Official Report 879KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19614, in the name of Angela Constance, on a motion of legislative competence on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.
I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak button.
16:03
I am pleased to open this brief debate on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, the purpose of which is to rectify an oversight.
I regret that the Scottish Parliament has not had more time to consider the supplementary legislative consent memorandum. The original LCM, which covers the vast majority of the relevant provision in the bill, was debated and passed by the Parliament on 26 June. However, it has since become apparent that clause 53(6) of the bill should have been included in the original LCM and motion.
Since the omission became apparent, officials have worked to develop a supplementary LCM covering the oversight, which was lodged on 4 November. Although I accept that that is far from optimal, I am grateful to the convener of the Criminal Justice Committee for suspending the committee’s responsibilities under standing orders to allow the debate to proceed in order to provide Parliament with the opportunity to consider the legislative consent motion before the bill reaches its final form.
Clause 53(6) amends section 25(1) of the Serious Crime Act 2007 by inserting the words
“or an interim serious crime prevention order”
after “order”. That will put the breach of an interim serious crime prevention order on the same footing as the breach of a full serious crime prevention order, ensuring that there is consistency of approach across the United Kingdom when dealing with those who might seek to circumvent the restrictions that are imposed on them. It is important—indeed, imperative—that we support the extension of clause 53(6) to Scotland, in order to prevent criminals attempting to get around the conditions of an interim serious crime prevention order simply by moving jurisdiction.
In moving the motion, I recommend that the Parliament consent to clause 53(6).
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 30 January 2025, and subsequently amended, relating to clause 53(6) on the breach of interim Serious Crime Prevention Orders (iSCPO), so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, should be considered by the UK Parliament.
16:10
Today, the Parliament is again asked to consider a legislative consent memorandum dealing with the UK Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. As a whole, the bill has given my colleagues—both here and in the UK Parliament—significant concern. Against the tide of illegal immigration, the bill proposes little in the way of solutions. It was reported just this week that 39,075 migrants have made the journey across the channel so far this year. Labour has failed to deal with immigration and securing our borders.
I am grateful to my colleague for giving way, because it gives me the opportunity to put on record the view of many of my constituents that this is a thoroughly badly thought-through piece of legislation. Its most important defect is the repeal of the only measure that has, so far, been put in place to act as a deterrent to people trafficking and to prevent people putting their lives on the line and crossing the English Channel at the behest of some of the most vile and evil people that one can imagine.
Labour’s recent announcement about housing hundreds of asylum-seeking men in barracks in Inverness has alarmed us all due to the questionable suitability of that approach. Instead of being meaningful legislation that will deliver solutions, the bill bulldozes across previous building blocks, such as by repealing key sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.
Meanwhile, in Scotland, the Scottish National Party continues to be out of touch with public sentiment. The Scottish Government has appeared to offer an open door to illegal immigration, which is an approach that is not in keeping with public sentiment and that would be damaging to Scotland. The Scottish Conservative and Unionist—
Will Tess White take an intervention?
Presiding Officer, will I get the time back?
Yes, if it is very brief.
Is it the Conservative position that criminals should avoid arrest by simply moving to Scotland?
It is ludicrous of Mr Whitfield to suggest that.
The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, unlike Scottish Labour, remains the only party in Scotland that is serious about restoring the integrity of our borders through proper control—I stress “proper”. However, we also respect the competences given to the Scottish Parliament through the devolution settlement and the functions that are reserved by the UK Parliament. Therefore, despite our significant opposition to the bill, we will abstain in the vote on the motion.
I will take this opportunity to raise my concern about the process that the Parliament has allowed for the passing of the LCM. The Scottish Government has highlighted the serious issue surrounding the LCM; it is fundamentally one of criminality, as Mr Whitfield says. However, due to the lack of time, the Parliament has disregarded the usual standing orders, skipped the stage where a lead committee would thoroughly scrutinise the LCM and brought it straight to the chamber. It is much more than “far from optimal”, as the cabinet secretary says—it is much worse than that. It is the third time that this has happened. The disregard for our standing orders and normal process of methodical scrutiny is of some concern to me and my colleagues. Although I understand that there might be little option left, in the interest of time, I urge the Scottish Government to ensure that disregard of our normal process does not become the norm.
That concludes the short debate on the LCM.