Official Report 1154KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19252, in the name of Russell Findlay, on stopping illegal immigration and recognising its impact on housing. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.
14:51
I am proud of Britain’s long history of immigration. I am proud of the strength and richness of our diversity. I am proud of our culture—decent, welcoming, tolerant and respectful.
I am just back from our party conference in the great city of Manchester, where the writer Matthew Syed said of his father, an immigrant from Pakistan:
“He knew that this is perhaps the most meritocratic and least sectarian nation on earth.”
I value colleagues from a broad range of ethnic and religious backgrounds, including Kemi Badenoch, the first black leader of any major United Kingdom party, and Rishi Sunak, the first ever non-white Prime Minister.
Neither today, tomorrow or, indeed, ever will I accept lectures from Scottish National Party or other left-wing politicians who falsely accuse our party of xenophobia.
Will the member take an intervention?
I would be delighted to do so if there is any guarantee of getting the time back.
We are tight for time. You will get some of it back, but not necessarily all of it.
Okay. I will take the intervention.
I welcome Russell Findlay’s comments about having a welcoming approach to people who come from other countries. However, would he endorse the statement that Robert Jenrick made at the weekend about walking in certain communities and seeing the complexions of people there? Would he support that comment?
What Mr Jenrick meant was that we want communities that are assimilated. We do not want people to be isolated or ghettoised. That is an entirely reasonable position to take.
For the sake of everybody understanding the position, I say loudly and clearly that talking about immigration is not racist. We welcome people, such as Mr Syed senior, who arrive legally and who respect our freedoms of both speech and religion—those who want to work hard to build a better future for their families, and who cherish democracy, equality and the rule of law.
It is not racist to recognise that our country has failed in its fundamental duty to control its borders. Too many have come here illegally or have overstayed their welcomes. Too many are here not to give, but to take. Too many do not share, or even actively oppose, our country’s values.
It is not racist to say that we should remove foreign killers, paedophiles and rapists from our country. It should not have to be said, but it is also not racist to say that countless women have been trafficked and enslaved into prostitution by evil criminal gangs.
Will the member give way?
It is not racist to want to stop the boats: a treacherous trade that claims lives and enriches gangsters.
I will take one more intervention, from Mr Stewart.
Language in rhetoric is very important in this debate. What we heard from Robert Jenrick is not good, as far as I am concerned. Trying—
Please be brief, Mr Stewart.
Trying to brand all immigrants as criminals is wrong, too. Does the member accept that?
I will not even waste my time in attempting to address that point. Kevin Stewart needs to open his ears and listen up to what is actually being said.
Concerns are increasing in many Scottish communities. People can see that uncontrolled immigration is unsustainable. People know that foreign criminals should be sent packing. Those are not extreme positions, but the views of ordinary, mainstream Scotland—of sensible Scots who increasingly struggle to understand an out-of-touch, left-wing political class. People can see that unfettered immigration places increasing pressure on public services. Taxpayers who work hard but struggle to pay the bills while local services decline understand that. When SNP politicians accused Scots who are concerned about immigration of politicising the saltire, that was surely the day when irony died. To attack this debate—as I suspect many will do—will serve only to confirm how out of touch they really are.
I will say it again, loud and clear. The people in Scotland who have concerns about immigration are not racist. It is not racist to reject alien attitudes towards women or gay people. It is not racist to oppose cultural practices such as child marriage. It is not racist to expect or want immigrants to assimilate.
It is foolish and naive to nurture the idealistic notion that all immigration is good and welcome, yet in Scotland today, that is where many left-wing politicians appear to stand. Some of them want open borders. Some are blind to the misery of trafficked people. Some think that it is fine for migrants to leave a place of safety, such as France, to reach our shores.
We, the Scottish Conservatives, think differently. We believe that illegal migration is causing strain in our local communities and our nation’s finances. That is why I endorse Kemi Badenoch’s plan to withdraw from the European convention on human rights and deport those who come here illegally. That is the only credible way in which we can again take control of our borders. Those views are basic common sense. Such conversations are held around dinner tables, at football grounds, in community centres and in pubs.
I see the impact of mass migration on my home city of Glasgow, which now houses more asylum seekers than any other local authority area in the United Kingdom. Once an asylum seeker is granted leave to remain, they gain refugee status. At that point, they are the responsibility of the local council, which is required to house them, albeit only if they are categorised as priority need. However, the SNP abolished the priority need criteria in 2012. That means that every homeless refugee is entitled to a home in Scotland. In addition, 10 years later, in 2022, the SNP abolished what is known as the local connection rule. That means that those with refugee status do not need to have any local connection whatsoever to seek housing. Both of those SNP decisions have resulted in Scotland generally, and Glasgow specifically, becoming a prime destination.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I have no time remaining.
Glasgow declared a housing emergency two years ago and it has a mountain of debt, which stands at £1.6 billion and is rising. It is little wonder that Glasgow City Council leader Susan Aitken has suggested a pause on asylum seeker dispersals to Glasgow, while her SNP colleague concedes that the existing system risks damaging social cohesion.
You need to wind up.
I end by saying it loud and clear: the public purse cannot afford this. It is unsustainable. That is not racist. It is not far right. It is simply right.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that illegal immigration must be stopped because of the damaging impact on public finances and local communities; recognises that the Scottish Government’s decision to suspend local connection rules in relation to homelessness provision back in 2022 has contributed towards attracting asylum seekers to Scotland at an unsustainable level, and calls on the Scottish Government to immediately reverse this decision.
15:00
I cannot say that I am pleased to open in this debate for the Government. The Conservatives brought a similar motion only four weeks ago, and on that day a number of contributions crossed the line. Today, they have taken the biscuit, frankly.
I start by appealing for care in the language that we use this afternoon. Whatever certain politicians do to characterise the situation, we are talking about people—people with hopes, people with aspirations, people who have suffered and human beings who should be treated with dignity and respect.
