Official Report 1089KB pdf
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-16539, in the name of Maggie Chapman, on “Ending Destitution in Scotland—A Road Map for Policymakers”. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the recent publication by Professor Jen Ang of the legal briefing, Ending Destitution in Scotland – a Road Map for Policymakers; further notes that this report was commissioned by I-SPHERE and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, as part of the Fair Way Scotland partnership, following the publication in September 2024 of the paper Destitution by Design: righting the wrongs of UK immigration policy in Scotland; understands that the legal briefing sets out clear, actionable steps that lie within the powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to reduce destitution for people coming to Scotland to study, work, join family or seek sanctuary; further understands that there are clear recommendations about access to social security and financial support, housing, transport, health and social care, justice and legal aid, education, and work; notes the view that the Scottish Government can and should be doing more to prevent destitution in Scotland, including in the North East Scotland region; further notes the view that the complexity of UK immigration law, and the challenges of striking the right balance in the exercise of powers within the devolution settlement, must no longer be an excuse for failure to act on the part of the Scottish Government and local authorities, in the face of what it sees as overwhelming evidence of the harms caused to people with no recourse to public funds/other restricted eligibility, and to the communities in which they live; notes the view that Scotland can create a fairer system based on need and the realisation of rights, ensuring that everyone has access to essential services and what they need to live a life of dignity, regardless of their immigration status; further notes the calls on the Scottish Government to act on each of the recommendations, including to review devolved policy to eliminate unintended exclusions from support, to establish and scale up the financial support available, to ensure appropriate training and resources for all frontline workers, and to negotiate a clearer understanding of “public funds”, as defined by the Home Office, and congratulates the Fair Way Scotland Partnership on its ongoing work to prevent destitution in Scotland.
17:49
Deputy Presiding Officer,
“Being on the streets almost destroyed me. Walking, walking, with no sleep.”
“I’d just sit on the bench by the river. It was minus 6, then minus 2 in the morning when the sun shone ... I’m not safe here.”
“I can’t sleep, because ... tomorrow, what is coming?”
Those are the words of Sofija, Kunal and Tsehay: three people who came to Scotland looking for a better life and who suffered violent abuse, hunger, ill health and destitution. It is for Sofija, Kunal and Tsehay, and for far too many other people like them, that I speak today.
I am honoured and grateful to have the opportunity to bring this issue, which is literally a matter of life and death and which involves one of the most foundational human rights, to the chamber. I thank all those who have worked so generously, meticulously and courageously, including I-SPHERE—the institute for social policy, housing, equalities research—the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, other members of the fair way Scotland partnership and, of course, Professor Jen Ang. It is thanks to her that we are debating the subject today, and I hope that we can do justice to her integrity, expertise and vision. I also thank colleagues from across the chamber for supporting the motion and the debate, and for our discussion at yesterday’s meeting of the cross-party group on migration.
When we say that someone is destitute, we mean that they are shut out from the simplest things that make human lives possible, usually from food and clothing, and often from shelter and home. When we think of destitution, we think of distance—places that are torn by conflict or disaster, and histories of dispossession and famine. However, there are people living in Scotland today who are destitute. There are people dying in destitution here, in Scotland, right now.
What do we call that reality? If there was nothing that we could do, we would call it a tragedy. However, if we could make change but we do not, and if we could open those doors to basic food, clothes and shelter but we keep them shut, what do we call it? We call it injustice. We call it, as it is, a breach of fundamental human rights. We call it, I believe, collective shame.
The Scottish Government has acted, and I commend the work that it has begun, following the work of the Equality, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee—on which I am proud to serve—and through its work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in producing the “Ending Destitution Together” strategy. That strategy has enabled the life-saving work of the fair way Scotland partnership in Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh.
It is not enough—too many doors are still closed and still locked. However, we now have the keys. Jen Ang’s legal briefing, “Ending Destitution in Scotland—A Road Map for Policymakers”, is clear and challenging. It sets out the ways in which people in Scotland are denied access to basic provisions through intentional and direct exclusion, indirect mechanisms and a lack of information, education, courage and care. It shows how the Scottish Government, supported by all of us as critical friends, can act to open those locked doors and to make real the rights of our destitute neighbours.
I ask the Scottish Government to commit to five tangible actions, all of which are within devolved competence. The first is to widen access to universal services and benefits, with a systematic review to ascertain exactly where and how that can be done. The word “universal” should mean just that—initiatives that are meant to reduce inequality and poverty must include people who are stranded by the widest inequality and struck by the deepest destitution. That includes people with no recourse to public funds or with restricted or uncertain eligibility, or NRPF/RE.
The second action is to resource the fair way Scotland partnership sufficiently so that it can respond to the real level of need across Scotland. We know that that model is working and is opening doors to support, accommodation, advice and cash payments for essential needs. At present, however, the partnership simply does not have the capacity to help everyone who needs it.
The third action is to create a new Scottish crisis, or hardship, grant, using powers that the Scottish Government has under the Scotland Act 2016. That could fill the widest gaps and give emergency help to those who are in desperate need when no other financial or practical support is out there. When people slip between the provisions of existing law, the fall can be fast and fatal.
The fourth action is to increase funding urgently for housing, immigration and asylum legal aid. The United Kingdom Government has said that it will do that in England and Wales, so we have no excuse not to do the same here. Much of Scotland is a legal aid desert, especially for people whose lives and futures depend on being able to access justice.
The fifth action is to engage positively and robustly with the UK Government on the NRPF system. We want that system to be abolished altogether. It does not do what its makers intended—it does not reduce immigration, it does not reflect what most people would consider to be fair, and it does not save money. It is a brutal weapon of the hostile environment, raining blows of hunger, cold, fear and isolation on those with least to protect them. Until that system is gone, however, Scotland must minimise its harm. That means advocating clarity, transparency and the removal of Scottish benefits and assistance from its scope.
We are not in the chamber for this debate simply as representatives of our parties. We are here as human beings—as representatives of a Scotland that cares, that welcomes and that remembers shared histories of destitution. It is a Scotland that knows of the utter poverty that takes away agency, choice and hope before it takes people’s lives, years before their time. Hearts starve as well as bodies, as all feminists and socialists know.
This is a joint endeavour—a shared opportunity to do something that will make a direct difference to those in the bitterest of need. We can all play our part. We can all speak more loudly in urging the UK Government to make the transformational change that we know is needed, in working with our allies in the UK and devolved Parliaments to make that case and in working with our councillors to maximise support and services at local authority level.
Most of all, here and now, we call on the Scottish Government to act on the recommendations in Jen Ang’s briefing. We have a road map to show the way ahead, but do we have the integrity to follow it? For Tsehay, Sofija and Kunal, and for all the other people who are facing destitution in Scotland, we must.
Before we move to the open debate, I alert members to the fact that there is a lot of interest in participating in the debate. Given the time already, I would be very grateful if members could stick to their speaking time allocation. We will get everybody in, but we might need to extend the debate.
With that plea, I call Marie McNair.
17:57
I congratulate Maggie Chapman on securing this important debate. I also take the opportunity to thank Homeless Network Scotland and Heriot-Watt University for their briefings, and the Scottish Refugee Council for everything that it does.
In the 21st century, no one should be living in destitution, but the Home Office hostile environment continues to result in destitution thriving. The no recourse to public funds system needlessly prevents people from accessing welfare support, which results in there being no safety net should they face difficulty. It leaves people homeless, hungry and at risk of exploitation, and those people might have already fled horrific situations.
The Labour Government promised change, but, instead, people continue to be denied basic rights. New research from I-SPHERE has found that the average income of those who are impacted is exceptionally low, at just £40 per week. I-SPHERE also found that, of those who were surveyed,
“A third reported no income at all in the last month”.
It found that
“Hunger and skipping meals were the norm”
and that the use of charities for essentials such as food, toiletries and clothing was exceptionally high.
To put that in perspective, I want to tell members about Kunal’s story. Kunal arrived in the UK at the age of 26 as a student, fleeing homophobic persecution. He claimed asylum without success and was evicted from his accommodation. Kunal was forced to sleep rough, he was attacked and threatened with a knife, and he went hungry and took exploitative cash-in-hand work just to eat.
A turning point came when Kunal contacted the Scottish Refugee Council, which helped him to secure support to submit a fresh application. He was granted Home Office accommodation, but he was afraid of being declined again. Kunal knows that returning to his country of origin is too dangerous, but, then again, he says, “I’m not safe here.”
That is one of many heartbreaking stories, and it is a matter of justice, compassion and humanity that no one should be put in that situation. I am therefore grateful for, and welcome, the positive steps that the Scottish Government and COSLA have taken to reduce destitution. The “Ending Destitution Together” strategy, which was developed by the Scottish Government and COSLA in 2021, aims to ensure that people living in communities across Scotland do not experience destitution associated with their immigration status. A crucial part of that is the fair way Scotland partnership, which has been a lifeline for so many. I thank everybody who is involved in it for everything that they do.
I also welcome the Scottish Government’s and COSLA’s current review of the “Ending Destitution Together” strategy, the aim of which is to identify a refreshed delivery plan. As Homeless Network Scotland stated in its briefing,
“there is no credible evidence that hostile environment policies, including NRPF, have achieved the aims set out by the UK Government.”
A change to that UK Government policy could remedy the situation overnight. Furthermore, as an independent country, we could finally have control over our own immigration policy and be able to introduce a system that values and respects people.
I was interested to read in the report about possible actions that could be taken now to tackle destitution. One example is widening access to universal services and welfare benefits for people with no recourse to public funds. I am keen to hear the minister outline the Scottish Government’s position on those recommendations.
Destitution is the result of injustice and of policies that entrench hardship. Therefore, it is up to us to call out such policies and push for action. We must stand with those who face destitution and ensure that no one is left behind.
18:01
I begin by noting some areas of common ground on this issue. First and foremost, in the wider debate on immigration, it is far too easy to dehumanise people, particularly those who are in vulnerable situations or leaving destabilised nations in search of a better life. It is right that we have a proper and robust asylum process for people who find themselves in such situations, but that does not mean that that process is always perfect. Whoever is in power at UK level should continuously monitor that system to ensure not only that it works effectively and efficiently but that the people at the heart of the process are treated with dignity.
I support a controlled form of legal immigration, particularly when there is a need to fill skill shortages, for example. Indeed, it was the previous Conservative UK Government that listened to concerns expressed by the soft fruit sector and expanded the seasonal worker scheme to address that issue.
I agree, too, that the Scottish Government could do more to tackle such issues if it chose to do so. That view is supported by the extensive recommendations in Professor Jen Ang’s report and in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s paper that the motion references.
Far too often in such debates, we hear it said that such issues involve a reserved element and a devolved element. Although I might not agree with many of the elements of the report that Maggie Chapman’s motion mentions, it shows that the Scottish Government has the power to do things differently in a variety of policy areas. Ultimately, that is a question for the cabinet secretary to address.
With all that said, it is vital that both of Scotland’s Governments are abundantly clear that people who wish to come to the UK to live and work do so through legal routes, whether they be economic migrants who seek study or work opportunities or refugees who come here for a better life.
Will the member describe a legal route that somebody who is fleeing oppression in, for example, war-torn Yemen has open to them?
I have to be honest that I am not completely up to speed with all the different elements, but—as I am about to come on to—we must ensure that people have a safe and legal route to come here.
Scottish Conservatives believe that migration is important but that it must be controlled and legal. Both the motion and Professor Jen Ang’s report fail to address, or even mention, illegal migration. However, we cannot shy away from that element of the wider debate. The previous Conservative UK Government took steps to address that issue. In particular, it reduced the number of illegal migrants entering the UK from small boats. I say that not only because vulnerable people are still being exploited by people-smuggling gangs but because lives are still being put at risk. More action is needed to reduce the number of people who try to enter the UK illegally.
More needs to be done by both the UK and the Scottish Governments to dismantle the business models of those who seek to profit from illegal migration. That is just one element of a much wider debate that is needed on immigration. That subject cannot be taboo, and such debate must be open, frank and respectful if we are to properly address this very important issue.
18:04
I thank Maggie Chapman for leading the debate, and I congratulate her on her recent election as the next rector of the University of Dundee.
Linton Kwesi Johnson, in his poem “All Wi Doin is Defendin”, warns:
“All oppression can do is bring
passion to the heights of eruption”.
What we are witnessing in the asylum system in this country are state-sponsored oppression, state-sponsored homelessness and state-sponsored destitution—destitution by design. These are deliberate political choices—not public finance or economic choices, but political choices—and those responsible should hang their heads in shame.
It even has its own recognised abbreviation: NRPF—no recourse to public funds. It is even statutory, having been first established in legislation in the Immigration Act 1971. It has been a standard visa condition since 1980, reinforced by statute in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and doubled down on in the Social Security (Immigration and Asylum) Consequential Amendments Regulations 2000.
When I met representatives of the Scottish Refugee Council on Monday, they told me that it means no access to housing benefit, universal credit or child tax credit, but so much more. Reporting from the front line, they said that there was anger, desperation and helplessness.
It is no wonder that so many migrant families suffer from poor physical and mental health. Two thirds of those seeking safety and refuge are not permitted to work. At the point of the survey carried out for the 2024 report “Destitution by design”, 93 per cent of participants were experiencing homelessness; 97 per cent were destitute; and 82 per cent reported incomes of less than £60 per week. A third of all those surveyed reported that they had no income at all. They were eight times more likely than people in any other destitute cohort to be in temporary accommodation, and six times more likely to be sleeping rough. As the Scottish Refugee Council told me, they face violence and crime and, especially in the case of women, exploitation and prostitution.
This is a stain on our society, and it is going on today—tonight—in this city and across this country, under our gaze. We cannot be bystanders. That is why the new report by Jen Ang is so important: it concentrates not on what we cannot do under devolution, but on what we can do under devolution. We can provide free access to public transport. We can act under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to create a Scottish hardship fund. We can ensure that those in need get access to legal aid. We can provide targeted housing and homelessness support. We can ensure that there is access to primary and secondary healthcare that is free at the point of need not only in theory but in practice. We can improve access to further and higher education.
We can send a clear message to the UK Labour Government, which says that it is
“committed to the continuous review”
of NRPF, that it should not only support these measures but lift the pernicious ban on the right to work, and that it should scrap the no recourse to public funds rules completely. If it does not act, and if we do not act, the violence of this targeted austerity will continue to drive up the toll of human misery, destitution, sickness and even death.
