Patrick Harvie has said the decision not to go ahead with a free bus travel scheme for asylum seekers will have a “profound impact” on some of the most vulnerable people in Scotland.
The Scottish Greens co-leader said the Scottish Government’s U-turn on committing to the scheme “should appal” the public.
Speaking during a debate on the issue though, the Transport Secretary said she hoped the measure would go ahead – but did not make any commitments.
The motion – which was also amended by the Government calling on UK ministers to provide adequate funding for asylum seekers and by Labour to include a call for public transport to be affordable – passed by 68 votes to 27 with 20 abstentions.
A Tory amendment to the motion fell.
Ministers had announced they would not go ahead with the plans for free asylum travel in August, blaming “very difficult decisions to deliver balanced and sustainable spending plans”.
In September, Finance Secretary Shona Robison announced up to £500 million in budget cuts this year, alongside the use of up to £460 million in funds from the ScotWind scheme.
The Greens pushed for the asylum travel pilot during the party’s power-sharing agreement with the SNP, which ended earlier this year.
Then-first minister Humza Yousaf said £2 million had been allocated to fund the scheme.
Campaigners say free travel could help ensure asylum seekers are not isolated while living on less than £1.40 a day.
Mr Harvie said it would ensure asylum seekers are able to access healthcare and visit family.
He said: “My constituents need help, and such a small amount of money that this policy costs will have a profound impact on the lives and the wellbeing of those people, many of whom are the most marginalised, the most vulnerable, the most desperate of our constituents.”
His Green colleague, Mark Ruskell, issued an apology to asylum seekers in Scotland who he said had been promised the policy by the Scottish Government.
He said asylum seekers were being forced to make “impossible choices” with the limited money they have due to the price of travel.
Labour’s Paul Sweeney said the argument that the policy is unaffordable was “simply for the birds”.
“The merit of the scheme is clear,” he told MSPs. “The region of Glasgow which I represent has a cost for an all-day bus ticket of over £5.”
He added: “So having to fork out £5 for bus travel to attend medical, social or essential legal appointments is simply not an option unless they go without food or other essentials.”
He accused the Scottish Government of being “dishonest” about whether it could deliver the policy and described the decision as “unforgivable”.
Scottish Tory MSP Sue Webber said taxpayers’ money “must be spent on the most pressing concerns of the people of this country”.
She added: “As commendable as it may be to many, the proposal here today to spend millions of pounds on giving asylum seekers free travel comes at the very same time the SNP and Labour are taking away the winter fuel payments from our pensioners.”
She added: “It is not right. It is in fact downright scandalous to take money from pensioners in favour of this proposal to people across Scotland.
“It looks like the Scottish Parliament has lost the plot.”
Despite the Scottish Government previously scrapping its commitment to the policy though, Transport Secretary Fiona Hyslop suggested the scheme could still go ahead this year.
She told MSPs: “We remain committed to trying to find a way through the budget processes left in this parliamentary session to fund this support.”
However, she said budget constraints meant she could not guarantee funding for the policy.
She added: “Without all the powers and resources of a normal, independent country, and while immigration and asylum remain reserved, we will be limited in what we can do to support people here without more and better funding and commitment from the UK Government.
“Our local authorities are in the same position. That is why we have repeatedly called for the UK Government to provide adequate financial support for people seeking asylum to better reflect daily living, including digital access and travel costs.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel