Protest over plan to re-home hundreds of asylum seekers
Campaigners are protesting at plans to move hundreds of families seeking asylum out of accommodation provided by Glasgow City Council.
It comes 10 days after the UK Border Agency cancelled a contract with Glasgow City Council to provide housing to the asylum seekers.
The contract was axed after the two sides failed to reach agreement over the costs involved.
More than 600 families received letters warning them they could be re-homed.
The charity group, Positive Action in Housing (PAiH), has condemned the move.
They are co-ordinating protests outside Glasgow City Chambers in the city’s George Square.
‘Greater strain’
Robina Qureshi, director of the charity, said: “For the UKBA to press ahead with mass removal is utterly shameful.
“They don’t give a damn for the turmoil they have thrown 600 families into when they sent out that callous letter on 5 November, telling them they would have to leave within three days to be moved somewhere within the ‘Scotland region’.
“The irony is that, even if the families are moved out, the council services will still be needed by these families, greater strain will be placed on our social services, homelessness services and the health service.
“So with or without a contract, the council will be forced to cough up.”
It emerged earlier this month that the UK Border Agency had cancelled the contract with Glasgow City Council after the two sides disagreed over the level of funding required to meet the asylum seekers’ housing needs.
The local authority currently provides accommodation to 1,311 asylum seekers in 584 properties.
Phil Taylor, regional director of the UK Border Agency, said he would work with other housing providers, such as YMCA Glasgow and the Angel Group, to ensure asylum seekers “continue to be properly accommodated while their asylum claims are considered and their appeals to the courts are concluded”.
Mr Taylor added: “We have valued GCC as a highly-supportive partner in the past but in the current climate and with the need to reduce the costs to the public purse, we cannot sustain charges that are out of line with the rest of the UK.”