proper care and protection. We cannot simply stand by and hope that other countries will step in and pick up the slack. In a climate of reactionary, right-wing and extremist propaganda regarding refugees and immigration more widely, the need to make a humane and compassionate stand is all the more vital.

At the weekend, we saw tens of thousands of people across the world attending vigils and seeking to help the refugees. Scottish families are coming forward with offers of spare rooms, support and food, showing a real empathy with the victims. Those families know that it is purely a matter of chance that they happen to be living somewhere that is rather more congenial than Aleppo or Homs, and they are aware that, “There but for the grace of God go I.”

I emphasise that we must tackle the crisis on the shores of Calais or Lampedusa, or at the borders of Austria or Hungary. We cannot just say, “Well, they’re already in Europe, so they’re not our problem.” We need to look ahead to developing solutions that can trammel the greedy smugglers and notorious gangs that take every remaining penny from people and load them on to dangerous dinghies in high seas.

While we struggle to tackle those aspects on a united European basis, the UK cannot simply stand by and say that it is not our problem: it is everyone’s problem. Families trekking across Europe cannot be sorted out by our telling them that they should just stay where they are. Where people are fleeing for their lives, those in a more comfortable position have a moral and a human rights duty of care and protection. Many of those people are fleeing from the kind of bombs and guns that we are selling in London today.

There is, too, a rights gap issue in relation to unaccompanied children who have refugee or humanitarian protection status. They have no right to family reunion, even with first-line relatives, whereas adults do—as they should—despite it being often inaccessible. The very least that the UK Government can and should do about that gap in terms of the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme, given that it is proactively identifying who to admit, is to amend its criteria and, hence, the immigration rules so as to provide unaccompanied children with the right to family reunion.

Children not being given that right is contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and—I suspect—the non-discrimination protections for age in the Equality Act 2010. The current rights gap is a clear injustice as well as nonsensical, as families should, in the best interests of the children, be together. The rights gap needs to be filled for the Syrian VPR and the immigration rules; ideally, it should be filled for all unaccompanied children with refugee status, or who are part of humanitarian admissions.

I am immensely proud of what Scotland has done for refugees and of the Glasgow campaign to welcome refugees, which I joined about 16 or 17 years ago. I am proud of the spirit of compassion that propels our people and our Government. However, 11 more children washed up on our European shores this week; we have to do something to prevent that from happening and we have to do it now.

Photo of Anne McTaggart Anne McTaggart Labour

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on what has become Europe’s worst refugee crisis since the second world war, but saddened that I have to do so.

Save the Children has estimated that, so far in 2015, more than 350,000 desperate people have made the journey across the Mediterranean Sea. It is estimated that more than 2,700 people have died trying to reach Europe, with the majority of them drowning in the Mediterranean.

Since January, in Italy alone, 7,600 children have arrived unaccompanied, without any parents or family at all. For the children who survive the treacherous journey, the terrifying ordeal is not over. Many have seen and experienced untold horrors during their journey. The physical impact of travelling is also clear, as many suffer severe sunburns and blisters from their journey, and many children have lost their toenails from the huge distances that they have walked. The truth of the matter is that those children will be helped very little by the measures that are being introduced.

Last Wednesday, we saw the almost unprecedented sight of seven different political parties in the House of Commons uniting behind a clear and simple message: the UK must do more to provide aid in the humanitarian crisis.

The people of Scotland were quick to recognise that we must do more to help, and, in response, I am certain that we in this Parliament are united in adopting a strong cross-party approach. Councils around Scotland are already working to resettle refugees, and we will support the collection of aid for delivery to refugees. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has said that it has received an “overwhelming, unprecedented response” from local authorities making initial inquiries about how to proceed.

As members have said, Glasgow City Council has already provided homes to 55 Syrians who have fled the war in their home country. It has also agreed to take in more, outlining its belief that that is simply the right thing to do. I was delighted to see the success of the Glasgow sees Syria event in George Square on Saturday, which included drop-off points for food donations from members of the public, and to hear the council’s new leader Frank McAveety call on the Government to accept more refugees.

As Claire Baker mentioned, the University of Glasgow has also announced a series of measures to support refugee students who have settled in the UK, including offering four fee waivers—one for each of the university colleges. The fee waivers will be available to applicants who do not currently qualify for free tuition.

As many members will be aware, a crowdfunding project has been set up by a Lanarkshire group to pay for a convoy of vans to carry vital supplies to migrants in Calais. A team from Wishaw plans to take sleeping bags, blankets, clothing, food and toiletries to a refugee camp near the port town in northern France in October.

We must keep the momentum going and ensure that the crisis is confronted full on with all the compassion, help and support that we can provide.

The response from Scotland and the UK is not unique. From Austria to Spain, citizens are standing in solidarity with refugees and have even been on the front line to receive them and offer them humanitarian aid directly. What is clear is that the scale of the crisis means that no single country can deal with it alone. We truly need a global response.

A number of international development experts have spoken out about how wealthy economies outside Europe such as Japan and Hong Kong can also share some of the responsibility. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has argued that Europe cannot respond to the crisis

“with a piecemeal or incremental approach.”

It has recommended that there should instead be a mass relocation programme of at least 200,000 places in which all European states take part and which has an effective reception and registration mechanism that can receive, register and identify people who need help. As the UNHCR stated,

“We are facing exceptional circumstances; we need an exceptional response.”

We need a comprehensive global programme that can help those who have already made the deadly voyage to Europe and those who are displaced in their own country. We also need to go much further than what has been proposed to date. Britain has a long history of welcoming people who are fleeing war and persecution. This time should be no different.

Photo of Christian Allard Christian Allard Scottish National Party

Like all members who have contributed to the debate—bar one—I say that it is very important that we do not limit the number of refugees to 20,000. That number should be a starting point, and there certainly should not be an end after four or five years.

I ask members to take particular notice of the language that surrounds the subject. Christina McKelvie talked about that. I read the reason that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees gave for why word choice and not confusing the two words “migrants” and “refugees” matter. I thank John Lamont for not using the “m” word. That is very important. It is commendable that we do not use that word in the debate. As the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said:

“Yes, there is a difference, and it does matter. The two terms have distinct and different meanings, and confusing them leads to problems for both populations.”

That confusion has a significant impact on the refugees at our borders who ask for sanctuary.

As the minister said, the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, was very clear on the matter on 9 September. In his state of the Union speech, he said:

“A true European refugee and asylum policy requires solidarity to be permanently anchored in our policy approach and our rules.”

The solidarity that he speaks of will be supported and enhanced by accuracy and clarity in our language.

From the beginning of the refugee crisis, I have highlighted the importance of the language that is used. I encouraged the correct and appropriate use of language when discussing the appalling situation in Calais, which I have been working on for months on behalf of the Scottish fishing industry to defend its interests and to bring safety for both heavy goods vehicle drivers and refugees.

The tone of how the media reported the situation in Calais followed the UK Prime Minister’s shameful tone. Stewart Stevenson talked about the French writer Émile Zola, who was also a journalist. One of his most famous articles was entitled “J’accuse”. I accuse the UK Prime Minister and the Tory Government of not using the right language from the outset of the refugee crisis. The refugee crisis started at our borders—it started in Calais—and the response to it was not only the tone that has been used, because we have also erected a fence. We see the same kind of fence in Hungary today. I go back to the time when the fence in Calais was celebrated by not only politicians, but the media. We are now blaming Hungary for what is being done, but we should point the finger at ourselves—at our own UK Government, which took that decision in Calais.

We have talked about compassion. In July this year, nine people died trying to reach the UK. What is the UK Government doing about that? There is a refugee camp in Calais. I heard some people saying, “We should send the Army. We should send the Ghurkas.” I agree. We should send the Ghurkas. Why not send the French foreign legion as well—to help those refugees, tend them, assess them and ensure that they find sanctuary in the UK or France?

It is very important that the proper tone is used when we talk about migrants and refugees. Our First Minister’s tone could not have been more different from that of the Prime Minister, and she could not have been more clear, when she said:

“It is important we don’t describe this as a migration crisis”.

It is a refugee crisis.

The media responds to the tone of politicians. Christina McKelvie spoke about dishonesty. That dishonesty has to be laid first at the feet of politicians: they are the first to set the tone, and the media follows. It is very important that we keep the right tone.

