The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18076, in the name of Kaukab Stewart, on the legislative consent motion for 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 buttons.
15:05
I open this debate on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill at a time of growing global instability. That instability can result in people having to flee their homes to seek safety in another country. Scotland has a proud history of welcoming those who are fleeing war and persecution, and the debate needs to be seen in that wider context.
Border security is central to the UK Government’s plan for change. The Border Security Command aims to co-ordinate efforts to dismantle criminal gangs, which prey on the desperation of those who are seeking a safe haven. At the time of the previous general election, more than 122 million people worldwide were forcibly displaced as they fled persecution and conflict, violence and human rights violations.
Many people risk dangerous Channel crossings out of desperation and rely on smugglers and criminal networks. These are not journeys of choice; they are journeys of desperation by men, women and children who are seeking safer shores.
In 2024, 73 people died attempting the crossing—more than in the previous six years combined. The boats are now more crowded, with an average of 53 people per vessel, which is up from 13 per vessel in 2020. The Scottish Government does not condone illegal activity and supports efforts to disrupt criminal networks. Measures such as enhanced data sharing and new offences can help, but they must be implemented with care. Strong oversight, safeguards and respect for privacy and due process are essential.
Strengthening border security is legitimate, but it must not criminalise those who are fleeing war and persecution. While we support sanctions for serious crimes, such as human trafficking, breaching immigration rules alone should not result in criminalisation. Many people who arrive in small boats are vulnerable individuals who are seeking safety. Detention and prosecution should always be a last resort.
The bill must be matched by the expansion of safe and legal routes, such as refugee resettlement, family reunion and humanitarian pathways. Amnesty has said that safe routes save lives, and the Scottish Refugee Council has called the bill a “missed opportunity”. Enforcement alone will not resolve the crisis. We must address the root cause and protect the most vulnerable. As a founding signatory to the refugee convention, the UK has a moral and legal duty to uphold its principles.
I welcome the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s report on the legislative consent memorandum and its recommendation that the Parliament should consent to the relevant provisions in the bill. The committee highlighted stakeholder concerns about age declaration forms and called for the reassurance that we are working with the UK Government to mitigate the risks for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We have engaged with the UK Government and we understand that those forms are used in Kent, not Scotland. We will continue to monitor the issue.
The Scottish Government remains committed to supporting those who come to Scotland in search of safety and to ensuring that the implementation of the bill reflects our values and respect for human rights. As head of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Lord Advocate has published instructions for prosecutors when considering the prosecution of a person who is, or appears to be, the victim of human trafficking and exploitation.
The Scottish Government introduced what became the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, which provides support when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an adult is a victim of human trafficking. That support can include accommodation, medical care, legal services and psychological support.
Alongside support services that local authorities provide to child victims, the Scottish Government funds the guardianship Scotland service to support unaccompanied children in Scotland who have been trafficked or who are vulnerable to being exploited.
We facilitate refugee integration through the new Scots refugee integration strategy, which is delivered in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Refugee Council. We also provide tailored support through Scotland’s migration service, which helps people to navigate our complex immigration system, understand their rights, access services and build stable lives.
In moving the motion, I recommend the Parliament’s consent to the relevant provisions in the bill as amended. While recognising the UK Government’s efforts to combat organised immigration crime, the Scottish Government reaffirms its commitment to those who are fleeing persecution and urges the UK Government to expand the availability of safe and legal routes to sanctuary.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 30 January 2025, relating to the provision and sharing of trailer registration information (amended clauses 30 to 33), the provision of biometric information at ports in Scotland (clause 36), the repeal of certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (clause 38), the detention and exercise of functions pending deportation (clause 41), powers to take biometric information at detention centres (clause 44), offences relating to articles for use in serious crime (clauses 49 and 50), applicants for making of orders and interim orders (clause 54), and the validation of fees charged in relation to qualifications (clause 57), so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament.
15:11
Before us today is a legislative consent motion for a bill that epitomises a weak response from a weak Government. Is there a policy area that Keir Starmer has not reversed on? Right before our eyes, as we hold the debate, we can see what is happening with his welfare reform proposals. Labour’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill is a master-class in vacuous legislation—it is long on rhetoric and short on resolve. If the members on these Conservative benches were in the House of Commons, we would oppose the bill, just as our colleagues at Westminster are rightly doing.
Instead of building on the robust deterrent measures that the previous Conservative Government put in place—most notably the Rwanda policy that was championed by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak—Labour has taken a wrecking ball to them. The result is that illegal immigration has surged and the number of small boat crossings in the past 11 months alone has hit record highs. That is not coincidence—that is consequence.
Let us be clear that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill repeals key sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023—the very provisions that created a pathway to deter illegal crossings and dismantle the vile business model of people-smuggling gangs. The Rwanda partnership was about not just removing illegal entrants but sending the clear and unambiguous message that, if people come here illegally, they will not be allowed to stay. Labour has turned its back on that principle.
I wonder whether Stephen Kerr could say what the legal routes to seek refuge in the UK are.
These are people who are leaving the safety of France and putting their lives in the hands of ruthless human traffickers. That is what we have to stop. People are drowning in the Channel, and that cannot go on. Bob Doris might want to ask such questions, and I respect his right to do so, but the priority should be to stop the trade and the crossings.
We have to send the right message, and Labour is sending the wrong message. It is sending the wrong message to the smugglers, the traffickers and those who are willing to put large sums of money in the hands of those criminals and risk their lives in dinghies crossing the Channel.
Unfortunately, the message from Labour is that Britain is open again for illegal business. Members should make no mistake—this is costing the British taxpayer billions. It is costing more than £8 million a day to house illegal arrivals in hotels, many of which are in communities that are already stretched for housing and services. Who pays the price? Local families, rural businesses, tourism operators and hard-pressed councils. This is not compassion—it is collapse, and it is happening on Labour’s watch.
Let us turn to the Scottish Government. The Scottish National Party has consistently refused to accept the reality of illegal immigration. Its attitude to border control is one of ideological fantasy—a completely open border with limitless immigration, legal and illegal alike. It talks about compassion, but its refusal to distinguish between legal migration and unlawful entry undermines public trust.
Let us be honest—that is not lost on the Scottish people. Time and again, Scots have told pollsters and politicians that they share the concerns of the UK public at large. They are concerned about the pace of immigration and they are alarmed by illegal crossings. They understand that a country that cannot control its borders is a country that cannot control its future.
What Labour and the SNP do not seem to grasp is that public consent for immigration depends on two things—that the system is fair and that the system is enforced. The Rwanda plan might not have been perfect, but it showed seriousness. It aimed to protect lives, shut down smugglers and restore order. Labour’s bill does none of those things.
In the House of Commons debates, our colleague Chris Philp has rightly warned that the bill is a repeal bill, not a reform bill. Our party leader, Kemi Badenoch, has said that Labour is gutting a deterrent without offering an alternative. They are both right. The bill is not a plan; it is a posture—a gesture to the leftist consensus that is comfortable with chaos. Yet, in this Parliament, we are asked to give consent.
We recognise that this is largely—I would say wholly—a reserved matter. By convention, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party respects the overall legislative authority of the UK Parliament in reserved areas. That is why, despite our trenchant opposition to the bill and everything that it represents, we will abstain on the motion.
However, let there be no mistake—the Conservative Party remains the only party that is serious about restoring control, integrity and order to our borders. Labour and the SNP are out of tune with the mood of this country, Scotland included. Until they confront reality, they will continue to betray the very people whom they claim to serve.
15:17
It is always a pleasure to follow Stephen Kerr, even when his oration—we might call it a salad of linguistic excitement—on the bill that is ploughing its way through the Westminster houses might lead to both entertainment and concern. However, members across the chamber, and politicians across the whole of the United Kingdom, often talk about taking care in the use of language when something, on the surface, offends, and I think that care should also be taken with language used when one can see an opportunity—rightly or wrongly—to stir people up or incite ideas that others might then use as false information.
It is correct to say that the bill on which we are being invited to agree to the legislative consent motion contains repeal provisions relating to the Rwanda plan that Stephen Kerr talked about and to the Illegal Migration Act 2023. It is right to repeal that legislation. I am more than content to discuss the matter with the member—perhaps it would be more beneficial to do so outside the chamber—as we have done in the past. I had understood that we had reached a conclusion, but perhaps times have changed.
I welcome the bill, but I also welcome the minister’s approach in moving the motion. This matter requires all those who represent constituents across the United Kingdom to work together. There is an interesting discrepancy between the language used about those who are fleeing appalling circumstances in their home country and their legitimate right to travel through safe countries to seek refuge elsewhere, as identified by the United Nations, and those—
Will Martin Whitfield take an intervention?
Yes.
I thank my friend for giving way. He makes a salient point about the misbelief that, if someone is to claim asylum, they are obligated to claim it in the first safe country through which they travel. Often, people are moving towards the UK for very human reasons, such as their ability to speak English or in order to reconnect with their families and relatives. There is a very human story behind that journey in many cases, as we know from our constituency casework.
I will pick up on one of the phrases that the member used in that intervention—the “human story”. We are talking about human beings and their travel and the situation that leads them to decide that they can no longer stay in the country of their birth or where they live. That is a truly appalling decision for individuals to have to take.
What frightens, scares and annoys me is those other humans who see these people as a way to profit. Very complex financial arrangements can be made, in which families in effect borrow money from moneylenders at exorbitant interest rates, with the expectation that, if the individual makes the journey safely, they will reimburse the family. We have an entire dark economy working on that model.
I hope that Martin Whitfield, who is a realist, will recognise that the vast majority of the people on the dinghies are young men. They are, in a sense, almost undoubtedly economic migrants. [Interruption.] The question that he must address, which the bill does not address, is what deterrent will stop them from putting their money and their lives in the hands of those wicked people.
I am not going to make categorical assumptions about what groups of people choose this route—
Oh!
If the member will be patient—[Interruption.] I am conscious of time; I apologise, Presiding Officer.