We can oppose this hostile environment. We can resist the politics of Nigel Farage and his imitators. We can move from defending alone to erupting with passion to break those walls down. We need to win this argument. We need to act. If we do not—if we give up—history will not forgive us.
18:08
I start by putting on record my deep thanks to Maggie Chapman for securing this debate and bringing to the chamber the urgent issue of the destitution that is experienced by people who find themselves classed as having no recourse to public funds or restricted eligibility for such funds. We are talking about people having their ability to access sufficient food, shelter, care and opportunity either denied or savagely curtailed. They are destitute by design.
I also express my deep gratitude to Professor Jen Ang for everything that she has done over the years, but in particular for her recent legal briefing publication, “Ending Destitution in Scotland—A Road Map for Policymakers”, which was commissioned by I-SPHERE and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as part of the fair way Scotland partnership.
I point members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a member of Simon Community Scotland’s connect hub for women development board. Simon Community Scotland is an integral part of the fair way Scotland partnership, and the connect hub provides person-centred, trauma-informed support to women who are experiencing homelessness or insecure housing, some of whom find themselves with no, or limited, access to public funds.
I became acutely aware of the flaws in our safety-net scaffolding many years ago while I was working in a women’s refuge. Our Women’s Aid group was supporting two young Polish mothers who had fled domestic abuse, but the Department for Work and Pensions and the local council were telling us that they had no recourse to public funds because they were unable to satisfy the habitual residency test, as they had come from what were then still considered accession states that were not fully in the European Union—again, that is destitution by design.
We had two women in their 20s, for whom English was their second language, with several young children, including a baby, who had not one penny to either of their names and only the clothes that they stood up in. All the agencies to which we would normally go in order to get support for women to access help were closing their doors in our faces, and we ended up using money from our own pockets to buy essentials to bridge the immediate gap. Our Women’s Aid collective took the decision that, as an organisation dedicated to supporting women to live free from abuse, we would shoulder the financial burden and forgo housing benefit and supporting people payments for the duration of their stay with us. It was either that or they returned to their abusers, and that was not an option for us.
I want to underline today, in this place, just how difficult the next year was for us as a charity, but it was more so for those women and their kids. We lost tens of thousands of pounds in revenue; anyone who knows anything about the third sector will know that that is not a sustainable position, but the alternative was unthinkable. I and my two refuge colleagues became experts in all things NRPF, and challenged decision after decision made by institutions that never seemed to apply the law in the same way twice.
We got decisions overturned with regard to provision for the children, as we knew that the local authority had discretion and also obligations. We dug deep ourselves to help to feed and clothe the two families and searched out every type of support that we could find for them, all the while trying to ensure that their whereabouts never got back to their abusers on the grapevine.
Eventually, we managed to help those women to secure all the necessary information and proof that enabled them to successfully challenge the original decision that had determined that they had no recourse to public funds—it was not backdated, though. Nonetheless, I will never forget the absolute joy and relief that was so very palpable in our refuge that day. That joy was replicated when both women moved into their own tenancies, away from abuse, with the necessary social security scaffolding and access to rights that we all take for granted. Both women went on to college and into employment and, more than a decade on, I have never, ever forgotten them.
However, the system should not be so opaque, punishing and brutal, and direct and indirect discrimination should not be the norm. The route map to ending destitution is now in black and white, and Maggie Chapman powerfully outlined its key steps today. As the former COSLA community wellbeing spokesperson, I worked on the “Ending Destitution Together” strategy, and I am glad to hear that it is being refreshed. Nonetheless, I urge the Scottish Government and the UK Government to work together to flex powers under devolution and dispense with the hostile environment, and finally deliver for this marginalised, maligned and terrified group of people.
18:13
I thank Maggie Chapman for bringing this important debate to the chamber, and for her powerful speech. It is paramount that we treat people arriving in Scotland as we would wish to be treated ourselves, and I hope that the debate will go some way towards achieving that.
People are unable to claim adequate benefits for basic survival because of immigration status, in many cases through a system that we have set up—by “we”, I mean human beings; it is human beings who set up these systems—in such a way that it means, as we have heard this evening, that they are unable to work. We put people in that position, which shows that there is a responsibility on us all to act on the recommendations that are made in the legal briefing by Professor Jen Ang. That applies at all levels of Government.
As other members have said, the briefing paper rightly challenges presumptions that reserved immigration law prevents specific groups from accessing support that would mitigate the harm that they suffer at present. The paper presents workable solutions that national and local government can pursue to achieve immediate positive change. In my view, it is our responsibility as human beings to seek solutions, not to build barriers, when others are suffering. That is why I welcome the briefing paper and the opportunity that Maggie Chapman has given us to speak tonight.
The paper is a stark reminder of why we should review legislation and challenge assumptions about how laws are implemented. Many of the actions that the paper sets out are within the abilities and devolved capacities of the Scottish Government, so let us use the powers that we have to actually help our fellow human beings.
