Robert Brown and Anne McLaughlin stand up for Glasgow's asylum seekers

One of the things that has made me absolutely furious this past week is the disgraceful disregard and lack of understanding that Glasgow City Council and the UK Border Agency seem to have for the vulnerable asylum seekers who are housed in Glasgow. These two organisations are arguing about money and over 1300 vulnerable people in almost 600 households are caught in the crossfire. The Council has had a contract until now to provide temporary accommodation to  asylum seekers. This expires in February. It hasn't been renewed because the Council wants more money.

Last week, the affected families received letters from the UK Border Agency saying that they could be asked to move, at 3-5 days notice, with one or two bags each to anywhere in the Scotland region. Scotland is a big place, stretching all the way from Dumfries and Galloway to Caithness and Sutherland on the mainland 400 miles away.  That's not counting the northern or western isles, which are also part of this fabulous country.

Neither the Council nor the UK Border Agency seem to be looking at what an enforced move will mean for those families. Children who are settled at school and have been so for some years could be uprooted at a critical stage in the school year. That is just completely unacceptable. The UK Border Agency and Glasgow City Council should hang their heads in shame at the distress and upset they have jointly caused.

This issue brought a touch of seriousness to an otherwise pathetic First Minister's Questions the other day. Anne McLaughlin, who of course had done so much work on behalf of asylum seekers, including Florence and Precious Mhango, first asked about it and Robert Brown, Liberal Democrat MSP for Glasgow followed with this?

 Does the First Minister share my view that the priority now must be to retain asylum seekers in their current homes and to keep their children in their current schools? Regardless of the management arrangements that are contracted for by the UKBA, stability and security are vital for such people, many of whom, as the First Minister touched on, have gone through horrendous experiences at the hands of oppressive regimes abroad.

Do the protocols regarding the treatment of asylum seekers that were arrived at with such great difficulty between successive Scottish Governments and the most recent UK Government give the Scottish Government the opportunity to discuss practical solutions to the issues at hand with the Border Agency and, indeed, the UK Government?

The FM's helpful reply was

I  must confess that I have never found the UK Border Agency to be among the foremost advocates of the respect agenda between Westminster and Scotland. Nonetheless, given that the important matter here is the treatment of people who are in a vulnerable situation, we will take up Robert Brown's suggestion and will seek to use the protocols to defend their position.

In my experience the UK Border Agency takes no notice of anyone, so it's not just the Scottish Government it disrespects. I have no time for them at all and it's high time some Government ministers shook the place up completely and made it take a more compassionate, civilised tone with people.

I feel, though that there's a bit of a wider issue here, though, generally, about how we treat homeless households. If a family is made homeless, their local  Council has to give them accommodation, but it could be anywhere within that Council area and they can be moved on at very short notice to other accommodation which similarly can be anywhere in their area. Now that's fine if it's fairly compact Council area, but look at Fife. I've seen people in desperate housing need from Dunfermline be put in Cupar, Glenrothes and Kirkcaldy. In some circumstances it's meant that the adults in the household can't continue to work because they're away from their support network, or they work shifts and there's no public transport available outside peak times. Although generally the kids get to stay at their school, they often face a long journey to get there.

This is a function of there simply not being enough affordable social housing and so far nobody seems to be coming up with suggestions to alleviate that. When Governments and Councils draw up procedures and work out how to deliver services they really need to think about what it actually means for people to go through them and try to draw up the service round the needs of the people and not themselves. The way homeless people are treated is just one example of how services fail to do that. And what the UK Border Agency seeks to do to those asylum seekers in Glasgow  is even worse.

Could Fast Track Deportation Judgement help Florence and Precious?

I've just seen it reported on the BBC website that the Goverment's policy of fast track deportation has been ruled unlawful by the High Court. Yet again, the UK Border Agency has been shown to get it wrong.

I wonder if this could possibly help Florence and Precious Mhango who are currently living in Glasgow. They have already in the past been detained and actually put on an aircraft for Malawi before being granted a last minute reprieve.

I am not an immigration legal expert, but I wonder if making sure everyone has the right to challenge removal orders will allow the Court to focus solely on Precious' wellbeing. I hope that is the case - although I would point out that Home Secretary Theresa May could end this now by using her discretion to allow them to stay here as so many in the local community want.

I was almost in tears last night when I read MSP Anne McLaughlin's latest impassioned blog posting. I know this situation is hardest for Florence and Precious, but don't under-estimate the effect on those who are trying to help them. I know what it's like to lose sleep over people's situations so I have huge amounts of empathy with Anne. Casework is not just a pile of paperwork a representative has to get through.. Each file represents a life in turmoil. I know that she has done and will continue to do everything she possibly can for Florence and Precious and for this deserves our respect, admiration and support.

Two tales of law enforcement activity

Friday 9th July 2010 - Rothbury


Armed Police surround gunman Raoul Moat after a week long stand off. Aware of the sensitivities of the situation, they were very careful to take what action they could to try to make sure that this episode ended peacefully. In the end that didn't happen, but that was not through the fault of the Police. They spoke to him gently, using his first name. They got him food and water. In those tense hours, they treated him with the sort of dignity any human being, regardless of whether they are a wife beating murderer, should be treated.

