THE UK Government “cannot be trusted”, it is claimed, after the Home Office tied the Scottish Government’s hands on a major policy change.
Experts have raised serious concern after the public consultation for Priti Patel’s proposed new plan for immigration was outsourced to a private company during pre-election purdah.
Patel says the system will make the rules fairer. But the Home Office has drawn accusations of a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny and opposition from devolved parliaments.
And there’s criticism of the framing of the “leading” 50-question survey about proposals to give the Border Force more powers, automatically refuse access to the asylum system for people who have travelled through a “safe” country en route to the UK and speed up the removal of those deemed unworthy of protection.
There are just six weeks for stakeholders and members of the public to respond to sweeping changes to immigration and asylum across the whole of the UK. The consultation was launched on Wednesday as Holyrood and the Senedd finished up for the election and ends at 11:45pm on May 6 – polling day.
Purdah rules tightly restrict what the devolved governments can say and do during this period, despite allowances for information directly related to coronavirus. The daily communications service is suspended and there’s a presumption against “decisions on matters of policy on which the next administration might wish to take a different view from the current administration”. Against that backdrop, the Scottish Government could only tell the Sunday National it will respond “in due course”.
READ MORE: 'Inhumane' Tory plans may send refugees to Scots islands for processing
The Scottish Refugee Council (SRC) has called the situation “deeply concerning”, saying: “The Home Secretary seems deliberately not to want to hear the views of Scottish and Welsh ministers on these critical issues.”
Jenny Gilruth, a former migration minister and the SNP candidate for Mid Fife and Glenrothes, said: “Tory hostile environment immigration policies have already had a devastating impact on Scotland’s economy. Numerous studies have demonstrated that Scotland’s economy is reliant on inward migration to support our fishing, farming, tourism and food and drink sectors.”
The Home Office says it wants to “listen to a wide range of views from stakeholders and sectors, as well as members of the public”.
Consultation work is being handled by the Britain Thinks consultancy, which has carried out a range of research, communications and marketing work for the Home Office in recent years. This includes developing a campaign for EU citizens to register to remain in the UK after Brexit.
The department told the Sunday National the contract “is offering value for money” but declined to reveal what it’s costing taxpayers. It also declined to confirm whether or not all submissions to the consultation will be made available to the public, saying it will “consider the consultation responses carefully, in line with our duties” and that timings for the planned bill to follow “have not been finalised”.
Professor Alison Phipps of Glasgow University, who holds a Unesco chair in refugee integration, says that’s a concern, as is the wording of questions that contain statements made by Patel: “There is a worrying trend signalled here towards further outsourcing of Home Office work that profits private companies ... This consultation and the terms of the contracting are not immediately transparent and the accountability of firms to the public needs to be clear at all stages.
“It would be good to see comparison costs from the point of view of public procurement to assess if this is value for money.
“The questions contain language which was offered by the Home Secretary in her speech to the Commons. Elements of the questions may be seen as leading questions and shifting public discourse deliberately towards the new plan for immigration – in short, the methodology in use appears to be strongly framed in favour of Home Office rhetoric.”
SNP MP Anne McLaughlin said she was “surprised and confused” about the handling of the consultation: “The framing of the questions is clearly intended to give a clean bill of health to these proposals. How do you respond if you don’t believe these noble intentions to be what lies behind these changes? I’ve heard from many organisations in this sector who share my concerns and are having to very carefully consider how to respond.”
The SRC added: “Outsourcing of its statutory responsibilities to large private companies has become a norm within the Home Office, so it is no surprise but equally concerning that this exercise ... has been outsourced to a private company. The proposals for asylum reform are deeply serious and we believe should be conducted through the principles of fair consultation.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel