Immigration news & Gossips ( Musyi Munene)

Under the previous Scottish Executive, the opposition repeatedly called for an end to the detention of asylum seeker children at the former prison Dungavel. Now, the Scottish government is opposed to that detention.

Under Sally Daghlian, its former Chief Executive, the Scottish Refugee Council also campaigned to change the policy. But the attitude of the Scottish government isn’t as important as that of the Home Office, and it is here that the SRC is now turning its fire.

John Wilkes, appointed to succeed Daghlian in March, was director of the Equal Opportunities Commission for seven years, and since he took its helm the SRC has been pressing the Home Office to examine a range of alternatives to detention, particularly for children.

His background in equality issues is plain as he explains his case. Britain’s position – having signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but declared a “derogation” or exception for asylum seeker children – is untenable.

“We should treat all children who happen to be in Britain at the same time in the same way. If they knew the facts, anybody in Britain would say it’s just the fair, decent, civilised thing to do,” he says. “To be fair to the UK government, they are currently consulting on whether it is realistic to continue with that derogation.”

In fact, he goes further than that, and declares: “Detention is wrong per se”.

Locking people up for fear that they will flee is particularly unjustified for families, he argues, pointing out that recent research from London’s South Bank University showed that without being detained, most families comply with the authorities, even if they face being removed from the country. “Families are at particularly low risk of absconding. Even of those whose asylum application has been through the system and been refused, 80% comply with bail conditions.”

Recently, Wilkes and the SRC have urged the Home Office to look at alternative schemes from Scandinavia, and closer to home in Kent, which he argues are more humane and more effective at enabling unsuccessful asylum applicants to return to their home countries.

In Sweden, families whose asylum applications have failed are given a case worker to help them prepare the next steps before they are returned. It’s a more humane approach, Wilkes argues.

Meanwhile, the Migrant Helpline’s pilot project in Kent gives families full board and accommodation with a key worker, and eight weeks to prepare for removal from the UK. It’s a far cry from the current model, he says. “The current system refuses failed applicants all support, with the intention of encouraging them home. But what it does is force them into destitution and homelessness. It is simply wrong and doesn’t work. Many feel they are still better off to stay put.”

Giving people full board sounds expensive, when compared with removing all benefits, but Wilkes says early indications are that it is more cost effective in the long run.

A lot of people are willing to return after their asylum claims fail, he adds. Some go back because the situation in the country they have come from has changed. But they are more likely to do so if given information and choices.

There are fundamental aspects of the system that must change, he argues. “All this has to be based on a system that is fair and applies the UN refugee convention fairly. Ours doesn’t do that – people aren’t getting a fair hearing,” he says.

This view is justified on the basis that so many asylum decisions are overturned on appeal, he says. Around a quarter of all refusals are subsequently changed.

Another idea the SRC is promoting to government is currently being trialled in Solihull. This sees asylum applications assigned to a single worker in the Home Office who sees their case through from start to finish – with a strong emphasis on ensuring they get access to good legal advice. “What is happening in that pilot is that there seems to be a better quality initial decision with fewer cases being refused and going on to get a successful appeal.”

One result is that people are more likely to accept the initial decision ad return home if they are unsuccesful, Wilkes says. Another is that the Home Office saves money. “Early evaluations suggest that the scheme is not very expensive and the saving is large in terms of the cost of future appeals.”

Overall Wilkes, right, wants to position the SRC as an organisation the public and politicians alike can trust: “In the sense that when we say something it is based on evidence,” and which offers not just complaints about policy but solutions.

One role it has is to help educate people about the difference between economic migration and asylum, which he believes the public confuse and will do more so as other factors, such as natural disasters and economic ones, make large population movements ever more common: “Migration is going to be the big issue of the 21st century”, he says.

But maintaining the pressure in the right places over detention is his priority concern at present.

While the SNP’s Christina McKelvie has recently put forward a motion at the Scottish Parliament calling for alternatives to detention of asylum seekers, Wilkes feels as if the answers must come from Westminster.

“I don’t see the UK govern- ment wanting to do anything different in different parts of the country.”

However he is optimistic about the future. “Children are children are children. I think if we can get agreement that all children in the UK should be treated in the same way, then a lot of things in the process would change as a result of that.”