THE Easterhouse Baptist Church in Glasgow, which I attend, befriends and is strengthened by local asylum-seekers.

It also supports a Baptist couple, David and Ann McFarlane, who are located in Reggio Calabria on the southern tip of Italy. This is a port where boats from Africa and Syria attempt to land refugees. Not all make it and drowned bodies float in. David and Ann join with others to welcome the penniless arrivals and provide food, clothes and shelter.

A few do find seasonal work locally but, to its credit, Italy enables many to move on to accommodation and jobs in other parts of the country. Italy has also played a leading role in searching for and rescuing those in boats about to sink.

Many come from Syria, where since 2011 some 12 million people have been displaced from their homes by war and at least 4 million, including 1.6 million children, have fled the country.

Lebanon accepted 1.2 million. Turkey at least the same. Germany has facilitated the arrival of 30,000, with Sweden also taking a substantial number. Britain has agreed to admit only 187 under a UN-backed settlement scheme.

Simultaneously, many Syrians have made their own way to Britain and 4,200 have been granted limited stay and support.

The Citizens UK charity urges the government to accept and look after a much larger number. It also encourages councils to act and Glasgow has agreed to take and support 100 refugees. But Home Secretary Theresa May rejects a mandatory system of resettlement on the grounds that it would encourage more economic migrants to apply — too bad about the Syrians who are slaughtered at home.

Britain has not always been so completely unsympathetic to refugees. Prior to WWII, despite the anti-semitism in east London and Oswald Mosley’s fascists, it accepted at least 40,000 German Jews plus the famous kindertransport in which 10,000 unaccompanied children were found homes.

This was partly because numbers of the German Jews were well-known authors and academics who had the backing of powerful figures in Britain. One was Ed Miliband’s father Ralph, an academic Marxist of Jewish extraction who fled from Belgium when it was invaded by Germany.

Today the asylum system in Britain is led by the Home Office, with power lodged with its UK Border Agency. Back in 2008 I was vice-chair of an asylum and destitution working group called Asylum Matters: Restoring Trust in the UK Asylum System. Its members were from societies working with asylum-seekers and asylum-seekers themselves.

Overall it concluded that the system was unsatisfactory and unjust and attributed blame to a government which had “legislated aggressively … in order to reduce the numbers entering the UK to claim asylum.”

The result was that “poor-quality decision-making” meant that asylum- seekers did not get a fair hearing. It added that those refused admission but who could not or would not return home were often left in destitution.

In Glasgow’s George Square, I spoke with two penniless young men sleeping rough. “Why not return home?” I asked.

The reply was that “this is better than torture.” In a church hall where people were fed, I met a Christian woman imprisoned for political activities until she escaped and fled to Britain, where her request for asylum was refused. When I asked her how she survived, she burst into tears and said she prostituted herself.

The report was largely ignored by the then Labour government and the Conservative opposition. Today the Tories are in power but both parties still favour anti-immigrant legislation. Indeed, the asylum system has got even worse with many of its services handed to private companies out to make a profit from suffering refugees. Recently David Garratt, chief executive of Refugee Action, has declared: “The government urgently needs to stop punishing people whose only mistake was to believe they would be treated with humanity in this country.”

Yet one part of Britain does display concern. I am not a member of his party but I was impressed when former SNP leader Alex Salmond called on Britain to officially accept 60,000 Syrian refugees.

He is not alone in Scotland, where the Scottish government is keen to help. Of course there are Scots who want to refuse entry, but a recent poll showed over 60 per cent wanted to open the doors to those seeking freedom.

Strong protests are being made about the Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre in Lanarkshire. A body including trade unions, churches and the Muslim Council has objected to the harsh treatment of asylum-seekers who have committed no crime. They say Dungavel is more like a prison and numbers of MSPs are in agreement.

My own experience in Easterhouse is of asylum-seekers living in poor accommodation with little income, waiting long periods for decisions. One man who came to our church cafe suddenly disappeared. It took weeks before we heard that he had suddenly been removed to a detention centre in London with no chance of him maintaining contact with the friends he had made.

If Scotland does obtain independence there is little doubt that it would promote a system that welcomes the likes of Syrian refugees, provide a just system for asylum-seekers and ensure that those who are refused asylum are still treated with concern. But independence is yet to be.

However, the Smith Commission proposed that certain services and powers should be devolved to Scotland. It recommended that “the operation of asylum support should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.” It says “support,” not control of the whole asylum system. It is a recognition that the present system does not work well for asylum seekers in Scotland and should be located within Scotland, although with final responsibility resting with the Home Office. It adds that MSPs should be able to represent directly to Britain the concerns of asylum-seekers in their constituencies.

The Scottish government does not seem impressed. Not surprisingly, the proposals may lead to better administration but not improve vital decision-making. I advocate that the Scotland be given full control of asylum on Scottish land, just as it has full control of education.

This would allow Scotland to accept Syrian refugees, to ensure just decisions and humane treatment for asylum-seekers and also ensure that those rejected and who cannot and should not be returned to their home countries are not left in destitution.

No doubt objections will be raised to this devolution of practice. It will be said that Scotland has not the room for more refugees. This in a country where 31,000 domestic properties stand vacant, where many affluent residents own second homes which are often unused and where 500 wealthy people own half of all Scottish land.

Others will say there are no jobs for them. Yet Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon makes the point there are vacancies and that an ageing population will increase the need for younger workers who will also pay income tax.

Not least, the Westminster government will express the fear that two systems in Britain will make for complications and overlap. This has been largely avoided in the separate administration of different health services in Scotland and England.

As a socialist, I believe it worth overcoming difficulties to ensure that fellow human beings are freed from torture, rape and slaughter.

In time, I hope a socialist Labour government in the House of Commons will provide a similar system in the rest of Britain.