I will promptly address what are, flatly, errors in the Conservative motion. First, the Conservatives wilfully misuse the terms “illegal immigration” and “asylum seekers”, conflating two fundamentally different issues. The term “illegal migrant” is not only divisive and dehumanising; it is also inaccurate. People are not illegal. Seeking asylum is a right. In fact, it is the lack of safe routes to the UK that makes migration take irregular presentations.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I am not giving you one more second of our time.
Members: Oh!
Speak through the chair, cabinet secretary.
Secondly, the Conservatives misunderstand the rules on local connection. Let me explain those rules to them. The changes that were made in November 2022 only prevent a Scottish local authority from referring a homeless household to another Scottish local authority in which that household has a local connection. That was praised as giving homeless households the choice that anybody else would expect. The change did not alter local connection rules for refugee households. As things stand, nothing prevents a Scottish local authority from referring a homeless refugee household back to parts of England and Wales in which that household has a local connection.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention on that point?
I have already made it clear that I will not give the Conservatives a platform for one more moment—not on my watch. The Conservatives are wrong, they know that they are wrong, and they ought to stop spreading the mistruths.
There are pressures on our housing system, which are driven not least by the pressures on households and our economy after the years of Conservative chaos in Whitehall.
What about the SNP Government?
The truth is that Mr Findlay’s party allowed enormous asylum backlogs to build up while creating a hotels policy that allows people to languish. Now, a Labour Government is continuing to move through those applications far too quickly and without proper provision for settlement. In particular, I appeal to the UK Labour Government to implement proper move-on periods that do not create homeless refugees and for the process to be properly funded.
Scotland has some of the most protective anti-homelessness laws of any country. We have significantly added to them with the “ask and act” duties, which the Parliament has just voted for in passing the Housing (Scotland) Bill. We have also delivered more than 140,000 affordable homes in our time in Government. Although there is housing strain, I can say with absolute certainty that, in the face of a housing emergency, this Government will not be rolling back on the homelessness rights of a single person in Scotland.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention on that point?
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
In closing, while continuing to ignore the Conservatives’ attempts for a greater platform, I want us to reflect on what has led us here—to the point where this right-wing nonsense has found itself in our national Parliament for the second time in a month, where mistruths on social media are read by thousands before we have the chance to correct them, and where politicians, journalists and institutions are repeating and thereby normalising unfounded suspicion, fear and hatred, which should never be normalised.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Will the cabinet secretary stop grandstanding and take an intervention?
All of that is happening to the extent that what we once knew as bigotry is being defended as free speech. The SNP knows what it is, we recognise what it is, and we will call it what it is. It is prejudice. It is intolerance. It is racism. [Interruption.]
You cannot say that.
Will the cabinet secretary take a factual intervention? We are trying to have a debate.
It is all those things, because it has no basis whatsoever in fact. Conflating crime with migration, as the Conservatives do in this chamber, is simply not factual. Holding whole populations to account for the criminal actions of one individual is patently absurd. Suggesting that the far right are somehow defenders of the rights of women and children is utter nonsense.
We now—predictably—have Russell Findlay following Kemi Badenoch in backing leaving the ECHR, which would make the UK join Russia and Belarus as the only non-signatory countries. The ECHR promotes the rule of law and the protection of individuals. It represents the difference between barbarity and civilisation. It says that people have rights by virtue of being human alone, and we should be suspicious of anyone who tries to drag us from it.
I move amendment S6M-19252.5, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert:
“notes that the suspension of local connection referrals in 2022 did not change the rights of newly recognised refugees to choose where they settle in Scotland, nor did it prevent Scottish local authorities from referring households presenting as homeless to an English or Welsh local authority with which they have a local connection; reaffirms that Scotland is a welcoming nation to people fleeing persecution, seeking safety and who have been granted refugee status, ensuring that they can rebuild their lives in the country through the New Scots Refugee Integration Strategy; highlights action in Scotland to tackle homelessness and destitution, including new prevention measures in the Housing (Scotland) Bill, increased investment in affordable homes and the £4 million investment in homelessness prevention pilots, alongside the extension of rapid rehousing transition plan funding of £8 million into 2026-27, and calls again on the UK Government to urgently uphold the European Convention on Human Rights, 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol.”
I remind members, although I do not think that it should be necessary, that it is up to the person who has the floor to decide whether they will take an intervention. It is up to members whether they request interventions, but if I determine that those requests are simply an attempt to barrack, I will step in.
15:05
Once again, the Conservatives have brought this issue before the Parliament not to offer solutions, but simply to replay what they think are their greatest hits. In reality, this Tory debate is political hypocrisy of the worst kind. The Conservatives are trying to seize political capital from the wreckage of a chaotic immigration system that they designed, presided over and, ultimately, broke. Moreover, they are not doing it make improvements to a single person’s or community’s life; the only reason for it is that they are terrified of political extinction at the hands of Reform next May.
Under the previous Tory Government at Westminster, net migration quadrupled in four years to nearly 1 million, despite repeated promises to reduce it to under 100,000. The Tories gave us record net migration, record small boat arrivals and thousands of people stuck in more than 400 asylum hotels across the UK, waiting endlessly for their claims to be processed with no hope of resolution.
If the Labour Government is taking the issue seriously, why has the number of small boats arriving on UK shores doubled since you came to office?
Through the chair, please.
The member should pay attention to the latest figures, which came out in September. I cannot believe that Mr Hoy would again come to the chamber and talk about immigration, given the absolutely woeful performance by the Tories: 1 million despite a promise of 100,000. The Tories’ record is appalling, and their aim is purely to escape the annihilation that they are expected to receive at the hands of Reform next May. Gimmick responses were all that they offered at a UK level, and it is the exact same with their response here.
In Scotland, the housing emergency is deepening on the SNP Government’s watch. Let me be absolutely clear, however, that refugees entering the homelessness system are not the cause of the housing crisis; the system is broken because the SNP Government has not built enough homes. In the year to September 2025, the number of housing completions fell, as did the number of housing starts. Private sector completions have been at their lowest level since 2018. In the social sector, the number of completions dropped to its lowest level since 2017 from an already low base last year.
Will Mr Griffin give way?
I am sorry, but I only have four minutes in which to make these points.
This year, social housing starts in Scotland were at their lowest level since we started collecting the data, in 1997. Those figures are from September this year.
Meanwhile, around 220,000 people are waiting for a social home. There are more children in temporary accommodation in Glasgow than there are in the whole of Wales, yet the SNP Scottish Government still had to be dragged into accepting that we are in the middle of a housing emergency.
Make no mistake: the SNP Government uses immigration as a political tool just as much as the far right does. The only difference is in who it decides to blame.
Looking at the evidence, it is painfully clear that none of the other parties is interested in offering solutions for those who are trapped in housing need. One party virtue signals and one dog whistles, and now they both point fingers and stir division in service of their own political goals. They stay very quiet about the fact that their Governments created this mess. While the Tories have chosen political amnesia and rank hypocrisy, the SNP waves flags when it should be building homes.
We cannot vote for either the motion or the Government’s amendment. We cannot vote for Tory hypocrisy or SNP complacency. Since the present UK Government was elected, the number of asylum decisions has doubled and the backlog has fallen by a quarter. Labour is fixing the broken system, driving down the numbers and restoring fairness, and we will build homes at a record level. A Scottish Labour Government would deliver a new direction. We would prioritise building homes, properly funding local authorities and addressing this crisis.
You need to conclude.
We would serve all Scots, new and old, with the dignity and fairness that they deserve.
I move amendment S6M-19252.4, to leave out from “because” to end and insert:
“; regrets that the previous UK Conservative administration left the immigration system in a state of collapse; recognises the progress made by the UK Labour administration to clear the backlog of asylum claims, and believes that the failure to tackle the challenges facing Scotland’s local authorities, public services and housing system, for which the Scottish Government has devolved responsibility and has received record levels of funding from the UK Government, is the root cause of the housing emergency.”
15:10
This motion is one of the most shameful pieces of political theatre that we have seen in the chamber for some time. It is steeped in cruelty, ignorance and xenophobia. It attempts to pit neighbour against neighbour and to scapegoat refugees for a housing crisis that is the direct result of decades of political choices—choices made by Conservative and other UK Governments that have imposed austerity, underfunded public services, deregulated housing and allowed landlords and developers to profit while ordinary people have struggled to find a safe home.
Let us be absolutely clear: there is no such thing as an illegal human being. Seeking asylum is a human right, protected in international law—Russell Findlay would do well to remember that—by the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which the UK helped to draft and which it is legally bound to uphold.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
People fleeing persecution, war and disaster do not lose their humanity when they cross a border. They are exercising their right to seek sanctuary, yet the Tory motion treats them as a problem to be stopped—as if people escaping conflict and trauma are somehow responsible for the state of Britain’s public finances or local housing systems. What a grotesque distortion of reality that is.
We know why people are coming here. Many are here because of wars and crises that the UK has helped to create or to fuel through its foreign policy, arms sales and decades of imperial intervention that have destabilised regions and destroyed lives. To now turn around and demonise those very people for seeking safety is the height of moral hypocrisy.
Scotland has long prided itself on being a place of welcome and a country that believes in compassion, solidarity and justice. New Scots have contributed so much to our culture, our economy, our national health service, our universities and our communities. Refugees are doctors, carers, teachers, artists, friends and family members. They enrich our nation in every possible way, every single day.
The Conservatives’ attempt to connect the suspension of local connection rules to the so-called unsustainable levels of asylum seekers in Scotland is dishonest and divisive. Let us remember why those rules were suspended: it was to make sure that people experiencing homelessness could access accommodation wherever they were without being trapped by bureaucratic borders. It was an act of fairness and solidarity. It prevented people from being abandoned when they were in crisis simply because of an administrative line on a map.
If Scotland is seeing rising homelessness, that is because of Westminster’s austerity, Scotland’s constrained housing budgets and a failure by successive Governments to build public and affordable homes. It is because housing has been treated as a commodity, not a human right.
Let us also be clear that the so-called hostile environment—a policy that was deliberately designed to make life unbearable for immigrants—has directly forced thousands into poverty, destitution and homelessness. That cruelty is not accidental; it is intentional and shameful. It is also the logical outcome of Tory ideology—an ideology that dehumanises immigrants and blames them for problems that stem from decades of political failure in this country.
This Parliament should stand up and reject the motion outright. We must refuse to be dragged into the gutter of xenophobia. We must insist that our response to global displacement be one of humanity, dignity and shared responsibility. Instead of building walls and stirring fear, let us build homes. Let us build communities that are strong because they are compassionate, inclusive and just. That is what Scotland can and must be.
15:14
It is interesting to watch the body language of the members on the Conservative benches. I know that many members over there are very uncomfortable with the approach taken by their leader. They are right to be uncomfortable with his approach: Russell Findlay made no attempt to justify his motion. He provided no evidence that the so-called change in the rules in 2022 is attracting people to Scotland.
Could Willie Rennie explain why Glasgow has a record 7,500 homelessness applicants?
In that intervention, too, Russell Findlay made no attempt to draw a connection between the change in the rules and the number of homelessness applicants in Glasgow or anywhere else in Scotland. Why did he pick on Glasgow? The rules were changed throughout Scotland.
Will Willie Rennie give way?
No. I am taking only one intervention.
I do not think that people on the streets of Kabul are celebrating the change in the rules on local connection for housing allocation policy in Scotland. They do not see that as a magnet. What Russell Findlay said is a complete exaggeration. He tried to draw attention to the fact that there has been a change in the rules, which he said is resulting in mass immigration in Scotland, but that is simply not the case.
However, we must accept that the UK asylum system is in crisis. I see what other people see. I see the hotels and the expense.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
I see the boats. I see the pressure on public services. I see that the people we are talking about are not working—we do not allow them to work. I see all those things, along with the fact that many people are struggling to make ends meet, because their bills are going up and the cost of heating their homes is going up. I see all the challenges that people face, but we need to come up with practical measures to solve the problem instead of just hyping up the rhetoric, because that does not solve anything.
I think that we should declare the situation a national emergency. We need to have new processing centres that are independent of the Home Office, to put new energy into the processing of applicants.
The Conservatives should have a degree of humility, because we know that it was the Conservatives who created this crisis during their many years in government. The fact that the hotels are so full is down to the Conservatives. The fact that there are so many boats coming across the Channel is down to the Conservatives. Because of the rules that they set in place, asylum seekers are not able to work. All of that is Conservative policy.
Russell Findlay did not talk about the detail; he just wanted to engage in the rhetoric of generalisation and exaggeration. Not all asylum seekers are criminals.
Will Willie Rennie take an intervention?
No.
Not all asylum seekers are paedophiles. The generalisations that Russell Findlay made this afternoon demeaned him as much as they demeaned his party.
Whatever terminology we use—asylum seekers, migrants or illegal migrants—it is important to say that they are all people. I do not think that we heard that once from Russell Findlay. They could be my brother, my sister, my sons, my mother or my father. They could even be me. In any other circumstance, any one of us could be in that position. When we use such generalised language and such exaggeration, we dehumanise every single one of them. Russell Findlay knows that that is the truth, and that is why he is refusing to engage on the substance of the issue.
I appreciate that emotions are running high. However, members need to be careful about their language not only when they are making a speech and their microphone is on, but when they want to make an intervention and it is not taken. That is not an opportunity for them to start bad-mouthing members across the chamber.
We move to the open debate.
16:18
I put it on record that I am pleased that the Scottish Conservatives managed to secure a debate on the important issue of illegal immigration.
Immigration has brought many benefits to Scotland. Many of our doctors, nurses, teachers, police officers and firefighters are immigrants or come from immigrant backgrounds. The fabric of our society has been made with the help of diverse communities.
I am the proud daughter of immigrants. My parents moved to the United Kingdom from India with hopes of securing a better future. They embraced British values and loved the new country that was now their home. They worked hard and asked for nothing in return. My late father taught me the importance of developing a strong work ethic and paying into the system.
I point out to the SNP that there is a world of difference between legal and illegal immigration. No matter what the SNP might think, illegal immigration is wrong. Our country is not a hotel. That is not a fringe belief—I am speaking on behalf of my community.
I would like to provide members with some facts. Almost 89,000 asylum applications for more than 111,000 people have been made in the past year, and 50 per cent of those arrived by irregular routes such as small boat crossings, in lorries and even in shipping containers. Glasgow City Council alone houses more asylum seekers than any other local authority in the UK. What surprises me is that the majority of those arriving on our shores are adult males.
That does not come without a cost to the public purse. Taxpayers are spending £250 million a year to house asylum seekers in Scotland, which amounts to around £41,000 per person. Hard-working Scots want to know where that money is going, given that Scotland is facing a housing emergency. It is shameful that the SNP’s decision to suspend local connection rules to homelessness provision has contributed to attracting asylum seekers at an unprecedented level.
It is not only about costs. We all know that migrants bring different cultural backgrounds. Some embrace British values with ease, but let us not be naive—some cling on to their so-called values, which too often include appalling attitudes towards women. As a lifelong advocate for women and girls, I will never accept that. Every time I stand in the chamber, I will raise my voice to defend the rights and safety of women and girls.
I am speaking on behalf of my community. I have knocked on thousands of doors in West Scotland. It might be a newsflash for the SNP that one of the top priorities that people ask about is what we are going to do about illegal immigration. Poll after poll has shown us that, but SNP ministers have chosen to bury their heads in the sand. They are not living in reality, and they are ignoring the public’s concerns.
You need to conclude.
We cannot ignore or turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. The duty falls on us all. The SNP must wake up, see what is happening and take the necessary steps.
We have no time in hand, so members will need to stick to their speaking time allocations.
15:23
I rise to speak with some disappointment. The Tories’ current position has not always been their position, but their use of the discourse that we are hearing seems to be increasing.
I oscillate between a sense of indignation and disappointment. I will try to confine my remarks to the disappointment, but I will first speak to the amendment in the name of Màiri McAllan, which I support. I will not speak about it for too long, but I observe that it is rooted in fact, and for that reason alone, we should all support it.
The suspension of local connection rules for housing referrals in 2022 did not change the context of the rights of newly recognised refugees. I emphasise the term “refugee” because it is utterly absent from the Tory motion. I do not think that I have heard that term uttered once by members on their benches.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not give way, because we have heard enough from Mr Findlay today.
The context for those who are seeking to live in places such as Glasgow and other parts of this country is that they have had their claim for asylum recognised—they are no longer asylum seekers, and it is important that we get that on the record.
If members do not want to take my word for it, I refer them to Shelter Scotland’s briefing, which says:
“Recent debates around homelessness, the asylum system and refugee rights have regrettably led to misinformation being widely shared, specifically on local connection … In law, refugees have never been deemed to have a local connection on leaving asylum accommodation, and they have always been able”
—I stress, they have always been able—
“to apply to any council in Scotland. This has not changed.”
The amendment in the name of Màiri McAllan is, therefore, factually correct.
I want to speak to the nature of the debate. The discourse that we have in Parliament is important, because it can impact the discourse outside Parliament. I absolutely recognise the right of each and every party to lodge any motion that it wants to debate in this place, but it is interesting that we have before us today a motion from the Tories the very first part of which relates to reserved subject matter. We are always being told that we should not be debating reserved subject matter in this place, but it seems that that rule can be dropped when it suits certain parties.
It was interesting to hear from Russell Findlay. I agree with him that it is not racist to talk about immigration, but the terms on which we talk about it matter; they are important—
Will the former minister take an intervention?
In that sense, the terms of the Tory motion are found wanting—
Will the member take an intervention?
