The failure of a £1m pioneering asylum project in England does not spell disaster for a similar scheme in Glasgow, it was claimed yesterday.
The Kent initiative to help failed asylum seekers return home voluntarily has been criticised after it was revealed only one family was removed in more than 18 months.
Campaigners branded the failure "a scandal" that wasted a fortune in taxpayers' money without having any impact on the plight of those it was supposed to help.
The project, run by the charity Migrant Helpline, aimed to house families in open residential accommodation instead of grim detention centres, which have repeatedly been attacked as unsuitable for young children.
While authorities had intended for 260 families to benefit from the project, just 13 passed through the system after it was set up in November 2007. Of those, only one was persuaded to leave the UK.
Lisa Nandy of the Children's Society said: "We were very supportive initially, but as it went on it became obvious that the project was poorly conceived, designed and executed."
The English centre had provided the blueprint for a scheme that started in Glasgow this month, and its collapse casts serious doubt on the viability of the Scottish project.
However, despite the setback, officials and campaigners said yesterday that the Scottish scheme, run jointly by the UK Border Agency (UKBA), the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council, would be strengthened as a result.
Border and Immigration Minister Phil Woolas said: "The lessons we learnt have been used to design a new pilot currently running in Glasgow.
"This demonstrates our commitment to keep exploring alternatives to detention which increase voluntary returns and provide value for money to the taxpayer.
"This is a complex issue with no one-size-fits-all remedy, which is why these pilots are so crucial."
The Glasgow scheme, announced in The Herald last month, will see five flats in Kinning Park designated to failed asylum seekers. Their children will attend local schools and families will receive regular counselling and advice to help with their voluntary return to their home countries.
Had the project been in place earlier it could have prevented the detention of families such as the Gayes, who were taken to Dungavel last month before being unsuccessfully removed to the Ivory Coast.
Felicite Gaye and her four-year-old British-born son, Arouna, were returned back to the UK and held at Yarl's Wood detention centre, near London, after a dispute arose over their nationality. They remain in the UK while their situation is reviewed.
A UKBA spokesman said the Glasgow centre would be on a smaller scale than the one in Kent and would cost £125,000 per year, to be paid jointly by the UKBA and the Scottish Government. The UKBA will also be working more closely with local authorities and seeking to engage with asylum seekers earlier in the application process.
One of the criticisms levelled at the Kent project was that it provided too little intervention at too late a stage to be effective.
A government spokesman said lessons were taken from the scheme in Kent.
He said: "The Scottish pilot places a strong emphasis on early and continuing engagement with the families to help ensure that they understand their situation, their options for return and that they develop the knowledge and skills to help support them and their families on return."
While the Scottish project may not go so far as many asylum campaigners would like, Phil Jones, a case worker at the Unity centre in Ibrox, a voluntary project set up to help migrant families, said it would be "a hugely positive thing".
He said: "The only problem is that, at the end of the day, there will still be people who have genuine fears about being persecuted in their own countries and will be extremely reluctant to return. Dealing with that could prove difficult on a personal and emotional level for the staff."
"There is also the issue that the Home Office have this entrenched culture of disbelief that needs to be challenged, and it is a fundamental problem that this project does not address."
The project, known variously as the Alternatives to Detention scheme and the Family Return Project, will run for three years.
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 hereComments are closed on this article