The BBC’s “Newsnight” published a poll a week ago under the title “Migrant Crisis”. When questioned by Positive Action about the confusion of those terms during an interview, BBC Scotland’s Sarah Smith said that she did not believe that the term “migrants” was used at all in the commissioning of the poll. That was incorrect; it was not accurate. The poll asked the participants for their views on the thousands of migrants who have recently crossed the Mediterranean Sea into Europe.

Photo of John Scott John Scott Conservative

Will you draw to a close, please?

Photo of Christian Allard Christian Allard Scottish National Party

Word choice matters. It is very important that we keep that in mind in this debate. Interchanging the terms “migrant” and “refugee” is not helping. For anyone still asking the question, “Refugee or migrant—which is right?”, here is the answer from the people who know. The UN refugee agency, which assesses refugees across the world, says:

“Refugees are persons fleeing armed conflict or persecution ... it is too dangerous for them to return home, and they need sanctuary elsewhere.”

They are not migrants. I am a migrant—I am no refugee. Let us remember where we all come from, because in Scotland’s story, we are all worth the same.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Thank you. We are very tight for time. Patrick Harvie has up to six minutes.

Photo of Patrick Harvie Patrick Harvie Green

I offer my support for the Scottish Government’s motion and the Labour amendment, and my recognition of the tone of the Scottish Government’s response to the entire issue. It is a tone that we should all be willing to support. It contrasts strongly with the many, many years of racist and xenophobic rhetoric that we have seen in much of the media in this country and in other European countries in relation to immigration and asylum.

Let us remember that, even at the time of the UK election, when the crisis of people drowning while trying to cross the Mediterranean had already been going on for years, those people were being described in the national press in this country as “cockroaches”. That is shameful, but it is the rhetoric that we have seen from newspapers such as the Daily Mail. Just weeks before the photographs of that little body on the beach changed the country’s emotional response, the Daily Mail condemned the BBC for broadcasting an episode of “Songs of Praise” from the refugee camp—sorry; the “squalid migrant ghetto”, as the Daily Mail described it—at Calais. That kind of racist and xenophobic rhetoric has been driven deep into the cultural response from this country—and from many other countries—to the issue.

Much of that rhetoric rests on the assumption, or argument, that to have refugees come to a country and to have to accommodate those refugees is to bear a burden, and it is a burden that we should bear grudgingly. Any one of us who cannot close our eyes and imagine swapping places today with somebody who is making that hazardous journey or with somebody who found themselves this morning on the wrong side of a razor wire fence does not recognise what it means to bear a burden. It is the people who have to ask for help and refuge and who have to flee, whether from war, persecution or economic poverty, who bear a burden. The people who are in a position to be able to offer that help are the privileged ones—we are not the ones who bear a burden.

I see our Prime Minister going into a country such as Lebanon, which, as we have heard, already hosts well over a million refugees—something like a quarter of its population—and then I hear from the same political quarter the language that suggests that we must accept only a “sustainable” level of refugees. I find it hard to express my deep discomfort with and objection to that kind of language and the idea that a country of the wealth and scale of the United Kingdom can see a level of no more than 20,000 over five years as “sustainable”. When our Prime Minister has direct experience in the past few days of the situation in Lebanon, I find that indefensible.

Of course there has to be support in the region and support for the other countries that are dealing with the situation on such a scale. I understand the intention of those who talk about creating safe havens in the region, but exactly how safe will they be and what are the logistical, resource and, potentially, even military implications of creating safety in that situation? Those issues are insurmountable. Even if that was achieved, none of it would discharge our obligation to meet the immediate need that faces us.

I want to talk about the difference between refugees and economic migrants. Yes, the two are legally distinct, but they are all human beings and whichever legal category a person is described as being in, their innate dignity deserves the same level of respect.

The humanitarian crisis and the issue of refugees and others coming to Europe are not new, although at the moment they are on a bigger scale than Europe has known for a considerable time. One thing is new, however: the UN refugee agency describes it as “mixed flows”, by which it means large numbers of people on the move at the same time with a range of experiences and reasons for travelling and from a range of places. I expect that that will continue and that such challenges will increase across the world as time moves on.

Therefore, a new settlement will be necessary. We certainly need one that involves EU-wide co-ordination and the provision of safe routes of passage, but it must also recognise the mix of causes of displacement, which include war, persecution, exploitation, poverty and environmental destruction. It must also recognise the contribution that wealthy, powerful and—dare I say it—oil-producing countries have made and will continue to make to all those causes, as well as the contribution of the arms trade, which Christina McKelvie mentioned. This country still fuels that trade through companies such as Selex, which was mentioned in a different context in the chamber last week and which has a track record of dealing with the Assad regime. We must take responsibility for all of that.

Photo of Christine Grahame Christine Grahame Scottish National Party

Migration is of course reserved but, thankfully, compassion is not. I congratulate the Scottish Government and members from across the chamber on their unequivocal support for the refugees—the sad, dispossessed people trudging across Europe after terrifying and desperate journeys across seas in fragile inflatables. That experience strips away individuality and makes the electrician indistinguishable from the professor; it is a kind of bleak egalitarianism. It is sad but true that individualism was reinstated only through the image of a small child washed up on a tourist beach as human flotsam, which at last called Europe and the UK Government to account for their inaction, about which stark questions have been raised.

However, will that deep swell of emotion and shame last, and is it being translated into action, which is what counts? Sadly, with exceptions such as Iceland, Germany and Scotland, as others have mentioned, Europe is literally retreating behind its national boundaries. We see fences that are reminiscent of second world war camps and forbidding steel barricades draped with ragged barbed wire that even the most desperate wire cutters cannot tackle.

Although I support the amendments, like others, I cannot let the Conservative Government at Westminster completely off the hook. It took far too long to take action and it has now promised too little, although it is something. We must have more than the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, which has taken only 216 Syrians since early last year. I remind members that the scheme applies in the main to sick children, women who have been raped and men who have been tortured—what a set of hellish tests to have to pass to be permitted into the compassionate UK. At the same time, the Cameron Government is actually considering bombing in Syria, which would lead to more bombs and more people displaced and dispossessed—people who we now know have already endured attacks by chemical weapons.

I am sure that the majority of Scots support the Parliament but I call to account those who do not. Patrick Harvie referred to some of the newspapers that stirred up venom towards the refugees. I recently wrote in the Edinburgh Evening News about the distinction between the shock and distaste of the public at the shooting of a protected lion—Cecil—and the attitude to refugees, who are to be shown compassion when they are in the water but to be labelled migrants and to be a problem once they are on dry land. As other speakers, including Christian Allard, have said, language is everything.

Here are two unwelcome comments that I have received. I will spare the blushes of the people who sent them to me, but they are genuine quotations. The first is:

“I couldn’t care less about the rabble Migrants. Most decent honest people (there are some of us left, obviously not MPs MSPs) don’t want them in Europe. Send them back or let them perish at sea, its their own fault anyway. People quite rightly care more about Cecil.”

That represents a lone voice, but there are voices like it in Scotland and we must not ignore the fact that they exist. Here is another:

“I am writing to you to express my disappointment and anger at today’s announcement by the First Minister to volunteer Scotland for a minimum of 1000 asylum seekers. I find it extraordinary that the Scottish Government is finding itself so busy taking the short-term moral high ground and ignoring both the short and long term implications of opening the doors to what no doubt will be thousands of immigrants who know nothing of Scotland, its traditions and history, are unlikely to integrate and will NEVER return to their homeland.”

Photo of James Dornan James Dornan Scottish National Party

Does Christine Grahame accept that, horrific as those comments are, they are a tiny number against the huge outpouring of support?

Photo of Christine Grahame Christine Grahame Scottish National Party

Yes, but my point is that we must tackle those people as well. We must challenge those views, which have been brought into question since one child drowned and was washed up, as many other children have been. That is what it took for some of the tabloids to be shame faced, but the venom that they stirred up is reflected in the views of some people who write to us. Of course they are in the minority, but it is important to put that voice in the Parliament: although the vast majority of people in Scotland are kind and humane, not everybody is.

I hope that those individuals are listening—I was so disgusted at their comments that they are lucky that I am not naming them—and that anybody else who takes those views is listening. They should be ashamed even to think that way.

Ordinary people throughout Scotland are taking action. Across all our constituencies, including mine in the Borders and Midlothian, they are collecting clothes, shoes—they are important because people have worn out their own shoes—and toys for children. Those are the actions of the vast majority of the Scottish people. They are the actions that speak louder than words. They, not the few voices that object, are the majority voices of Scotland, but I wanted the other voice to be heard and challenged in the Parliament

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I ask the member to draw to a close, please.

Photo of Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Labour

There are two other groups on which we should focus: nurses whose training has been interrupted, and junior doctors who need training in physical and psychological trauma, communicable diseases—as I have mentioned—and rehabilitation and restorative surgery. I hope that the Government will allow me to be involved in helping to co-ordinate a response—

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

You must close, please.

Photo of Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Labour

—involving psychologists, the BMA, the GMC and nursing unions.

Finally, I have raised the issue of waste medicines—

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

You must stop now, Dr Simpson. I call Roderick Campbell.

Photo of John Mason John Mason Scottish National Party

There clearly is a human response to this tragedy. Others, from all sides of the chamber, have spoken very movingly about that this afternoon. As human beings we have a responsibility for our neighbours, be they in the next street or the next continent. However, I think there are a range of other reasons why we should welcome refugees as well. I will focus on some of those this afternoon, perhaps partly in answer to the correspondence from Christine Grahame’s constituent.

For one, Scotland is a land with a lot of empty space. We cleared people out of the Highlands over a long period of time and the abandoned ruins of their homes are still to be seen. We have never really recovered from that and the empty space is still there. One of the problems for Scotland in recent decades has been the failure to grow the population. I know that Jack McConnell recognised that, and successive Governments have done so as well. It is very hard to grow our economy if the population is not growing.

Therefore, if we are seeing an opportunity to get numbers of people, especially of young people who are keen to work, it could be a great opportunity for Scotland. My understanding is that it is often the better educated who are able to come here to Europe as refugees. That gives us the opportunity of gaining a young, educated and enthusiastic workforce.

I have been looking at some of the figures and have found some very interesting facts. Countries with higher net immigration—to echo the point made by, I think, Patrick Harvie, I do not think that either migration or immigration are always negative words—have seen a relieving of pressure on the Government. That is debt due to the fact that most migrants are of working age and pay tax, and so the country’s debt falls. That is according to a report called, “The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the UK”.

In fact, for the UK, non-EU migrants have made a net fiscal contribution reckoned to be £5 billion for 2000 to 2011. That is according to research by the centre for research and analysis of migration at University College London. The research also noted that immigrants who have arrived since 2000 are 43 per cent less likely to claim benefits than UK citizens.

Over the period 1995 to 2011, immigrants who lived in the UK provided the UK labour market with human capital that would have cost £49 billion if it had been produced through the UK education system. On top of that, immigrants have contributed £82 billion to fixed public goods—goods that have a constant amount of funding such as defence no matter the size of the population.

Speaking on Bloomberg last Wednesday, Professor Christian Dustmann, the director of CREAM at UCL and co-author of the aforementioned report, said:

“It is very likely that we are seeing well trained, young and skilled migrants who, if they enter the labour markets will very likely make a contribution.”

He points out the barriers that are present and notes that they are challenging, but he estimates that the cost of programmes for dealing with that is

“insignificant in the scale of national budgets.”

He also points out that the potential gains are “substantial” and, most important, he sees this crisis as

“an economic opportunity not an economic burden.”

Therefore, my basic argument is that not only do we have a duty to help with a clear humanitarian need; it is also good for Scotland to see a wide range of new folk coming here. Apart from anything else, Scots have left our shores over the centuries and moved to many other countries, hopefully bringing benefit to Canada, Australia, Malawi and elsewhere. It seems only fair that now it is our turn to receive people here. Our people have been welcomed overseas when they needed a home; now it is our turn to welcome people to Scotland.

I am not just arguing that Scotland benefits economically; we benefit culturally and in many other ways. Our schools do better because we have youngsters from an African or Asian background whose enthusiasm for education can rub off on young Scots.

I hope that I have argued today that all of us in Scotland can benefit from the arrival of refugees and asylum seekers. It is about love for our neighbours, but it is not only about that. I am encouraged by the tone of today’s debate. I exhort all parties in Scotland to continue that positive tone, and I urge the UK Government to be a little less fearful and a little more welcoming.

Photo of Jamie McGrigor Jamie McGrigor Conservative

I am pleased to close today’s interesting and timely debate for the Conservatives. The debate is about what all members accept is one of the greatest challenges for the international community for many decades. I thank the organisations that provided excellent briefings, including Oxfam, Save the Children and Amnesty International.

I agree with members who, rightly, praised the many individuals, charities and local authorities in Scotland that are working with Syrian refugees to alleviate suffering or which stand ready to do so when refugees arrive in this country. That includes local authorities in my region, the Highlands and Islands, which are making practical plans to assist refugees.

We are a compassionate and tolerant nation and I have no doubt that we will make refugees welcome in our communities, as we have done in the past. I readily acknowledge that many people in Scotland and the rest of the UK have been deeply moved by the media coverage of the truly desperate plight of Syrian people who are fleeing the terror of Assad and ISIL and the tragic deaths that have occurred as people tried to reach northern Europe.

Some members have criticised the UK Government’s approach to the Syria crisis, so I want to put on record some facts about the situation and the support that the UK is providing, as our amendment seeks to do. The UK has already provided sanctuary to more than 5,000 Syrian refugees, and the Prime Minister announced last week that the UK will accept 20,000 additional refugees over the parliamentary session. Those refugees will come from the camps in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon.

The approach will provide refugees with a safer and more direct route to the United Kingdom, so that they need not risk what the minister, Humza Yousaf, described as a desperate and dangerous journey to Europe by what Amnesty calls the deadly central route, which has cost many lives. We will use the established United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees process for identifying and resettling refugees. In addition, the UK Government plans to expand the criteria for the UK’s vulnerable persons relocation scheme for Syrian nationals. That is welcome.

Photo of Patrick Harvie Patrick Harvie Green

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member accept an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

The member is closing.

Photo of Jamie McGrigor Jamie McGrigor Conservative

That means proper organisation on a massive scale. That is what serious politicians are expected to do, and we have never been more needed than we are now.

Photo of Alex Neil Alex Neil Scottish National Party

This has been one of the best debates that the Parliament has had, and it shows the Parliament in a very good light. I say at the beginning that the Government will support the Labour amendment, and we will also vote for the Tory amendment, although we share some of the concerns that have been expressed around the chamber in relation to some of the wider aspects of the UK Government’s policy.

There are two areas of special priority. We believe that 20,000 should be seen as a minimum and not a maximum number when it comes to meeting our commitment to these people. It would not be the first time that a Conservative Prime Minister had lived up to our moral and international responsibilities. In very different circumstances, in 1972, when the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin ejected every Asian from Uganda, within hours the then Prime Minister Ted Heath agreed that the UK would take 28,000 of those refugees, and we took them within a matter of weeks, not within five years. Therefore, there is a good lesson to be learned from what Ted Heath did.

Photo of Alex Neil Alex Neil Scottish National Party

I will give way in a minute.

The second point, which has been made very ably by Alex Rowley and others, is that although we welcome the fact that we are doing what we can to help the people in the camps, there is the wider issue of the people in Italy, Greece and Hungary. We should be doing what we can to help the poor people who try to get across the Mediterranean into those countries, because it is among members of that population that the drownings are taking place. We need to play our part in helping them. As well as working with the UK Government and pressing it to live up to its moral and international responsibilities, we must make sure that the EU lives up to its responsibilities because, as has been said, the EU has been found wanting in many aspects of this area of policy.

Photo of Patrick Harvie Patrick Harvie Green

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way, and I am pleased that he shares some of the objections that I and others have voiced about the Conservative amendment. However, I think that there is a desire for consensus. In the interests of avoiding a division, would the cabinet secretary welcome, as I would—even at this late stage—an intervention in which the Conservatives at least acknowledged why some of us are uncomfortable with the term

“a sustainable level of refugees” and that the wording could have been better chosen?

Photo of Alex Neil Alex Neil Scottish National Party

I would certainly accept an intervention from the Conservatives to explain that, if they wish to make one. Perhaps John Lamont would like to take the opportunity to do so.

Photo of John Lamont John Lamont Conservative

I thank the cabinet secretary for allowing me to speak. The purpose of the amendment was to find consensus so that we could all agree. The use of the word “sustainable” simply reflects the point that Alex Rowley made. There are concerns out there about housing and other issues; we simply want to bring people together while acknowledging the concerns that exist. Our amendment was not designed to be divisive in any way; we were simply trying to get across the point that the taking in of refugees needs to be done in a managed way, and not just here in Scotland and Britain but across the entire union of European countries.

Photo of Alex Neil Alex Neil Scottish National Party

It would be extremely helpful if Parliament were able to unite in the vote at 5 o’clock, but that is obviously a decision for each group to take.

On the issue of negativity, I agree with Alex Rowley that it is very much a minority of people who take that point of view, but I do not think that it can be ignored. Our responsibility is to take on the negativity, to explain to people why it is our duty to do what we are doing for the refugees from Syria, and to reassure them that it does not represent a major threat to people who are on housing lists, or to any other aspect of what people are looking for from the Scottish Government or local authorities.

When we get into deeper discussions with the UK Government on the issue of resourcing the infrastructure and other support for the refugees, I hope that we will be in a position to point out that some additional resource has been made available so that we can do what we need to do and, perhaps, to do even more than the action that we have already announced.

The task force has taken on those jobs and, as a member of the task force, I can say that some of the other issues that have been raised in the debate will be and are being addressed by the task force and its two subgroups. For example, I can say to Sandra White, who raised a very important point about collection points and the ability to organise ourselves and get information through the website, that we are taking urgent action on that matter to try to ensure that people can mobilise support, whether from local authorities, public agencies, individuals, local groups, charities or whatever. It is very important that we do everything that we possibly can do to mobilise the maximum support from the Scottish nation.

Although we are talking about an unprecedented number of refugees, it is very important to put that in context. As Hugh Henry—I think—mentioned earlier, in the great scheme of things even the significant numbers that we are talking about are a very small proportion of the total population of Europe: less than half of 1 per cent of the entire European population. To argue that we could not accommodate a good proportion of those people would not be a valid argument at Scotland, UK or Europe level. That is why, as the First Minister has made clear, we will live up to our responsibilities, and if we are required to take more people than the initial 1,000, we will gladly take more than our fair share of refugees coming to the UK because we firmly believe that it is the right thing to do.

We are also very much of the view—we discussed this in the task force this morning—that the crisis is now, and that the 20,000 figure should be increased and, as far as possible, be front loaded so that we do as much as we can to deal with the immediate crisis that people are facing, and that we do it as quickly as possible.

Photo of Claire Baker Claire Baker Labour

Can the cabinet secretary outline how the task force will present its views to the UK Government and ensure that it is well aware of the Scottish Parliament’s views on the issue?

Photo of Alex Neil Alex Neil Scottish National Party

With regard to the UK Government, both the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office are members of the task force. In addition, we have senior personnel who phone in to all the task-force meetings, and Humza Yousaf will be in London next week to talk to Home Office ministers. He has already spoken this week to the new minister about what needs to be done. We are therefore in constant touch with the UK Government and I am sure that the First Minister will make the point about our views to the Prime Minister, as will Fiona Hyslop in her role in various discussions with the UK Government. So, at every level—at political level and official level—we are in touch almost daily with the UK Government and are urging it to do much more than it has agreed to do at the present time.

I have to say that we were getting a more positive attitude from officials this morning, particularly in relation to resourcing issues. We are obviously going to continue to work on that, because we are clearly all united in recognising the need for the UK Government and all of us to do as much as possible to tackle the crisis.

I wanted to cover many other points, but I do not have time to do so. However, I will emphasise a number of issues in terms of what we are dealing with. In addition to the task force, we have set up two subgroups, one of which is dealing specifically with housing and which is co-chaired by Margaret Burgess, the Minister for Housing and Welfare, and Councillor Harry McGuigan from COSLA. That subgroup will look urgently at the accommodation requirements of the refugees once we get more information on their profile and know, for example, how many children, including unaccompanied children, and families will be coming to Scotland.

The other sub-group is on integration. I was with Glasgow City Council councillor Frank McAveety yesterday, who volunteered to organise refugees who are already in Glasgow to advise us, the task force and the local authorities of what they thinks we need to do to make it as easy as possible for the refugees who are coming to this country to integrate quickly and to get the translation and other support services that they need.

We will report to Parliament on a regular basis on the work of the task force, and we will notify members as we make progress. However, I think that it would be a great event if a united Parliament tonight were to send a loud and clear message to the UK Government, to the European Union, to the international community and, in particular, to the refugee community throughout the world, saying that Scotland will do everything possible to assist those people in their desperate plight. Thank you.

Photo of Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Labour

The scale of the crisis is now clear. The desperation of the people moving to and through Europe is daily on our screens. The futile and punitive response of many Governments is a blot on our collective conscience. The abject failure of the European Union even to agree and develop a rational strategy is an indictment of our political institutions.

According to a recent Al Jazeera English article,

“So far this year, nearly 340,000 people ... have crossed Europe’s borders. A large number, for sure, but still only 0.045 percent of Europe’s total population of 740 million.”

The problems that Syria’s neighbours face are much greater. As other speakers have said, the numbers are huge. Even Saudi Arabia, which has been criticised, has accepted 2.5 million Syrian refugees and, interestingly—to respond to Patricia Ferguson’s point—has now entered 100,000 into its public school system.

Our response now reminds me of our previous patchy response to Jewish immigration. We have heard in recent days about the Kindertransport and how wonderful it was when we took in some 10,000 children. However, we fail to recognise the pogrom that condemned six million Jews, Gypsy Travellers, homosexuals and others to death.

I have a relative by marriage who, along with his brother, fled to Canada while much of his extended family died in the camps. I remember in primary school hearing testimony about the ship with 900 Jews that was turned back because they did not have the right paperwork. We are hearing that again today. Back then, our Government responded only to public pressure; it did not take a principled stand. Is it really much different now? Money is valuable and helpful, but it is not enough.

In the short time that I have left, I will focus on health issues. The World Health Organization recently released its regional refugee and resilience plan—the 3RP—which is a framework that aims to address the fundamental needs of Syrian refugees who are residing in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. The plan places an emphasis not only on refugees but on the host communities and the effects on them, and on the sustainability of response activities.

To date, the UN agencies and non-governmental organisations have received only 23 per cent of the $4.5 billion that is required for operations. Given the protracted nature of the crisis, which is now in its fifth year, we have seen funding diminish—often being diverted to other disasters—despite the unflagging need. The health sector continues to struggle with a funding gap of 83 per cent, which has severely hampered the amount of health assistance that is available for refugee and host communities.

The health challenges in Syria are huge. Vaccination coverage has decreased drastically, from 99 per cent in 2010 to 62 per cent in 2014, and water supplies have dropped to half of pre-war levels. At the same time, unhealthy and overcrowded living conditions for displaced persons have led to an increase in hitherto uncommon communicable diseases such as hepatitis A, typhoid and brucellosis. Polio and measles have become a major concern, and leishmaniasis, which was previously confined to northern Israel, has now spread to Lebanon and Jordan.

Last week it was reported for the first time that there have been 11 laboratory-confirmed cases of middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection in Jordan since 26 August, and that five of the 11 patients have already died.

A Médecins Sans Frontières doctor has said:

“There are too many patients, too many stories. But one patient shows the madness of this crisis—a child—who I will never forget until I die: he had injuries all over his face, his arms, his legs, and yet he was laughing! Just laughing and laughing. Children usually are afraid of our injections and needles, but he was not. He just laughed, laughed at everything.”

Those who are involved are the bravest of our health professionals. Five Médecins Sans Frontières staff were abducted in early 2014—although they were subsequently released—and yet MSF continues to operate 100 clinics, health posts and field hospitals.

The WHO, in its latest report on Syria, states that there have been 242 attacks against healthcare facilities, 615 attacks against healthcare workers and 172 deaths. Those attacks have increased.

Kezia Dugdale today asked the Scottish Government to work with the five medical schools, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties in Scotland, the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council to bring over and support Syrian medical students whom the UNHCR has identified whose studies have been interrupted.

The Labour amendment congratulates the University of Glasgow on its initiative—

Photo of Roderick Campbell Roderick Campbell Scottish National Party

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. It cannot have escaped anyone’s attention that, in Europe, we are experiencing the worst refugee crisis since the second world war.

With that in mind, I had high hopes for last week’s Opposition day debate in the Commons, led by the SNP’s Angus Robertson, during which he called on the Prime Minister to “think the unimaginable” and urged him to accept many more Syrian refugees, including those who are already present in Europe. Unfortunately, the SNP parliamentary motion, which called on the UK Government to publish a report detailing what more it could do to alleviate the plight of Syrian refugees, was defeated by 311 votes to 259, despite having cross-party support.

Welcome though the UK contribution to refugee camps in countries adjoining Syria is, it cannot be the end of the matter. Welcome though the UK’s record in reaching 0.7 per cent of GDP in its international aid target is, it cannot be a case of either/or—either aid or refugees. A small country such as Denmark manages to achieve its obligation to both. Nor does the UK’s action mean that we should in any way seek to encourage people smuggling.

The Scottish Government has been clear that it will do its part. I welcome its announcement of a humanitarian task force and the willingness of the Scottish ministers to help and offer sanctuary to those in crisis. Such a response has been led by the First Minister, who has joined public figures, such as the Finnish Prime Minister and Bob Geldof, who have each stated that they would warmly accept refugees into their homes.

In communities throughout Scotland, there have been overwhelming messages of support for Syrian and other refugees. I believe that the strength of positive feeling towards such refugees defines Scotland as a country: friendly, welcoming and accepting of those who are from different backgrounds.

Let us be clear who we are speaking of when we employ the term “refugee”. Refugees are human beings, first and foremost. These are usually desperate people who have been forced to leave their homes to escape persecution and civil war. They are not, as some have suggested, economic migrants or migrants.

The figures for refugee populations by their country or territory of origin, provided by the World Bank, indicate that the number of Syrian refugees is rising at an alarming rate. The UNHCR has stated that, in 2014, at least 1.66 million people submitted applications for asylum—the highest level ever recorded. That figure is set to rise, but it is important to note that, as daunting as those figures may appear, we must not shirk from our responsibility to help our fellow human beings.

Indeed, in his first annual state of the union address in the European Parliament, Jean-Claude Juncker acknowledged that the numbers were “frightening” for some, but declared that

“now is not the time to take fright. It is time for bold ... concerted action”.

He went on to say that this is

“a matter of humanity and ... dignity. And for Europe it is also a matter of historical fairness.”

It is simply not, as some people argue, an issue just for the Schengen countries.

Less than two weeks ago, I asked the First Minister whether she agreed

“that fortress Britannia is the very opposite of what is required”—[Official Report, 3 September 2015; c 20.]

to manage the refugee crisis. I argued that

“what is needed is a pan-European approach”.—[Official Report, 3 September 2015; c 20.]

I continue to think that such an approach is needed, which is why I am so concerned by the actions taken yesterday by Hungary to close its borders. This morning, we woke to the news that the first refugees had been arrested for attempting to cross into Hungary from Serbia overnight. Hungary’s actions are part of a worrying trend by some, but not all, countries in Europe to pass the buck instead of seeking to work collectively, shoulder to shoulder, with their European neighbours.

Here, although the UK Government has taken a first step by announcing that it will accept up to 20,000 refugees over the next five years, I believe that it can do much more at a time when we have seen Germany committing to take on as many as 800,000 refugees. In one weekend, 13,000 arrived in Munich. If Germany can do it, a state as wealthy as the UK can, and should, do more. Although I accept that the UK has granted asylum to 5,000 Syrians since 2011, the figure of up to 20,000 over the next five years seems somewhat insignificant.

Then we have Theresa May, who has announced that the UK Government would opt out of the EU’s quota plan to relocate 160,000 refugees. Fortress Britannia indeed. However, despite reluctance on the part of the UK Government, praise must go to the efforts of many charities across Scotland and the UK. Save the Children has launched the emergency child refugee crisis appeal to fund support programmes to help families, including young children, who have been forced to flee their homes in Syria and other countries across the middle east and Africa. In its first 24 hours, the appeal raised more than £500,000. The money raised will go towards supporting the various relief programmes, extending as far as Syria itself. That response confirms not only the dedication of charitable organisations but that of the public who are contributing.

The petition calling for the UK Government to take more refugees has raised over 400,000 signatures already. Vigils such as those held in Edinburgh and Glasgow over the past weekend truly underline the solidarity of the people in Scotland and indeed elsewhere.

In my view the overwhelmingly positive attitude shown by the people of Scotland must be matched by a commitment by the UK Government to do more. The UK Government needs to lead by example to build on the UK’s rich history of accepting refugees.

Only by coming together across Europe can we alleviate the plight of the refugees and find long-term solutions to this crisis.

Photo of Hugh Henry Hugh Henry Labour

Someone would have to have a heart of stone not to have been moved by the events that we have seen in Europe in recent months: from the dead boy, Alan Kurdi, being washed up on the shores of Turkey, to the columns of desperate people marching along motorways and railway tracks in Europe and the desperate scenes in the refugee camp at Calais. It ill behoves us to turn our eyes away from the crisis, irrespective of where it is. It is sad that it has taken those recent events to provoke the reaction that we now see.

There is a challenge to each and every one of us. Neil Bibby mentioned the meeting in Paisley yesterday that was organised by Bishop John Keenan, at which were representatives from local churches in the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church and the Scottish Episcopal Church. The four main political parties were represented, as were charitable organisations such as the Society of St Vincent De Paul. We all spoke with one voice at that meeting. We put all our differences aside to say that we wanted to do something locally in Renfrewshire and we thought that both the Scottish Government and the UK Government should do what they could—and do more—to help.

It was heartening to see people wanting to do something to make a difference, but we should not underestimate the complexity of the problem. We need more than simple, knee-jerk reactions. As Neil Bibby said, what people such as Jade O’Neil are doing is commendable. My colleague Mary Fee has helped to organise the taking of clothing and other goods to Calais. Such work needs to be done, but we only help a small number of people when we do it. It is commendable that we are offering to take in up to 20,000 refugees over five years, but that is but a fleabite of the problem that exists in Europe and beyond. The human reaction is to help that which we see put in front of us, but we need to do much more.

Members have discussed the root causes of the problems and the political decisions made by the west, for which those poor, unfortunate people are paying a high price.

We need to help those in the refugee camps—we need to take more. However, the people who are arriving on our borders in Europe make up only a 10th of the total number of people who have been displaced by conflicts in the middle east. Something needs to be done for those who are on the borders of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and so on. We cannot ignore their plight. We cannot respond only to the people who are arriving in Europe.

We should also reflect on the fact that Lebanon, which bears such a heavy burden of refugees from the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, has for many years had to cope with the burden of the conflict in Palestine and many people who have been in camps for generations. The problem of refugees is not new for Lebanon, although we are only now responding to it. Something must be done to help people in those areas.

We should not forget particular groups who are hard hit by the conflicts that are going on. We should remember what happened to the Yazidis and the many people who are still incarcerated by ISIS in its camps. We should not forget the beleaguered Christian communities, some of the oldest in the world, which are being persecuted not only for political reasons but for religious reasons.

This is a multifaceted problem. It does not require a simple solution that involves us salving our consciences for a couple of days by sending things to people who are in the press at the moment. There is a need for a long-term solution, and I am delighted that we in Renfrewshire are saying that we are all in this together and will do what we can.

Photo of Kevin Stewart Kevin Stewart Scottish National Party

In response to yesterday’s meeting of the European justice and home affairs council, Amnesty International said:

“It is disappointing that again the UK Government has refused to take part in the immediate relocation of 160,000 refugees from Italy, Greece and Hungary, as agreed at the Justice and Home Affairs Council ... We are further concerned by the Home Secretary’s proposals for ‘removal centres’ or ‘safe camps’ in Africa where refugees who cannot be returned to countries such as Eritrea would be sent. Given the huge underfunding of refugees camps currently, leading to insecurity, insanitary conditions and lack of adequate food, water and shelter, it is clear that establishing new, long-term refugee camps will suffer from exactly the same problems and further risks of human rights abuses.”

Some of the points about the medical aspects of refugee camps have been made by Hugh Henry and by Richard Simpson.

Amnesty International is extremely critical of the UK Government and the Home Secretary. The UK Government has obviously not risen to the challenge, but the people of Scotland and elsewhere definitely have, through the things that they have been doing to alleviate the difficulties that many thousands of refugees face.

I pay tribute to the Aberdeen refugee solidarity campaign, which has gathered an unbelievable amount of donations. It had the use of the Aberdeen Academy of Performing Arts for a couple of days last weekend and it ended up with two full rooms of goods in no time at all. My Facebook and Twitter feeds were full of messages about what people were doing. People felt that they needed to do something to help others. It is a pity that European Governments, including the UK Government, are not reacting in the same manner as individuals in Aberdeen and others across Scotland and the world. Those overwhelming responses are truly amazing to see.

During the debate, we have heard that we already have a number of Syrian refugee families in Scotland. It is horrific for them to watch what is happening on Europe’s southern borders and in the refugee camps that surround Syria.

I have received correspondence from a Syrian who is living in Scotland. I will not go into great detail about it, but this person’s brother was kidnapped by ISIS and he has three vulnerable female relatives in Turkey. He is desperate to get visas for those relatives to join him here. He says that he would be responsible for their accommodation and living costs. There would be no burden on the state and no need for anyone else to take folks in. The man wants to help his relatives, as we all would in the circumstances that we are witnessing across Europe and in the countries that neighbour Syria.

I appeal to the Home Secretary to look at cases in which people can support their relatives to come here and to be flexible about granting visas in such cases. That would be one way to show compassion and to do so quickly.

Photo of Jamie McGrigor Jamie McGrigor Conservative

Not just now.

The approach will lead to an increase in the number of the most vulnerable refugees who are granted refuge here, which is what many people want. Also welcome is the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday of his decision to appoint a new minister with the remit of looking after the interests of Syrian refugees who come to the UK.

I emphasise how much the UK is contributing to the international aid effort in relation to the Syrian crisis. That contribution includes support to many of the nearly 4 million refugees who are living in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon and to the 8 million displaced Syrians who are still living in Syria. Millions more Syrians who have yet to leave their homes are also suffering from the violence and need assistance. That must never be forgotten.

We are the world’s second largest bilateral donor of aid in relation to the Syrian conflict. As John Lamont said, we have provided more than 18 million food rations and given 1.6 million people access to clean water. We are providing education to a quarter of a million children, and that number will increase.

The UK Government announced an additional £100 million in aid last week, which will take our total contribution to more than £1 billion. That is the UK’s largest-ever response to a humanitarian crisis. We should be proud of that and proud that the UK is one of the only countries in the world to honour its commitment to spending 0.7 per cent of GDP on foreign aid.

All of us can agree that the Syrian refugee crisis is horrendous, heartbreaking and upsetting, but the reaction to it must be emotion combined with rationality, which I will come back to. The crisis is a direct consequence of the political situation and the violent civil war in Syria, so we should surely concur with the UK Government and the international community that we must adopt a comprehensive approach that tackles the problem’s causes as well as the consequences.

The greatest contribution that the UK can make is to work to end the conflict. We must all continue to seek a peaceful settlement that enables a political transition and an end to violence. Is that not really what we want? However hard that might be and however far away from that position we might be, we must take a similar approach to Libya and other states where political violence and turmoil are harming the people of those countries and driving the refugee crisis.

Hugh Henry is right, and I am sure that no one in this Parliament has a heart of stone. The images in the media—especially those of the drowning of innocent children—are truly heartrending. I cannot even imagine the grief that those parents go through. However, as I said before, the reaction to the crisis must be emotion combined with rationality.

Photo of Alex Rowley Alex Rowley Labour

I welcome the debate that we have had and the consensus that there has been in the chamber. The minister mentioned negative attitudes, and we acknowledge that there are different views. Although it is a minority of people who could be described as Christine Grahame described them, such attitudes are why we need to have the debate. We need to encourage discussion across the country so that, if there is any fear about the number of refugees who are coming in, we can have an open dialogue and remove that fear.

The image of a three-year-old boy lying dead on a beach in Turkey shocked the world. If anything good comes from the death of three-year-old Alan Kurdi, his five-year-old brother and his mother, I hope and pray that it is that the world will act to help those who are fleeing persecution, conflict, generalised violence and human rights violations. The world is facing a global crisis on an unprecedented scale, with 60 million people displaced around the world. Around the country of Syria, there are 4 million refugees, of whom 2 million are children. We need to get across the point that half the world’s refugee population are children.

Anne McTaggart was right to say that we need a global response. Sadly, Willie Rennie was also right when he said that the UK Government and David Cameron seem confused about the issue. As well as stepping up to the mark and ensuring that the whole UK plays its role in welcoming refugees and ensuring that they have the right support and that the right resources and infrastructure are put in place to support them, we must, as the United Kingdom, lead the rest of the world in facing up to a global crisis that requires a global response.

I welcome the consensus and the views that have been expressed in our debate, but I have to wonder what Scotland’s Parliament and Government will do to ensure that the UK Government and the British Prime Minister step up to the mark. We need to look at everything that we can do to ensure that.

The Scottish Refugee Council has set out clear recommendations for what it believes the UK Government needs to do. It says that the UK Government should afford full refugee status to Syrians who are resettled in the UK through the Syrian vulnerable persons scheme and any other resettlement programmes; grant full family reunion rights, including to children who are resettled in the UK through the scheme; and increase the number of refugee resettlement places in line with our European neighbours as part of the EU-wide resettlement programme. It asks the UK Government to review refugee family reunion policies to allow family members to join relatives who are already in the UK and to open safe routes to the UK from overseas by providing humanitarian visas to enable people to get to safety—countries such as Austria, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain have already done that.

The Scottish Refugee Council points out that the UK Government has made it more difficult for Syrians to come here legally by having dramatically reduced the proportion of visa applications that it has approved for Syrian nationals since the conflict began. In 2010, the UK approved 70 per cent of visas for Syrian nationals; in 2014, the figure dropped to 40 per cent. That is why Syrian families, including women and children, are having to put their lives in the hands of people smugglers and are risking their lives in crossing the Mediterranean. This summer alone, 2,500 men, women and children have died as a result of trying to cross the Mediterranean. We need to look at opening up the legal routes that can allow refugees to come into Europe over land. We in the Scottish Parliament need to push for that, but we also need to press the UK Government on that.

The Scottish Refugee Council says that the UK Government should suspend returns under the Dublin regulations so that no one is returned from the UK to another EU country for the purpose of deciding their asylum claim, and that the UK Government should treat refugees who arrive in the UK fairly and humanely by ensuring that they can access the asylum process, receive a fair hearing for their claims and have adequate support to live a dignified life and that they are not detained. It says that the Scottish Government should press the UK Government to participate in collective EU responses to the crisis, including by playing its role in taking responsibility for refugees in Europe. If the Parliament agrees to the motion, we need to ask ourselves what we will do to press the UK Government. We need to show that Scotland has a stronger voice.

The issue of negative attitudes has been raised. I have written a few pieces over the past few weeks, and as well as people welcoming what I have written and saying that it is right, people have told me that they have concerns and fears. Two weeks ago, I heard the director of Shelter Scotland talk on BBC radio about the housing crisis that we have in Scotland. People who are involved in that crisis fear that the situation will get worse. That is why, although we should welcome refugees and do everything in our power to raise the number from 1,000 to 2,000 refugees—as John Mason said, we have a vast area of land in our country and it is not as though Scotland is full—we must ensure that the investment comes in and that we can provide the infrastructure to satisfy basic needs, such as the need for housing. As politicians, we are already arguing for a national housing programme to tackle the housing crisis for the people who currently live in Scotland, so we need that level of investment—that cannot be stressed enough.

I associate myself with John Mason’s comments. This is not just about the humanitarian crisis, although it is right that we step up to that. We also need to point out the benefits that Scotland can get from welcoming refugees into our country, which he outlined.

I welcome the debate. Let us encourage similar debate across Scotland, but let us make sure that, when we welcome increased numbers of people to this country, they are properly supported and properly resourced and have a roof over their heads. We must make the necessary investment. That is the duty of this Parliament, the Scottish Government and the UK Government.

Photo of Humza Yousaf Humza Yousaf Scottish National Party

Like many here, I have been moved to tears twice in as many weeks, and for very different reasons. First, a person would have to have a heart of stone not to be deeply moved by the image of Alan Kurdi’s body washed up on a beach in Turkey. All of us here will have desperately tried to hold back from wandering into the realms of “what if?”: what if that had not been Alan Kurdi’s body, but that of one of our own children; what if it had been that of our nephew, niece, grandchild or godchild? How would any of us possibly have coped?

The second time that I was reduced to tears was for a very different reason: joy. At the weekend, I joined thousands of others across Scotland at vigils to show solidarity with refugees who are fleeing conflict and persecution across the world. I have seen some really amazing things in George Square in my lifetime, but I never suspected that I would see the day when people would come out in droves to demand that their Government provide safety to refugees in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. Everybody who attended the vigils should be applauded for showing such solidarity. That display of common humanity was a beautiful spectacle. It was a reminder that, despite how difficult things can get or seem, we should never allow ourselves to wallow in a pit of despair. It is often in the darkest of times that the light of human kindness shines through.

The death of Alan Kurdi may have acted as a wake-up call to the world to take notice of a crisis on a global scale. However, the terrible reality is that he was one of many thousands—men, women and children—who have perished making the perilous journey from war-torn Syria to the safety of Europe.

The crisis is not new. It has not happened suddenly; it has been going on for years. A war has raged in Syria for more than four years. The loss of life has been utterly appalling, and the devastation of homes and communities has led to an exodus of refugees. Very few of us will have seen such an exodus in our lifetime.

Let me deliberately use the word “refugees” again. The idea that those who are fleeing Syria are immigrants or even purely economic migrants is as laughable as it is ridiculous. The belief that parents would risk their lives and their children’s lives for social security or a food bank voucher is warped and not one that the Scottish Government accepts.

Much of the focus has rightly been on the plight of Syrian refugees. More than 4 million Syrians are now registered as refugees in countries that neighbour Syria, and more than 8 million are now internally displaced. As we have seen so graphically, many thousands have undertaken a desperate and dangerous journey to try to reach the safety of Europe. Perhaps war in the middle east and elsewhere in the world used to seem very far away from us—and perhaps at one time it was. The pictures of desperate people arriving across southern Europe bring the consequences of that war much closer to home.

Last week, President Juncker of the European Commission was right when he said that we in Europe

“needed to remember that Europe has had its own refugee crises in the past with people fleeing from war, persecution, especially during the conflicts of the last century”.

The Scottish Government has been calling on the UK Government to accept more refugees from Syria for more than two years. I and other ministers have consistently and regularly raised the issue with UK Government ministers and pressed for more to be done. We have always made it clear that Scotland would play its part in accepting more refugees from the conflict.

On 4 September, the First Minister hosted a summit to set out Scotland’s response to the unfolding humanitarian tragedy in southern Europe. Before the summit, the First Minister wrote again to the Prime Minister, urging him to sign up to the European Union’s proposals on the relocation of refugees and refugee resettlement to enable the UK to take its fair share of people fleeing persecution and conflict. We should look to the contribution made by other countries across Europe of similar size and economic equivalence. Germany, for example, has taken more refugees in one weekend than the UK is proposing to take over five years.

The summit brought together stakeholders from the refugee community, local authorities, the third sector and other representatives of civic Scotland in a positive and productive environment to discuss the situation and what Scotland can do to help. We heard extremely powerful testimony from people who have escaped war and persecution and sought sanctuary here in Scotland. They talked of how they had been welcomed in Scotland and also about the practicalities of settling in a new country.

I was particularly pleased that the summit attracted cross-party support and again express my thanks and the thanks of the Government for the attendance at the summit of all the party leaders from across the chamber.

Following the summit, the Prime Minister finally announced last week that the UK Government would accept 20,000 refugees in an expansion of the existing Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme over the next five years.

Back in January 2014, the Scottish Government welcomed the establishment of the VPR scheme, and we are pleased that more than a quarter of the refugees—55 out of the 216—who have arrived under the scheme have come to Scotland and been welcomed by Glasgow City Council.

Although the expansion of the scheme is extremely welcome, we believe that the UK must do more than that.

Yes, I accept that point, which Willie Rennie makes well. Also, I say to those who have suggested that having search and rescue facilities in the Mediterranean is a pull factor that the evidence has shown that that is not the case.

The figure of 20,000 refugees over five years should not be seen as a cap or an upper limit. The Scottish Government believes that the UK should play its part in responding to the crisis on the southern European coast.

As for Scotland, the figure of 1,000 refugees that was mentioned by the First Minister on Friday 4 September was a response to how many refugees we should immediately be ready to accept. It should in no way be seen as a limit or an upper cap. Let me be clear: whatever figure the UK Government proposes, we in Scotland are prepared to take—and will take—a proportionate share.

We understand that the UK Government wishes to take only people living in refugee camps in countries surrounding Syria. However, we believe that the scheme must be extended to include those in Europe so that the UK can play its part in tackling the immediate problems on our doorstep.

The Scottish Government has repeatedly called on the UK Government to play a co-ordinated part in the European approach to asylum. Following the First Minister’s summit, Scotland’s practical response to the crisis is being co-ordinated by an operational task force, whose second meeting I chaired this morning. The task force is urgently engaging with organisations across Scotland to establish capacity across the range of key services that will ensure that refugees coming to Scotland will be able to integrate successfully.

Local authorities are crucial to the successful integration of refugees into our communities. The task force has heard about the overwhelming and unprecedented response from local authorities, with the majority of councils indicating a willingness to accommodate refugees from the current crisis. I pay tribute to their positive and generous response, which we will build on to ensure that the appropriate support and integration services are put in place.

The task force is also examining how Scotland can harness the enormous good will and offers of help from members of the public. Humanitarian organisations and the Scottish Government have received a huge number of offers of practical help from individuals and groups across the country.

The task force today launched an online hub to signpost members of the public to information about how they can donate or register their willingness to help refugees in other ways, such as befriending, teaching English as a second language or providing other integration support. The website is www.scotlandwelcomesrefugees.scot and I encourage every member to look it up and share it across their social media networks. As members will be aware, the Scottish Government has allocated an initial £1 million to support the work of the task force in the practical preparation of services and support across Scotland to deal with the arrival of refugees. Further support will be considered as the task force progresses its work.

It should be recognised that Scotland has a long experience of welcoming refugees. We have a history of refugee resettlement. Over the past 20 years, refugees from Bosnia, Kosovo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have found a new home in Scotland through resettlement programmes and have been able to rebuild their lives here.

I am sure that the First Minister will reply to that letter, but the priority and the desire are to ensure that refugees are resettled in social housing and housing association housing. That will be the task force’s immediate priority. Those who are resettled with families—they might be unaccompanied children—will be with people who have already been disclosure checked, such as registered foster parents. Those are some of the issues that are being examined. If there is a need for disclosure checks, the task force can certainly explore that.

On the international humanitarian crisis and the needs of those in the camps, the Scottish Government allocated money to the Disasters Emergency Committee in 2013. However, the end of the conflict in Syria is not in sight. It is worth giving credit to the UK Government for the generous donations that it has made in overseas aid to Syria and refugee camps in the surrounding area. The Scottish Government, guided by the operational task force, will explore what more it can do.

This is a global humanitarian crisis, which requires a global response. There are no easy solutions, but we all have a responsibility as human beings to recognise the extent of the crisis and do something about it—doing nothing is simply not an option. The overwhelming support from across Scotland over the past two weeks, from the Scottish people, local authorities and the third sector, shows our willingness to help the most vulnerable in the world. To paraphrase President Juncker again, we have not forgotten that there is a reason why there are more MacDonalds living in the United States than the entire population of Scotland. We, as a nation, have to step up and respond in a way that matches the scale of the crisis.

I have the best job—and the best-kept secret—in the Government: I get to sell Scotland across the world. In that role, I am often asked what I want Scotland to be known for. It is quite simple. I do not want Scotland to be known as the wealthiest country in the world, as nice as that may be. I do not want us to be known for our military might, as important as our defences are. If there is one thing that I want our nation to be known for, let it be as the most compassionate country in the world, so that, when history judges us on how we responded to the humanitarian crisis, and history will judge us, our future generations will look back and say that, when the world needed leadership, courage and compassion, Scotland—all of us together—stood at the front of the queue and did not cower away in the background.

I pledge once again that Scotland will leave no stone unturned. We will do everything that we can to help refugees. We will not forget Alan Kurdi and all the lost lives that he represents. We will not walk on by.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the severity of the global refugee crisis and calls for a coordinated international humanitarian response; acknowledges the contribution of the UK Government to the humanitarian needs of those in the refugee camps bordering Syria and the commitment to take 20,000 Syrian refugees from these camps by 2020; calls on the UK Government to increase the numbers it will accept, coordinate with its European partners and take its fair share of the refugees arriving in the EU; welcomes the cross-party summit on the refugee crisis and the establishment of the taskforce to coordinate Scotland’s response, which has been aided by £1 million from the Scottish Government; further welcomes the overwhelming public response to the crisis, the generosity of spirit being demonstrated across Scotland and the positive response of local government, the third sector and communities, and commits to ensuring that those arriving in Scotland will be given a warm and positive welcome and that Scotland will take a fair share of refugees.

Photo of Claire Baker Claire Baker Labour

I thank the Scottish Government for bringing the debate to the chamber and for lodging a motion that we can, I hope, unite behind. I confirm that we will support the Government’s motion. The debate is another opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to speak with one voice on the crisis; I hope that we do so.