If I think of the most basic of needs, I think of a home: everyone should have a home that meets their needs. That is the Scottish Government’s vision, it is my vision and it is our vision, but it is simply not the reality for so many people. I therefore urge the Scottish Government to use the debate as a catalyst to work on some of the solutions that Professor Jen Ang has laid out.
In order for us to see an end to homelessness, we need more action. The paper details the desperate situation of many people who are sleeping on Scotland’s streets, and I urge those at all levels of Government to act now. We have heard that one in eight people with no recourse to public funds are currently sleeping rough, with more than half having reported sleeping rough last year. It is clear that immediate action is required.
Financial support for people who are living in those extreme levels of destitution can be made possible—it is the systems that we create that cause such suffering, and that is absolutely unacceptable. Evidence shows that a third of the fair way Scotland partnership’s service users can go for months with no income.
In the short time that I have left, I will mention access to healthcare. It is no surprise that, as a result of the barriers that we have discussed, a major area of inequality is people’s health and nutritional health. People who have limited, or no, access to shelter or housing, and who are not able to work or apply for benefits, cannot gain access to basic food in order to maintain any level of health. Around 33 per cent of those who are under the restrictions that we are talking about this evening are more likely to be deprived of basic food—that is in Scotland, today. That has to be a concern not only in the here and now, but with regard to the longer-term health of any of those individuals.
Access to healthcare for people with no recourse to public funds is, at best, muddled. There needs to be an end to the barriers in that regard; people need to know that they can access healthcare at the point of need, without fear, including fear of charges that they desperately cannot afford. The paper references a number of areas that the Scottish Government can look at, and I ask the Minister for Equalities to make plans to discuss those with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care as soon as possible.
I know that I am running out of time, so I thank members for their commitments tonight.
18:17
I thank Maggie Chapman for highlighting the report and bringing the debate to the chamber. Destitution deserves our attention and our efforts to address it in any way that we can.
One of the most frustrating parts of devolution is that we know destitution exists in Scotland but that we are actively prevented from stopping it. I do not believe that the people who voted me into the Parliament want destitution to exist—I am certain that they believe that it is our duty to prevent it. I am less convinced, however, that they know about the way that we are hamstrung by Westminster.
I agree with Richard Leonard that we should do all that we can. However, I point out that what we can do for people in this situation could be changed with one order from the UK Government. If the UK Government does not like us in Scotland providing free bus travel to people seeking asylum, the UK Government can stop it from happening.
The cruelty of the no recourse to public funds system is highlighted in the way that it prevents the Scottish Government from using its own budget to help people who live in Scotland. If we think about that, it is incredible, but that is the state of play. Such a scheme has no place in a civilised society, and I agree with Maggie Chapman that it should be abolished.
During the Tories’ time in power, I was constantly devastated and disgusted by the efforts of that Government’s ministers to make life as miserable as they possibly could for people seeking asylum, including children. That included painting over murals in detention centres, using dehumanising language and storing people on barges as if they were, indeed, less than human. It is gutting, therefore, that the Labour Government now seems intent on giving an appearance of being at least as tough on immigration.
Labour candidates now share graphics on social media promising to shut down asylum hotels. A Government that should be abolishing the hostile environment is, instead, promoting it. A policy to reduce immigration to no end is incoherent. It will not serve Labour’s other purported aims, not least the aim of driving economic growth. In Scotland, we require more migration to support that growth.
I find a lot of the recommendations in the report very interesting, and they are worth further debate, in particular with regard to clarifying the definition of “public funds” in NRPF. However, part of me wonders whether that is a rock that we want to lift, in case some of the current support that is available turns out to be unwanted by the Home Office.
The report points out that the approach of the Home Office in the past has been to add Scottish funds to the list of public funds without first carrying out any engagement with the Scottish Government, as happened with the Scottish welfare fund.
The “Ending Destitution Together” strategy is the correct approach, with the Scottish Government working with COSLA and our incredible third sector to support people in any way possible.
It is tough not to feel demoralised in the face of continued harshness towards those who are fleeing war and persecution and seeking sanctuary in the UK and Scotland. However, my sincere hope is that we soon get the opportunity to do better in Scotland, and I look forward to hearing the minister’s response to the debate.
18:20
I join other members in thanking Maggie Chapman not just for bringing the debate to the chamber but for opening it with the words of some of the people who are most directly affected—voices that are so often unheard in the debate. I also express my appreciation to Professor Jen Ang and to everyone who has contributed in any way, either to the report or in other attempts to address the issue of ending destitution in Scotland.
I pause for just a moment, at my first use of the word “destitution”. We have all been talking about destitution in Scotland. It is 2025, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and we are debating whether to end destitution. That in itself should shock and shame us all. It is worse still because that destitution is not merely the result of reckless or complacent economic policies. There is a false but prevalent idea in much of our politics that poverty is a shame but that we cannot really do anything to end it. This is worse—this is destitution that has been deliberately created as a tool of policy makers who want this country to be a hostile environment for asylum seekers.
