Nobody comes into politics to put families and children into detention centres. So says Jim Murphy, the �Scottish Secretary, in an interview with The Herald today.

Nobody comes into politics to put families and children into detention centres. So says Jim Murphy, the Scottish Secretary, in an interview with The Herald today. It is a statement of intent too many politicians at Westminster and Holyrood have been unwilling to sign up to, unfortunately. As the case of the Ay family demonstrated, government in London and Edinburgh was prepared to turn a blind eye to a situation that should not have been tolerated by the political leadership of a civilised country.

The shame of holding that family in Dungavel detention centre for more than a year was compounded by the practice of removing for deportation failed asylum-seeking families from accommodation in communities where they had become intergrated. Both constituted a nasty blot on the Scottish escutcheon. Matters are better, but children in families at the end of the appeal process can still be detained at Dungavel, albeit for 72 hours at most, before transfer to the Yarlswood centre in Bedfordshire. Some 2000 children are thought to be locked up each year in British immigration removal centres; not the mark of a civilised society.

Mr Murphy has demonstrated a willingness to conduct business differently compared with predecessors in the role of Scottish Secretary. It is early days but his approach has been largely positive and refreshing. He seems intent on continuing in that vein, with plans to test an initiative that, if successful, could result in no family that had exhausted the appeal process being held behind barbed wire at Dungavel while awaiting deportation. The scheme will involve housing four families in flats in the same location in Glasgow, under supervision, for the some two weeks before they are sent home. It is hard to dispute Mr Murphy's description of the initiative as more sensitive and sensible than the present arrangement.

There will be an element of risk as some failed asylum seekers might try to abscond rather than return to the country they had fled. But the risk is worth assessing and should be manageable, so long as a balance is struck that provides the necessary levels of supervision while treating such families in a civilised way. In Scotland, a case worker is assigned to these families and that should make determining and managing risk less onerous.

We must deliver an asylum application and appeal process that is scrupulous, even-handed, transparent and rigorous so that those who exhaust it can be confident they have been given a fair hearing. The onus would then be on them not to abuse the test scheme, or its successor as a permanent alternative to detention, so that others in the same situation would be treated with greater dignity and humanity.

Scotland has had little to be proud of in its treatment of asylum-seeking families and their children. The record has improved. If Mr Murphy can erase one of the last stains in a way that works he will deserve a pat on the back.