There is a deliberate conflation in the terminology—
Will the member give way—yes or no?
No, Mr Findlay. I think that I have been pretty clear that I am not giving way to Mr Findlay.
There is a deliberate conflation in the motion of the terms “illegal immigration” and “asylum seekers”; I think that that has been done on purpose.
I also commend to colleagues the submission from the Scottish Refugee Council, which says:
“Parliamentarians should set an example for the public when it comes to both challenging misinformation and avoiding the use of harmful misleading language.”
It says that it is
“disappointed to see this motion in the name of the Scottish Conservatives peddle the false link between people claiming asylum and illegal immigration.”
I agree with Willie Rennie: there are members who sit on the Conservative benches, and who are not here today, who will be deeply embarrassed by the terms of the debate that their party has brought to the chamber. I have served in the Parliament for 18 years, with David McLetchie, Annabel Goldie and Ruth Davidson as leaders of the Conservative Party. I did not always agree with them, but I do not believe for a minute that they would have lodged the motion that is before us today. The Tories should be utterly ashamed at their descent into Reform UK nonsense.
15:27
Last week, I took part in “Debate Night” in Dundee, and the issue that most people were concerned about was illegal immigration and the impact on our communities.
Let us clear one thing up straight away: people being concerned about illegal immigration does not mean that they are far right or racist, as the whole woke left-wing ideology in this place tries to make out—we heard that nonsense again today from the cabinet secretary. It means that they care about how public services are going to be paid for; how our hospitals, schools and housing will cope with additional unplanned pressures; and how our local authorities can afford to keep local services running while spending more and more on the problems that arise from illegal migration.
Those are genuine concerns that cannot be brushed under the carpet, and that is why people out there are angry. We have to listen and understand, and acknowledge the anger, not simply dismiss and ignore it as every other party in the chamber wants to do. We have protests in our towns and cities, councils rocked by divisions, and financial detriment to our citizens, all fuelled by a lack of understanding and direction from this out-of-time Administration.
Will the member give way?
I do not think that I have time, Mr Johnson—sorry.
I recognise that control of immigration is a reserved issue, but we must all play our part. The SNP Government has created pull factors for asylum seekers coming to Scotland. Removing the local connection rule in particular has meant that it is much easier for asylum seekers to come to a particular local authority, and has created undue pressures on authorities such as Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City Council.
Will Mr Lumsden give way?
I am sorry, Kevin Stewart, but members on your front bench would not take interventions, so I am not going to take any interventions from you.
Through the chair, members.
The Labour Government in Westminster is, of course, equally culpable, as the numbers arriving have been increasing exponentially over the past year, mostly in dinghies and—I say this to Maggie Chapman, so that she knows—not from war-torn countries, but from France.
More should, and must, be done by all Governments by working together, not by stoking petty grievances. Solutions can be developed only in partnership, through a cross-UK approach. The SNP, with its constant refrain of independence, is hurting the opportunities for co-ordinated action. There should be one message from all Administrations in the UK.
Billions are being spent on asylum hotels, which means that less money is available for the devolved Administrations. Money is being spent on taxis to shuttle asylum seekers to doctors’ appointments, which means that there is less money to spend on education. Decisions made by the Government have an impact on our communities. Offering things for free has a cost. Nothing is free; everything is paid for by hard-working Scots through their taxes. Only the Conservative Party has a commonsense approach to controlling immigration in our country. Only the Conservative Party has taken a whole-UK approach, understanding that the solution can be found only by working together.
Refugees should not find it easier to get accommodation in Scotland than in England. Scottish local authorities should not be under greater pressure to deliver accommodation than our neighbours in England, because we simply cannot cope. We have a housing emergency and the SNP is adding to it with the open-door policy that it is pursuing. Hard-working families cannot get on the housing ladder and they see people from other parts of the country jump to the top of the list. Local connection rules that were abolished should be reinstated and emergency policies that were adopted during Covid to house asylum seekers in hotels should be dropped. Our communities demand more and better, and it is time that the SNP Government listened to people’s concerns and stepped up or got out of the way.
15:31
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I own a share in a family home.
This is a difficult debate, whose premise is absolutely wrong. It reeks of hypocrisy and opportunism. As Mark Griffin said, the Conservatives are using the debate for their own ends. It was the Conservatives who collapsed the asylum system and spent £700 million of taxpayers’ money to deport only four volunteers. Once again, they are trying to sow division and conflate illegal immigrants with asylum seekers and refugees, blaming those groups for draining public service coffers. In reality, those groups, such as foreign nationals who have been trafficked and abused or who are here without any legal status, are often left without help and with no safety net. They have no recourse to public funds—
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I do not have time.
It seems to me that, when things go wrong, the first response of those who should be taking a share of the blame is to deflect and blame somebody else. Our grandparents fought wars to stop the rise of nationalism and discrimination. Surely it cannot be hard to see the parallels with what is happening today, where foreign nationals—and many people of colour—are being blamed for the crisis that we face. While our grandparents fought those wars, the people who were left at home provided asylum and refuge for those who were persecuted.
Yes, there is a housing crisis, but it is not the fault of asylum seekers. It is the fault of Government decisions. It is about a lack of investment from the previous Tory Government—and the Tories now have the brass neck to have lodged the debate. It is about the lack of investment from the SNP Government, which has squandered capital rather than invest in homes. There is no doubt that the SNP has fanned the flames of a housing emergency because of its failure to meet its house-building targets. That is especially the case in rural areas. On top of that, there are cuts to council funding and public services. Those are the real causes of the challenges that we are now facing.
In the Highlands and Islands, we desperately need inward migration. The health service is recruiting from abroad. It has campaigns in Holland and is actively recruiting in Africa. The Scottish Government’s lack of workforce planning is complicit in the challenges that our health boards are facing. The health boards should be training staff to work in the NHS and care service. We should not be poaching staff from other countries that invest in training.
Although NHS Highland is trying to recruit from elsewhere, that has not been the answer to the problem. Frequently, it recruits, but those recruits cannot take up the posts because they cannot find somewhere to live. That is because all the homes have been bought as holiday homes for wealthy people who can afford two homes. Others are used as holiday lets and are often owned by people who have no connection whatsoever to those communities. There should be a ceiling on the number of second homes and holiday homes that any community is asked to support. However, the only answer to the housing crisis is to build more homes—homes that are affordable for local people and which cannot be sold on as second homes and holiday homes.
We all know what the debate is about. It is about placing the Conservatives to the right of Reform, but bringing forward debates that have no basis in reality is not the way to do it. It simply sows division and makes our country more dangerous.
We all have responsibilities as politicians, and we should use this time in our Parliament wisely.
15:35
I can understand why folk are frustrated at the moment, as we are several years into a cost of living crisis. However, there is consensus that—I have tried to word this very carefully—there are far too many asylum seekers living in hotels. That is the case, but this is where we differ. First, there is an easy way to reduce the number of asylum seekers, which is to process their applications more quickly and better. That would have the knock-on effect of allowing folk the chance to start rebuilding their lives, to get jobs and to find a community to settle in and become a part of. It also means that they are not spending months or even years in hotels.
I do not blame the people who are fleeing war and persecution for claiming asylum. I do not think that upholding international law or showing compassion is a bad thing, and I do not think that asylum seekers are the ones responsible for every problem in society today—I usually blame such things on the Tories, and I think that I am usually right to do so.
Right now, the asylum system is broken—I blame the Tories for breaking that too, by the way, although I think that Labour could be doing a better job of trying to fix it. For years, there have been far too few resources available to process applications, and losing the Dublin system following Brexit made that worse—Brexit, of course, being the gift that just keeps on giving since the last time a UK Government tried to appease Nigel Farage.
The system is broken as a consequence of trying to save a few quid on decision makers, and now we are spending fortunes on accommodating folk in hotels. I can understand why folk are angry about that, but I think that the Tory motion is particularly disgraceful, because it is trying to turn that anger against some of the most vulnerable folk in the country.
The divisive language and the misinformation that we have heard are outrageous. Seeking asylum is not illegal. It is a fundamental human right that is protected by international law. On the subject of misinformation, I will read out a bit of Shelter Scotland’s briefing for last month’s debate on a Tory motion on asylum seekers:
“Recent debates around the asylum system, refugee rights and homelessness have regrettably led to misinformation being widely shared. This has been particularly true of local connection legislation, which was suspended with parliamentary approval in 2022, during this parliamentary session. These changes to local connection legislation are completely unrelated to the issue of refugee homelessness—the changes did not alter rules for whether people recently granted refugee status can move to Scotland from elsewhere in the UK, or between Scottish local authorities. Those leaving the asylum system are not deemed in law to have formed a local connection to any area, and thus have always been able to move to a local authority of their choosing.”
I wonder whether Mr Findlay bothered to read that briefing or whether he just decided to double down anyway.
I am nearly out of time, so let me finish with a clear message. Refugees are welcome in Scotland. I say to refugees, wherever you are from—be that Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan or elsewhere—if you have fled war or persecution, we will help you to rebuild your lives in Scotland as we work to build a better Scotland for everyone living here.
Let us focus on fixing the system and not blaming the folk trapped in it. Let us continue to send out a clear message that Scotland is a welcoming country.
15:39
I will start by apologising to Russell Findlay, because I actually agree with him on something—talking about immigration is not racist. However, I have to say that the Conservatives have quite some nerve bringing this issue to the chamber for a second time, given their record in office. After more than a decade in government, they presided over record levels of net migration—nearly 700,000 last year—
Will the member take an intervention?
Despite the promise by Rishi Sunak to stop the boats, the Conservatives failed to do so. This the party that gave us the Boris wave of immigration.
Will the member take an intervention?
Mr Findlay, resume your seat.
Far from curbing immigration, the Conservatives increased it. The voters will not be fooled by this apparent about-turn today.
Labour’s record is no better. Under Keir Starmer, Labour offers tough rhetoric but weak results. The number of small boat crossings continues to rise, with up to 1,000 boats a day arriving on UK shores.
Then we come to the SNP. Scotland has become a magnet for migrants, which can be attributed to policy decisions taken here. It is putting a strain on public services and community cohesion.
I go back to my main point that the public will not be fooled by the parties that gave us the problem. We need a Government that is serious about securing our borders, restoring integrity to the system and ensuring that immigration works for Britain, not against it.
We move to the closing speeches.
15:41
Over the course of the debate, we have heard some of the same tired toxic rhetoric from the Conservatives—language that tries to divide, to sow fear and to cast desperate people as threats to our society. However, the truth remains: people who are seeking safety are not the cause of our housing crisis nor of our fiscal challenges; they are the victims of those crises. Those crises have been created and perpetuated by the same Conservative Governments that now want to wash their hands of responsibility.
Russell Findlay listed things that he claims are not racist, but it is racist to blame an entire group of people for the issue that his UK Government created, it is racist to spread misinformation and cause fear and alarm by saying that migrant gangs are going to murder children in schools, and it is racist to spit on people in the streets just because of the colour of their skin. I have witnessed all of the above and more by Tories or other far-right groups in this chamber and on the streets of Aberdeen and Dundee, where I have been proud to stand in solidarity with other community members and anti-fascists against the racist anti-immigrant protests.
Let us be clear: the lack of affordable housing in Scotland and across the UK is not caused by refugees. It is caused by decades of political neglect, by treating homes as investment vehicles for the wealthy instead of as places for people to live, by allowing rents to spiral and social housing to vanish, and by the cuts to local authority budgets imposed by Westminster that have hollowed out the very services that support people in crisis.
If there is anything unsustainable here, it is the cruelty of a system that spends millions on detention, deportation and militarised borders rather than on ensuring that every person, regardless of where they were born, has a safe place to call home.