I am not going to make sweeping assumptions about groups of people who are taking their life in their hands. With regard to the gender of the people who are coming over—although I do not necessarily accept the diagnostic that the member claims—I suggest that those people might feel an obligation to flee their country because of their own sexuality, or whatever, and are seeking safety.
Returning to the LCM, I repeat my welcome of the minister’s approach to this issue. It is a complex one. There are areas that are reserved, and there are areas that this Parliament and the Scottish Government rightly have an involvement in. I congratulate the Scottish Government on the way that it has handled the matter and on its interaction with the UK Government.
For the sake of time, I will leave it there—although, interestingly, I understand that we might have a fascinating members’ business debate brought by Mr Kerr after our return from recess.
15:22
The Scottish Greens will support the LCM at decision time.
However, I want to get the following comments, which relate to clause 38 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, on the record. As it stands, clause 38 of the bill will repeal certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023—specifically sections 24 and 28, which disapplied specific powers and duties of the Scottish ministers that are in the Human Traffic and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015. Neither of those sections has been fully brought into force. We support the repeal of those sections and would like to see the whole Illegal Migration Act 2023 repealed.
It is disappointing that the UK Government saw fit not to repeal section 29 of the 2023 act as well. It focuses on disqualifying protections for individuals who are identified as potential victims of modern slavery or trafficking if they are deemed, according to the act, to be
“a threat to public order or ... have claimed to be victims in bad faith”.
Some might say that that is fair, but a key provision of the 2023 act is the expansion of the definition of a “threat to public order” to include anyone who is convicted of a crime and given a prison sentence and those who are liable for deportation under the Immigration Act 1971. That means that victims of trafficking could still be detained and face removal rather than receiving support, and it applies even if they were coerced or forced into entering the UK irregularly by their traffickers.
That is a really important point, as is shown by a case in my constituency in 2018. Duc Nguyen was trafficked from Vietnam and forced to work in conditions of slavery on a cannabis farm, which was then raided. He was jailed for six months and then was liberated and claimed asylum. Nonetheless, he was detained arbitrarily and faced deportation until there were interventions across parties to secure his release. That is a particular case that we can relate to, and it is important that we address that issue.
Absolutely. I thank Paul Sweeney for raising that. Let us remember that many trafficked victims are forced into criminal activity and, by virtue of being trafficked, they are much more likely to have a criminal record.
Section 29 of the 2023 act makes it more difficult for such victims to come forward and seek help, which could force them further underground, where they could continue to be exploited, could be re-trafficked or worse. We know that, when trafficked victims are removed from the UK, they face a high risk of being re-trafficked and could end up in exactly the same situation.
I am grateful to the Scottish Refugee Council for its meticulous work on the ramifications of the bill. I really wish that we could repeal the entire Illegal Migration Act 2023—one day soon, I hope that we will.
I note that Stephen Kerr seems not to like the fact that the right to seek asylum is enshrined in article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and elaborated on in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees—it is clear that his party does not like human rights for many people at all. However, there are few, if any, so-called legal routes to get to the UK for refugees and asylum seekers from parts of the world that continue to suffer the consequences of imperialism, uneven development and climate breakdown. I wonder how some people justify the differential treatment that the UK has shown to Ukrainians compared to Yemenis or Palestinians.
If people really want to stop the boats, let us arrange safe and secure routes and crossings for asylum seekers, as we should do under our international and moral obligations. I am proud to be in a party that believes that we should welcome refugees and asylum seekers and that we should offer them the dignity of safety and sanctuary. That is our duty.
15:26
I thank colleagues for their thoughtful and considered contributions to the debate, although the speeches have been varied and possibly a little polarised, which is not unexpected. I ask the chamber to support the Scottish Government’s motion to grant legislative consent to the relevant provisions of the UK Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I emphasise again that this is not a blanket endorsement of the UK Government’s immigration and asylum policy; indeed, just the other week, I stood here and expressed serious concerns about its approach to migration.
We welcome many of the intended benefits of the provisions of the bill, especially through the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the repeal of parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 that removed the duty on Scottish ministers to protect trafficking victims. That is a necessary step towards addressing the legacy of fear, uncertainty and hostility that was left in the wake of those deeply concerning measures, which were initiated by the UK Conservative Government.
The provisions on which we seek consent—particularly those concerning data sharing, enforcement, co-operation and safeguarding—demand our active engagement. Through that active engagement, we can ensure that they are implemented in a way that respects devolved responsibilities and upholds fundamental human rights. In an interconnected world, challenges such as migration, climate change and global security demand co-operation and not isolation. By working across Governments, we respond more effectively to shared crises.
We recognise the serious challenges in the current system, but the bill must come with a commitment to improving access to safe and legal routes for those who seek protection. Without such measures, we risk perpetuating the very vulnerabilities that the bill seeks to resolve.
I say on the record that I have much sympathy with Maggie Chapman’s contribution on section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Of course, that matter is wholly reserved and today we are talking about the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill.
I close with the message that Scotland stands—and will always stand—for dignity, fairness and respect and will remain a place of refuge for those fleeing persecution and conflict.