We have already heard many moving speeches on the refugee crisis, including from the First Minister, Kezia Dugdale and Patricia Ferguson. The harrowing scenes that we have witnessed over the past few weeks and months have not been the beginning of the crisis, and I appreciate the opportunity that we had before recess to speak in Alex Rowley’s members’ business debate on the Mediterranean crisis.

The heartbreaking pictures of Alan Kurdi were the beginning of the public demand for action, which forced a welcome rethink of the UK Government’s position. The actions that the Government has taken—to increase the number of refugees that the UK will accept, to create a new ministerial post and to financially support refugee camps—are all welcome, but they are not enough. Those measures are all highlighted in John Lamont’s amendment and although I acknowledge the UK Government’s contribution, I have concerns about the choice of the word “sustainable”. We are in a crisis and need to ensure that our response matches that.

Even the pictures of Alan, the refugees marching down the motorway and the refrigerated lorry at the side of the road failed to fully express the sheer scale of the crisis. A report that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees published in June stated that one human in every 122 is now a refugee, is seeking asylum or is internally displaced. Fifty three per cent of all refugees come from three countries: Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia. More than 4 million Syrians have left their homes in search of safety and a further 6 million have been internally displaced. That is the scale of the crisis.

The crisis has been with us for some time. The Scottish Government has made representation to the UK Government calling for action. In our manifesto for the general election, Labour made a direct commitment to

“ensure Britain continues its proud history of providing refuge for those fleeing persecution by upholding our international obligations, including working with the UN to support vulnerable refugees from Syria.”

Yvette Cooper deserves credit for her work at Westminster on the refugee crisis and for trying to change the position of a UK Government that has, at times, proved to be reluctant to take action beyond the aid packages that it has sent to the region. I am pleased that she will now head a Labour task force on refugees.

I am also pleased that the UK Government has finally promised to meet our moral obligation to accommodate more refugees in Britain. However, although 20,000 over the duration of the current UK Parliament is welcome, it is not enough. We need to do more; the crisis is now. At this stage, we do not know whether the number will be front loaded, as has been requested by humanitarian charities, which understand the situation on the ground far better than any politician in the UK. The Refugee Council has stated:

“The programme needs to be frontloaded as the crisis is now and the expansion must happen as a matter of urgency as people are living in desperate situations in the region and cannot wait until 2020 to reach safety.”

It is also wrong that the Prime Minister has ruled out helping those who have already reached Europe but who still need accommodation and our help. We have seen the struggles that face Greece and Italy, which are in an impossible situation, and the negative reaction of countries such as Hungary, where fences have been erected to keep refugees out. We have also seen the contrast with Germany, which has made a huge contribution in offering asylum. However, it cannot do that alone. Our moral obligation must be extended to helping those who have felt it appropriate to risk their lives by making the dangerous journey to Europe.

The UK Government’s theory that taking refugees only from Syria and its neighbouring countries will prevent people from attempting to make the journey to Europe bears a remarkable resemblance to the theory that stopping search and rescue in the Mediterranean would mean that the boats would no longer come. This theory, too, will fail to match reality: people will still make the journey, and many of them will tragically die. We must work to ensure that there are safe and legal routes from overseas and that those who make the journey across the Mediterranean are treated with humanity.

Their number currently includes some 3,000 unaccompanied children, who are here without a mother or father. There can be no argument—political or moral—that concludes that those children do not deserve our help simply because they survived the gruelling and life-threatening trip to Europe. History has shown that Britain has been ready and willing to act in the past. In the lead-up to the second world war, 10,000 Jewish children arrived in this country. That was the right thing to do then; with 3,000 unaccompanied children in Europe now, it is again the right thing to do.

Save the Children is calling for a key campaign in that respect, and it has set out a five-point plan for Government action. The Scottish Refugee Council highlights in its briefing that we need an appropriate response to the increasing numbers of vulnerable women and children who are fleeing. We need clarity on what will happen, once they reach the age of 18, to children who come here. We must ensure that, when people look back at this point in history, Britain is not found wanting.

The UK Government has moved only under pressure. The increase in the number of refugees to 20,000 came not in the immediate aftermath of the publication of the pictures of Alan; it was announced only when it became apparent that the picture that was on the front page of most newspapers was beginning to change the mood of the country. That, along with pressure from the Opposition, is what has caused the Government’s U-turn.

On the refugee crisis, the UK Government has been reacting rather than leading. It must reconsider its refusal to participate in the EU reallocation scheme, and it is important that we as a Parliament continue to apply pressure on it on that issue. A joint letter that was sent last November by charities including Oxfam and the Refugee Council stated:

“While we applaud Britain’s generous aid contribution to the crisis, it is clear that aid alone is not enough. Syria’s neighbours are struggling under the weight of this unprecedented crisis and it is time we stopped asking of them what we are not doing ourselves.”

The choices that are open to us should not involve either only delivering aid or only accommodating refugees—our response needs to include both. We have seen poignant images of public support from Glasgow and Edinburgh at the weekend—the minister spoke about George Square—and a number of local campaign groups have sprung up throughout the country. That is something of which we, as a country, can be proud.

Following Labour’s calls for Britain to take at least 10,000 refugees, I was pleased that the Scottish Government confirmed that it is willing to take 1,000 as its fair share, and that that is a starting point and not a cap. Now that the UK Government has confirmed that it will take 20,000 refugees, I welcome the Scottish Government’s confirmation—not that I ever doubted it—that it will continue to take its fair share, which will now be 2,000 refugees. Is the Scottish Government able to say whether there is a way in which it can front load the numbers of refugees who will come to Scotland so that we can give help where it is most needed? Has the minister had any discussions with the UK Government and local authorities on increasing the initial calls to take 1,000 refugees? Will the fair share of 2,000 still not be considered a cap?

Scotland has led the UK in our reaction to the refugee crisis and we must continue to do more. I very much welcome the minister’s comments in his speech. I also ask the Scottish Government how discussions with councils have been progressing. Is the Government aware how many refugees are able to settle in each area? What resources, if any, from either the Scottish Government or the UK Government will be at councils’ disposal?

The Scottish Refugee Council has emphasised the importance of a national co-ordinated response allowing for the reduction of transitional costs, and it has called for a national reception centre. Perhaps the minister can, in closing, respond to those points.

Certainly, the number of refugees that we will welcome into Scotland is only the beginning; we must also look at how we integrate them into our society long term. Will the Scottish Government task force consider that important aspect of the crisis, and will it consider publishing a plan to set out how it will achieve integration?

Organisations such as the Fife Migrants Forum are well placed to support integration, but they need support for resources such as translators and volunteers—including financial support—as soon as possible.

As our amendment to the Government’s motion highlights, there are already positive measures being taken. The University of Glasgow, for example, must be congratulated for the action that it has taken in supporting refugee students by offering fee waivers. It has also extended its talent sponsorship scheme and is accommodating two Syrian academics as PhD students. I encourage other universities, colleges and businesses to look at that example and to think about how they can do the same. I hope that that can be achieved, with support from the Scottish Government.

For many refugees, their studies have been disrupted, their jobs and trades lost and their careers halted by the crisis. That, too, is something that we can help to tackle. We must offer people sanctuary and, when the time comes, if they wish—many will—to return to their home countries ensure that they are equipped with the skills and talents that will benefit their economy, their culture and their country in the future. Let us not give refugees in Scotland just a home; let us give them hope for the future. That is an achievement that we should all be working towards.

I move amendment S4M-14245.2, to insert at end:

“; notes the positive measures that the University of Glasgow has taken to support refugee students by offering fee waivers, extending its Talent Scholarship programme and accommodating two Syrian academics as PhD students, and encourages other universities to explore opportunities, with support from the Scottish Government, to offer places to students whose studies have been interrupted and whose education could benefit their home country in the future”.

Photo of John Lamont John Lamont Conservative

There is undoubtedly a crisis across Europe, which will define how Europe moves forward. Britain is playing its part in European efforts to deal with the crisis. The Prime Minister has said clearly, as I am trying to do today, how the Conservatives believe is the best way to deal with that.

The Germans set out their position. We have already seen today, over the past few hours, that their position has changed remarkably in the light of the changing and very challenging position that is emerging in Europe.

Some of the language that has been used in this discussion over the past few days has been unhelpful. It is unfair to accuse the UK Government of lacking compassion based purely on the number of people who will be allowed to stay in the United Kingdom.