Scotland can do better. Scotland is doing better by choosing compassion over cruelty, inclusion over fear. The decision to suspend local connection rules was a decision rooted in fairness to ensure that someone who found themselves homeless could seek help wherever they were, and not be shunted between councils like a parcel that no one wanted to open. That is not unsustainable; that is humane.
What is unsustainable is the UK Government’s callous immigration policies that perpetuate the hostile environment that forces people into destitution and criminalises compassion. What is unsustainable is the failure to create regular safe routes for asylum, leaving people at the mercy of traffickers and dangerous crossings.
The Parliament must not legitimise racism and division. We should not allow the Tories to redefine compassion as weakness, or solidarity as threat. We must stand firm in our commitment to international law, to the 1951 refugee convention and to the principles of justice and humanity that underpin it.
Let us remember who we are speaking about: people who have fled persecution, torture and war; mothers protecting their children; students who want to learn; engineers; nurses; artists; dreamers; and new Scots who bring strength, creativity and courage to our communities.
The answer to the challenges that we face is not to close our doors but to open them wider and to build a Scotland where everyone belongs and where every person has the right to safety, dignity and a home. Scotland’s strength lies in its compassion and that compassion is never a weakness; it is our power.
15:45
This is a tough debate to sum up. It has not been terribly edifying. Willie Rennie was absolutely right—in some ways, we can sum up the debate by referring not to words but to the awkwardness, the body language and confected outrage that we have watched across the chamber.
The only thing that I disagree with Willie Rennie on is that it is not just the people who are standing behind Russell Findlay who look awkward; Russell Findlay himself looks deeply awkward—
Will the member take an intervention?
If you think—if Russell Findlay thinks that he needs to intervene 30 seconds into my speech, I will, but I was about to complete my point.
Always speak through the chair. Briefly, Russell Findlay.
That is the Willie Rennie and Daniel Johnson school of body language. Will Daniel Johnson give an example of what body language he thinks is indicative of his theory?
Mr Findlay might need to watch the video. His hesitancy and awkwardness when he opened the debate spoke volumes. Let us be clear. A number of people have made the same point—
Lie down on the psychiatrist’s couch, why don’t you?
I believe, Deputy Presiding Officer, that members are able to intervene if they want to, and that they do not need to speak from a sedentary position. Is that correct?
That is correct. Continue, Mr Johnson.
Many people have made the same comment that it is not racist to want to talk about migration, and it is not. That point was made by members on the Conservative benches and it was made by Jamie Hepburn, who said that the problem is with the conflation of issues and the perpetuation of inaccurate myths. Many speakers have conflated migration with illegal migration, and illegal migration with small boat crossings. The reality is that illegal migration is a very small proportion of total net migration, and small boat crossings are a vanishingly small proportion of that.
For the Conservative Party to continue to conflate the issues and to perpetuate such myths and tropes is to feed the real anxieties and fears that exist in our community. That is where there is a problem. If anything is racist, it is that conflation, because it is not right.
Ultimately, the debate has gone to a very worrying place by conflating the housing emergency in Scotland with illegal migration. That is not helpful. It is not helpful for discussions about migration and it is not helpful for discussions about the housing emergency.
Above all else, Mr Findlay said that he wants a straightforward and commonsense debate. If he wants that, why did the Conservatives introduce a debate on social justice? If they were so confident talking about migration, why did they not introduce a debate on migration itself? The email that came round from business managers said that this would be a debate on social justice. That speaks volumes.
Mr Johnson is making good points. One thing that has hardly been touched on is that the Tories wish to leave the ECHR. That would leave us as the only country to do so apart from Belarus—there are folk from Belarus here today—and Russia. Does Mr Johnson think—as I do—that it would be wrong to leave the ECHR?
I will reflect on that point. What happened to the party of Churchill, who made the speech in 1948 in which he called for a charter of human rights? What happened to the party that signed up to the ECHR? Indeed, what happened to the party of Harold Macmillan, who believed that we solve problems by building houses?
The most unfortunate thing about this whole debate is that there are things that we need to talk about in relation to migration and solving the housing emergency in Scotland. However, by conflating those issues, the Conservatives have let the SNP off the hook. We should have been talking about how we build more houses and solve the problems in our communities. By peddling tropes and mistruths, the Conservatives are merely fuelling prejudices.
Rhoda Grant was absolutely right: this debate has ultimately been about the Conservatives trying to position themselves to the right of Reform, and that is pretty deplorable.
15:49
As we have heard in the debate, language is incredibly important. We need to ensure that we are talking about the same issues and that we are using the correct terminology. Not doing so perpetuates the misinformation that some seek to weaponise against individuals and communities.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will press on. I will take the intervention later if I have time.
I would like to remind members of a few facts. People who are seeking asylum cannot access local authority housing. The asylum system and its operation are the responsibility of the UK Government. The UK has international legal obligations to recognise refugees who are in the UK, and the purpose of the UK asylum system is to determine whether someone who is in the UK needs protection in line with those obligations. It is only once the UK Government has made a determination to grant asylum that newly recognised refugees have the right to access housing, work and other publicly funded support. As the cabinet secretary made clear, using the term “illegal migrant” is not only divisive and dehumanising but inaccurate.
I will now turn to some of the contributions and reflect on as many of them as I can. First of all, I emphatically reject the use of the term “assimilation”. That has connotations of people having either to mask themselves or to mimic in order to fit in, instead of enabling cohesive multicultural communities. The days of ethnic minorities with strange names having to change their name in order to anglicise and disguise themselves, and of young Asian and black girls having to bleach their skin in order to fit in with white communities, should be condemned and put into the history books. I reject the term “assimilation”.
We also heard about the willingness to tear up the ECHR in order to demonise further an already vulnerable group. It seems that there are members among us who would willingly throw away the rights of every citizen and person in this country in order to demonise further people who are already vulnerable. The ECHR is a fundamental principle of this Scottish Parliament, and any MSP who is worth their salt will resist derogation from it in the strongest possible terms.
I will also look at the facts. In 2024, the UK had around 948,000 long-term immigrants, primarily through work and study visas. Of those, 108,138 claimed asylum, of which 35,000 arrived via small boats. That is just 3.7 per cent of the total number of long-term immigrants in 2024. It is important to remember those numbers.
We recognise that the current UK Government inherited a broken asylum system, a backlog in decision making and large asylum accommodation estates. People are stuck in that system, which reduces their ability to integrate and to be able to work.
The bottleneck in decision making is the direct result of the UK Illegal Migration Act 2023, which is a totally unworkable and unconscionable piece of legislation. It was never supposed to work; it was an attempt to control the headlines in an election year. In the same way, these debates in the Scottish Parliament are not supposed to improve homelessness; rather, they are an attempt to lower the bar of what is considered acceptable rhetoric in the run-up to next year’s elections. The Scottish electorate can see right through that. People are organising in their communities to stand up to the demonisation of people seeking asylum, and I have every faith that they will overwhelmingly reject that premise at the ballot box.
I urge the chamber to reject this inaccurate and disgraceful motion. This Government will uphold Scotland’s values of compassion, dignity and respect, and it will protect all our communities.
I call Meghan Gallacher to wind up the debate.
15:54
Thank you, Presiding Officer—
Will Meghan Gallacher take an intervention?
I certainly will.
This is slightly unorthodox, but the refusal of these grandstanding SNP politicians to take interventions while hurling insults and inaccuracies, even by their standards, is truly pathetic. Does Meghan Gallacher agree that that is evidence of how out of touch they are with the concerns of people across Scotland?
I agree, and I certainly will be talking about why the Government should listen to people in communities up and down Scotland who believe that illegal immigration is a huge concern. That is why the Scottish Conservatives have brought two debates to the chamber on illegal immigration in recent weeks.
I understand that parties do not want to discuss the issue and want to swerve the difficult discussions, but I must say that the response from the cabinet secretary when Russell Findlay tried to intervene was nothing less than arrogant and dogmatic. That showed how we should not debate illegal immigration in the chamber. If we want to solve the problems, we need to be able to debate them. We cannot ignore the argument or the distrust that we are seeing in our communities.
As Russell Findlay said, it is not racist to talk about immigration. Our constituents expect us to talk about issues, no matter how difficult the conversation is, and that is what we are trying to do. There is growing unrest in our country, and it is not simply about immigration; it is about neglect, which is a point on which I actually agree with Maggie Chapman.
The Government has spent years undermining its own public services, only to now ask struggling communities to take on even more pressure through immigration without consultation or transparency, and without putting in valid support networks.
[Made a request to intervene.]
Another point that I want to raise is that these are typically working-class areas. People in areas in my region of Central Scotland are struggling due to the cost of living, childcare costs and being unable to find good skilled jobs. However, most importantly, they feel left behind by local and national Government.
Perhaps Kaukab Stewart would like to pick up on areas where she thinks that her Government has left those communities behind?
No—
You pressed the intervention button.
Presiding Officer, can I clarify that Meghan Gallacher is taking my intervention from earlier?
My intervention was to ask whether you could give an indication of any constructive proposals that you have put forward to ensure that regular and safe routes are provided.
Speak through the chair.
Has Meghan Gallacher or her party engaged with the UK Government to release the resources that are required to support everybody?
I can give you the time back for that, Ms Gallacher.
That is a reserved issue. We are talking about the strains on public services in relation to illegal immigration in this country.
If Kaukab Stewart wants to talk about reserved matters, particularly the ECHR, which I think is an important issue, let us talk about that. A detailed report on that was produced not by a politician but by Lord Wolfson, who is one of the leading King’s counsel in the country. The report said that legal immigration is too high and must come down and that illegal immigration is too high and must come down.
The report also talked about the problems with the ECHR. I am actually looking for a bit of consensus with the minister, because I hope that she would agree that, when there are situations such as that of a convicted paedophile in Glasgow who was prevented from being deported back to the Democratic Republic of Congo because of his right to family life, that shows that there are problems with the ECHR. I hope that the minister is able to agree with me on that point.
I will go back to my point about public services. The Government has let NHS waiting times spiral out of control, has failed to address chronic teacher shortages in crumbling schools and has allowed councils to carry the burden of rising costs with shrinking budgets. That is the neglect that we are talking about. I therefore cannot understand why the Greens continually support the SNP Government when it comes to budgets and coalition Governments. The Government has failed. It has had 18 years to address public service issues in this country and has failed.
I will finish on a point that I have been raising continually over the past few weeks. We have heard the term “community cohesion” a few times. I believe that the Government is serious about community cohesion and wants to try to stop the protests and look at ways in which we can have a more blended community, which is something that I hope everyone would be able to agree with. However, the Government has not been able to maintain the cohesion of public services, which is where the fundamental problems come in.
What do people see in Falkirk, which is in my region? They see hotels filled with asylum seekers at short notice, without a consultation process.
I return to the issue of the demographics of the people who have been arriving, which I have raised before. Across the UK, 62 per cent of asylum seeker claims are from adult males, compared with 21 per cent from adult females. For small boat arrivals, the imbalance is even greater: 75 per cent are adult men and 10 per cent are children. Compare that with the Ukrainian adults who arrived in the UK under the sponsorship and family schemes, most of whom—70 per cent—were women. Ukrainian men aged 18 to 60 were not allowed to leave Ukraine. Of all arrivals under those schemes, 27 per cent were under the age of 18.
We need to look at that, because that is what people see, and it is where the anger and distrust are coming from. People are seeing their own needs—their own families, schools and hospitals—pushed further down the priority list.
The SNP Government has had 18 years to fix our public services, and it has failed. That is why we are seeing discontent and distrust in our country.
That concludes the debate on stopping illegal immigration and recognising its impact on housing.
There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business, to allow for a changeover of members on the front benches.
Previous
Portfolio Question Time