That has been the case for as long as I have been in this place. When I was first elected, the dawn raids that were being inflicted on asylum seekers in Glasgow were a national controversy. Even then, there were those who argued that we needed a robust asylum system. What we need is an asylum system that is designed to give asylum—to give refuge—to everyone who needs it. Instead, we have an asylum system that is designed to turn away the maximum number possible, and to make the experience so humiliating, degrading and frightening that it acts as a deterrent. That is the asylum system that we have, and it has continued to work in that way under successive Governments.
I contrast that, however, with the response that we so often see from members of the public. Even after decades of anti-migrant propaganda coming from so much of the political and media landscape in this country, we find groups of people, in every community, banding together and reaching out to one another to find ways of helping and supporting asylum seekers in their communities. In the days of those dawn raids that I mentioned, local communities would gather outside an asylum seeker’s flat to protect them and keep them in when the Home Office officials came to take them out. More recently, we have seen the astonishing display of solidarity at Kenmure Street in Glasgow.
The human instinct to help and to recognise another human being’s desperation is still strong—it is innate within us. It is so strong that it has not been demolished by those decades of anti-migrant propaganda. Most people understand that, although the right likes to portray hosting asylum seekers as a burden for the nation, that is not what bearing a burden is. To be asked for asylum, and to be in a position to be able to help—that is what it is to have privilege in this world. The person who has to flee, and who has to act out of desperation and ask strangers for help—that is what it is to bear a burden.
The UK Government must be put under pressure to change direction, but the Scottish Government can and must do more as well. I hope that the minister, in responding to the debate, will lay out an expansive and ambitious approach to implementing, to the maximum degree possible, everything that we possibly can do to end destitution in Scotland. Migration will always be part of the human story, and it should be seen as something that enriches us and makes us proud, instead of the shame that the issue brings us.
I am conscious of the number of colleagues who still wish to participate. I am therefore minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Maggie Chapman to move such a motion.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Maggie Chapman]
Motion agreed to.
18:25
I congratulate Maggie Chapman on bringing this important issue to the chamber. The system that we have to prevent destitution and homelessness is by no means perfect, but it is far better than that for those who have no recourse to public funds, who are being forced into destitution by a system that completely overlooks them.
People with NRPF include students, asylum seekers and EU citizens without leave to remain. Many have contributed to our economy through taxes or tuition fees, yet they cannot access many benefits or services, including homelessness support. They also pay a surcharge—something like 150 per cent of the cost of care—to use our national health service. I have met students who pay large tuition fees that support our universities but were forced to take out loans to pay for healthcare.
The “Destitution by design” briefing outlines the ways in which NRPF has contributed to destitution and its on-going effects. Those with NRPF and experiencing destitution are
“6 times more likely to be sleeping rough”
than other destitute groups. A third who accessed support from the fair way Scotland partnership had no weekly income at all. People with NRPF are 8.5 times more likely to use accident and emergency, costing the taxpayer money. The briefing even outlines the horrific situation of survivors of domestic abuse being unable to get homelessness support.
I met Shakti Women’s Aid Edinburgh, which provides support, including safe accommodation and befriending services, for those with NRPF who are fleeing abusive situations. Those services are so important but will not be available across Scotland, and they are subject to Shakti Women’s Aid continuing to receive grant funding. Members must recognise that any system that delivers outcomes such as that is not working for anyone.
Although the power to make great changes to NRPF is reserved, Scotland can and should be taking action. “Ending Destitution in Scotland—A Road Map for Policymakers” outlines ways in which that can happen. The first is the bus scheme—my colleague Paul Sweeney has done great work in pushing for that scheme for asylum seekers. However, we know that half of those seeking support for destitution are not asylum seekers, and that being unable to travel means missing job interviews, immigration interviews or medical appointments.
Secondly, the report recommends the expansion of the fair way Scotland partnership or the establishment of a crisis fund. Given that the Scottish Government already grants funding to organisations that provide crisis funds for those with NRPF, we should simply look at the system and create a single point of access across the country.
Ultimately, making major changes to the rules is a matter for the UK Government, but we must elevate the harm that is caused by fully funding local authorities and organisations that support some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
18:29
I thank my friend Maggie Chapman for lodging this motion for debate. I completely agree with her that there is no evidence that hostile environment policies, including no recourse to public funds, have achieved the aims that they were designed to. However, we can be certain that they have made the lives of many people very hard, indeed.
People from across the world bring so much to our country. We are all the richer for their presence, on so many levels. In Scotland, we recognise that. Incredible organisations across Scotland do amazing work to support those with no recourse to public funds or restricted eligibility. In my constituency, Forth Valley Welcome helps families to integrate and build networks, and advocates to make sure that those who are seeking sanctuary can access the services that they need. The Central Scotland Regional Equality Council provides support and advice for people who need assistance accessing public services, and works to prevent social isolation and help build capacity in community groups.