Friday 16th July 2010 - Glasgow


UK Borders Agency officials raid the homes of friends of Florence and Precious Mhango. Anne McLaughlin has some of the details here and I heard more yesterday at the vigil from Chris Mercer, Precious' godmother.

Chris told the crowd how one single parent was told in front of her 10 year old child that she could be sent to prison for 14 years for not co-operating. Surely to goodness they should not be behaving like that in any event,  particularly in front of a child.  Anne tells in her piece how the officials surrounded wheelchair user Chris in her bed and behaved in an intimidating fashion.

I don't think there is any excuse for these officials to behave in such a manner. I am aware that there are some occasions where they have to be firm to enforce the law, but there are limits.

Surely it can't be right that a self confessed wife beating murderer is afforded more dignity than decent people who are doing their best to help two vulnerable people. Surely it can't be right that these two people have to sleep in fear, wondering whether the dawn will bring another raid, another spell in detention, I know from reading Janipher Maseko's story how brutal these officials can be, even to a mother who has barely recovered from giving birth.

These stories sound like they come from some really nasty, tyrannical government than from a country which is supposed to uphold justice and freedom and fairness.

I am really not happy with my taxes being spent to pay the wages of people who behave like this in my name. This is an organisation with too much power breaking the limits of what is acceptable behaviour and they need to be reined in soon.

Sehar Shabaz: an injustice too far.

How can it be the action of a civilised society to take a woman who has fled domestic violence and send her back to Pakistan with her 8 month old baby where she is at risk from reprisals from both her and her husband's family?

Home Secretary Theresa May is imminently deporting Sehar Shabaz and her 8 month old daughter Wania. Sehar was at the centre of controversy earlier in the week after she and her baby were detained at Dungavel after both Tavish Scott and Alistair Carmichael had said that child detention would stop. It has now been confirmed that the Liberal Democrats have been successful in ending this practice and no children will be detained at Dungavel in the future.

That's all well and good, but I'm not convinced that sending them to Yarls Wood is actually a better solution. I'd have liked to have seen all detention of children suspended while the system was reviewed.

The reason Sehar was being removed is that she came in to the country on a spouse's visa but she left her husband becaus of his violence towards her. She had no right, therefore, to stay in this country. The difficulty is that if she is returned to Pakistan, where women, particularly young women, have no power, her actions in leaving her violent husband are likely to be viewed dimly by both her own and his family. This means that both her and her baby are at risk. What I don't know and I can't find out is that she appears to have been living apart from her husband for 3 years and her baby is 8 months old and so I assume that she's formed another relationship which will be even more frowned upon back in Pakistan. UPDATE: Thanks to @NoetiCat on Twitter for alerting me to this site which gives more information about Sehar's case.

It turns out that she arrived in this country in 2007 on a student visa to marry a Pakistani national living in the UK. She fled her abusive husband in November 2009 and her application for asylum has been turned down by the UK Border Agency's fast track system. The fact that there is new information which was not considered prior to removal is extremely worrying.

I'd like to know more about her circumstances. This is pure conjecture on my part, but I wonder if she actually took up her studies after entering the country on a student visa. Could it be that she had a place on a course and her new husband prevented her from taking it up? Did she study? If not, then the UK Border Agency, whatever the circumstances, would have taken a very dim view of that which may have stood against her in the asylum system. If they ruled that she'd not fulfilled the requirements of her student visa, then her application for asylum would in their eyes have had less credibility. I am not saying that's right, but I suspect that might have been what's happeened.

I think, though, particularly where young children are involved, there needs to be some sort of full welfare assessment and the UK Border Agency needs to take into account evidence based knowledge of the dangers people face in their home countries. We know that honour killings are common in certain countries. That knowledge should be sufficient to prevent deportation in my view at least.

My task for the next few days is to read this report which I suspect will confirm my long held suspicions that there is institutional bias against women in the immigration and asylum system.

I've tried to find out whether Sehar was in fact deported last night. I have learned from experience to assume the worst of the UK Border Agency so with a heavy heart, I'm assuming that she was. This is not the way for a compassionate, civilised society to behave.

I think it is absolutely wrong to return a vulnerable young woman to face attacks with acid or even murder in an environment where she will have no power or little chance of recourse to the law to protect her. The UK Border Agency accepted, way too late in my opinion, that it was wrong to return gay men and lesbians to countries where they will be persecuted and the Coalition Agreement specifically guarantees this. I don't understand why sending women into harm's way should be any different. If you are in any doubt about what could happen, read this Amnesty report on honour killings.

On occasions like this I'm ashamed to be British. It's time the UK Border Agency was forced to learn some compassion. Things aren't going to change overnight, but I wonder why this particular young woman was singled out for deportation at this particular time. It's unnecessary and utterly, utterly wrong.

And also a word about Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats in Government. He alone can't stop every single mistake that the Government is going to make and it's not realistic to expect him to be able to do so. I have faith, though, that if he is made aware of a problem, then he will do what he can to change things. I know that he's not going to win every single battle within the coalition - by its nature that's impossible - but I trust him to argue the case for change as hard as he can. There is much more chance that injustices like what's happened to Sehar will stop under this coalition than by either Labour or the Conservatives governing on their own.