In 2023-24, the fair way Scotland partnership, which aims to prevent and mitigate destitution among those with no recourse to public funds, supported more than 1,000 people. Researchers from Heriot-Watt University carried out studies alongside that and found that virtually all of those surveyed were experiencing homelessness and that virtually all of them were destitute. Average incomes were exceptionally low—usually less than £40 a week.
The research also showed that, in some cases, caseworkers were able to unlock access to essential support almost immediately. That is support to which people had been entitled but were unable to access for long periods. Sometimes, services will require proof of receipt of universal credit as a short cut to ensuring that recipients are low income. As people with no recourse to public funds cannot access benefits, they are excluded from other services that they are eligible for, such as free school meals. Making consideration of the impact of no recourse to public funds central to service design will allow those unintended exclusions to be avoided. There is an opportunity for stakeholders across all levels to collaborate and make some real positive change.
As the report highlights, services for people with no recourse to public funds cross several overlapping devolved and reserved policy areas. Legal interventions by the UK Government are unpredictable and highly politicised and thus cannot be relied on as a bellwether. The Home Office sets the list of public funds, which can be changed, as and when, with no requirement for consultation. That includes benefits that are administered here in Scotland. The Scottish Government has already engaged with the UK Government on removing the Scottish welfare fund from the list, which would allow decisions about crisis grant eligibility to be made here in Scotland. I ask the minister, as is suggested in the report, to ask Westminster to commit to clear and transparent public funds guidance. The most effective way of alleviating poverty and the risk of destitution is to put money in the hands of those who need it.
You need to conclude.
Access to the mainstream benefits system would be transformational. Restricting access to benefits is a political choice.
18:34
It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I commend Ms Chapman, a member for North East Scotland, for lodging the motion for this members’ business debate. It is great to see Beth Watts-Cobbe and Jen Ang in the gallery. I thank them and their colleagues for their excellent research, which informs the public debate in Scotland. We heard about that ably last night at the cross-party group on migration, where the issues were discussed at some length.
This is a multifaceted challenge, and it is one of the biggest public health policy challenges in Scotland today. As has been mentioned by members across the chamber, that is the case largely by design, which is a moral stain on our country that we really need to deal with.
I am familiar with no recourse to public funds, given that, as an MP and MSP, I have represented 95 per cent of the people who are seeking asylum in Scotland in Glasgow, with the balance being distributed to other local authorities in Scotland since 2022, when the dispersal area was expanded. I am sure that, as a member in the city, the minister is aware that it is a major issue in Glasgow, and one that we have to contend with in a number of ways.
One big challenge is the arbitrary nature of adding to no recourse to public funds, which creates a chilling effect. It is not simply about the list of prescribed funds; it is the fact that a culture of prohibition around NRPF has crept in across public authorities. There are many unlawful gatekeepers out there. Many people are acting ultra vires to prevent people from accessing services. We hear it from general practitioners, for example, when they refer patients to social services that are not given to them. That is unlawful. We need to take action across all public services in Scotland to make it clear what the line is on NRPF, where it is and where it is not, and what can be accessed, because there is a lot of confusion out there that is either caused deliberately or purely through ignorance. We need to make guidance much clearer across every level of government in Scotland.
I certainly associate myself with all five of the recommendations, but with the change in the Government, there is an opportunity to look at how we can ameliorate the effects of NRPF. There would be common cause on this side of the chamber, as well as with colleagues in the House of Commons, in trying to remove some of those funds from the NRPF list. Indeed, if new discrete funds were created that would not be countered proactively by the Home Office, it is worth testing that position. There would be a willingness to ally ourselves in that regard.
For example, I know that ministers were concerned that one of the effects of introducing free bus travel for people seeking asylum was the risk of the Home Office interdicting that with NRPF. I do not think that that is a live risk now. I am maybe creating a hostage to fortune in saying so, but there is an opportunity for the Government to introduce that through a statutory instrument, which would allow a more systemic approach to delivering that benefit to people in the asylum system.
I turn to the interface between the asylum system and our housing crisis in Glasgow. As members in the city will be aware, councillors declared a housing emergency in November 2023. We have seen a vast increase in the number of people who have been granted leave to remain presenting as homeless in Glasgow. I believe that there has been a 96 per cent increase in the past couple of years, which has put severe pressure on housing in the city. As of December, the number of homeless applications by refugees in the city stood at 2,753, and the number of refugee households in temporary accommodation was 2,179.
I urge the minister to consider how we can expand housing capacity in Glasgow. We have 2,600 long-term empty homes in Glasgow. We can make a greater effort in that regard and join up the policies. Let us look again at the asylum housing contracts and at how we take money from multinational rent-seekers and push it into housing investment. We can restructure that in a way that is positive and beneficial.
18:38
I thank Maggie Chapman for bringing the motion to the chamber. She started with very powerful testimonial words from those with direct experience, and I thank her for bringing their voices to the heart of the chamber tonight.
She noted the recent publication of the legal briefing, “Ending Destitution in Scotland—A Road Map for Policymakers”, as do I. I welcome the breadth of the report and many of its recommendations. It is absolutely right that we continue to challenge ourselves to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to reduce destitution in Scotland. The fair way Scotland partnership has sent me a copy of the briefing, and I will respond to it in full very shortly.
Far from failing to act, in 2021, the Scottish Government published our pioneering ending destitution together strategy in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Many colleagues have referred to that tonight. It is the first of its kind in the UK and it sets out our inclusive approach to improving and strengthening support provision and service access for people who are subject to NRPF in Scotland.
Our powers are limited, however, and nationality and immigration, including the policy of no recourse to public funds, are wholly reserved to the UK Parliament. As much as we would like to, we are unable to end destitution for all overnight. We can, however, continue to deliver services, work in partnership with organisations across Scotland and continue to legislate if we have the power to do so or to raise issues with the UK Government if we do not have that power. We do that to ensure the implementation of our vision that no one in Scotland is forced into destitution and that everyone has their human rights protected, regardless of their immigration status.
I will say a wee bit about financial support. Since 2021, we have invested more than £500,000 each year to support the most destitute in Scotland. Between 2021 and 2024, funding was provided to the British Red Cross to deliver the Scottish crisis fund. That pilot project provided people with emergency crisis cash support and was inclusive of people who had no recourse to public funds. Learning from the project showed that some people who accessed the fund could access other public funds but needed casework support to exercise their rights and access appropriate services.
Building on that learning, since June 2024, we have been working with fair way Scotland on the delivery of a project that provides cash support and casework for those who are most in need. That holistic support package is assisting people to exercise their right to public funds, including in housing, emergency cash to tackle food insecurity and the ability to access culturally appropriate foods and essential needs. Since July 2024, more than 400 people have been supported out of destitution.
For some time, we have been lobbying the UK Government to remove the Scottish welfare fund from the restricted public funds list. If people who are subject to NRPF in Scotland were able to access that emergency crisis cash support, that would provide an additional safety net to mitigate destitution. We will continue to call for that, and for all schemes that are created using devolved powers to have the ability to determine their own eligibility requirements.
Given that the welfare fund is currently on that list, will the minister consider exploring the setting up of a new crisis fund that has the specific aim of reaching those in destitution?
I understand why Maggie Chapman asks for that, but I refer her to paragraph 6.2 of the UK immigration rules, which includes the words
“a payment made from a welfare fund under the Welfare Funds (Scotland) Act 2015”.
That is why people who are subject to NRPF cannot access the Scottish welfare fund and why we cannot create a new support fund under that act while it remains on the public funds list that is defined by the UK Government. However, I reassure the member that, as I have said, we continue—I continue—to robustly lobby the UK Government to act in those areas.
I will go on to our next steps. As the report highlights, more can be done. We have been working closely with COSLA, stakeholders, third sector organisations and local authorities to review the delivery of the ending destitution together strategy and develop a work plan for phase 2 of delivery. The vision and principles of the strategy are as relevant today as the day that they were published. However, the feedback has been that an understanding of the NRPF condition and eligibility is not always clear for front-line workers. Carol Mochan and other members made that point about opaqueness.
As a priority, prior to the publication of the strategy, we developed migrants’ rights and entitlements guidance, in partnership with COSLA. We have updated that guidance and provided training. That guidance aims to support local authorities when making support decisions, and we want to ensure that it remains up to date and accessible for people. We will also work with Public Health Scotland, general practitioner networks and other front-line workers to improve understanding and awareness of NRPF and people’s eligibilities and to better support them.
I thank the minister for giving way—she has been very generous with her time. I note her point about extending advice to public authorities, which is very welcome. She mentioned removing existing benefits from the list. If a new piece of legislation, even emergency legislation, were to be introduced to counter the extreme destitution—some people have less than £40 a week—a proactive measure by the Home Office or the UK Government would be needed to interdict that, which is unlikely. Will the minister look to test that in the near future?
I thank Mr Sweeney for raising that point, which I will consider.
I will try my best to respond to a few of the points that were raised during the debate—there were far too many to mention, which shows the interest in the debate. I was glad to hear Tim Eagle talk about treating people with dignity, but I wonder how he feels about the hostile environment that was created under the previous Government. That somewhat undermines his statement. Evelyn Tweed, Marie McNair and other colleagues pointed out that hostile environments do not achieve the aim that they are intended to achieve.
Richard Leonard made a compelling case for support, and he also challenged the Labour Government in Westminster, which could act in areas of reserved competence. I assure him that I am doing everything that I can, and it is good to see that there is cross-party support on that.
Emma Roddick highlighted the limitations that are placed on the Scottish Parliament, and I refer again to the 2015 legislation.
To conclude, I welcome the debate and I have listened very carefully. I thank Jen Ang for publishing the report and Maggie Chapman for securing the debate.
That concludes the debate.
Meeting closed at 18:47.Air ais
Decision Time