Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 27, 2023

Official Report 962KB pdf

---

Illegal Migration Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-09710, in the name of Emma Roddick, on the Illegal Migration Bill, which is a piece of United Kingdom legislation. I would be grateful if members who wish to speak in the debate were to press their request-to-speak buttons.

I will allow a moment for members to organise themselves.

14:21  

The Scottish Government condemns the UK Government’s abhorrent Illegal Migration Bill, as does this Parliament, which voted overwhelmingly to reject the bill on 25 April.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights at Westminster has stated that the bill is currently incompatible with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and the European convention on human rights.

The Scottish Government has written to the UK Government on multiple occasions to request that it withdraw the bill. We will continue to ask it to do so, including at the second meeting of the interministerial group for safety, security and migration, which the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and the UK Home Secretary will attend in July.

The Scottish Government’s view is that the bill overreaches into devolved competencies by altering the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, which was passed unanimously by this Parliament. Clauses 23 and 27 of the bill are a restriction on the power of the Scottish ministers under the 2015 act, as they alter the executive competence of ministers and impact our powers to support and assist people excluded as a result of the UK bill.

Therefore, the Scottish Government prepared a legislative consent memorandum, because we firmly believe that the Illegal Migration Bill is a relevant bill under rule 9B of the Scottish Parliament’s standing orders. The Presiding Officer concluded that the bill does not meet the criteria in rule 9B, so the Scottish Government has not been permitted to lodge that LCM.

The Presiding Officer is, of course, entitled to reach the conclusion that she did, but I am disappointed by the decision, and that disappointment has been amplified, given that the Senedd voted just last week to refuse consent for what it called a “callous” bill that could allow children to be removed from the care of Welsh social services.

The Scottish Government’s view is that the consent of this Parliament should be required for clauses 23 and 27 of the UK bill. I will outline to Parliament the reasons for that. Clause 23 of the bill disapplies specific provisions of the 2015 act in relation to support and assistance for potential victims in Scotland. Clause 27 of the bill directly amends sections 9 and 10 of the 2015 act to make it clear that they are subject to clause 23.

The provisions are disapplied in respect of persons for whom the secretary of state is under a duty, in clause 2(1) of the UK bill, to make removal arrangements, and who are in receipt of a positive reasonable grounds decision—that the adult is a victim of an offence of human trafficking—or a competent authority is in the process of determining whether there are reasonable grounds.

The 2015 act requires the Scottish ministers to secure such support and assistance as they consider necessary for an adult where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the adult is a victim of an offence of human trafficking. That duty exists during what is described as the “relevant period”, which begins on the date that it is determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the adult is a victim of human trafficking and ends on the earlier of the end of the period specified in regulations—currently up to 90 days—or the date on which there is a conclusive determination that the adult is or is not a victim of an offence of human trafficking.

The 2015 act also enables the Scottish ministers, via a discretionary power, to secure support and assistance for an adult trafficking victim in certain circumstances.

Scottish Government crisis support for potential victims of human trafficking is currently delivered through grant funding arrangements of more than £7.45 million from the victim-centred approach fund between 2022 and 2025. Those funds are shared between the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance, which supports women who have been trafficked for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation, and Migrant Help, which supports all other adult victims. Support can include accommodation, assistance with day-to-day living, medical advice and treatment including psychological help, language translation and interpretation, counselling, legal advice, help accessing other services and, if the victim wishes, repatriation.

The UK Government’s Illegal Migration Bill will prevent delivery of that support to people within scope other than in a very narrow selection of cases in which there are compelling reasons for an individual to remain in the UK to provide co-operation with a public authority in connection with an investigation or criminal proceedings related to their exploitation. Indeed, the UK bill has been amended to ensure that the secretary of state must assume that it is not necessary for a person to be in the United Kingdom to provide that co-operation.

I hope that all of us in the chamber today will recognise that victims of trafficking are among the most vulnerable people in society, having suffered unimaginable trauma through the experiences of exploitation. They should be afforded the correct support and protection, not vilified for seeking safety.

Last Thursday, alongside the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, I hosted a summit with stakeholders across Scotland and beyond to assess the bill and discuss reasonable mitigations.

At the summit last Thursday, we heard very clearly from third sector and other stakeholders about their concerns, particularly about the non-derogable obligations that they and we have under international human rights laws, including the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. Can the minister provide some comfort to those people by saying that we believe that they should continue to fulfil their non-derogable obligations under international human rights laws even if the bill is passed?

Nobody should be in any doubt that the Scottish Government is committed to continuing to do anything that we can to ensure that we meet our international human rights obligations. We encourage any public authority to do the same within the bounds of the law. Fundamentally, we simply think that the Westminster Parliament should remove its amendments to our trafficking legislation.

On the summit, which Maggie Chapman also attended, we are currently considering many of the views that stakeholders put forward. I will share key thoughts with relevant committees of the Scottish Parliament. The summit heard from the former Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, for example, and perhaps the most striking contribution was provided through a video that was created by the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance. The video was voiced by a female survivor of human trafficking for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation, and it appealed to law makers to reconsider this horrific bill. That powerful statement starkly highlighted how vulnerable people will be consigned to a fate of exploitation, with no support entitlements or protections, thanks to the bill.

The UK Government’s bill does not introduce any legal visa routes for people to claim asylum. There are no visa routes to enable people to claim asylum in the UK. That is why the bill will not stop the boats. What it will do is stop women across the UK who are victims of commercial sexual exploitation, who are being raped multiple times daily, seeking help and protection from authorities. It will negatively impact prosecutions, as victims will be fearful of engaging in the criminal justice process, and attempts to eliminate human trafficking in Scotland if victims actively avoid identification for fear of being removed from the UK. That is a shocking indictment of the UK Government’s values, and it demonstrates the real impact of the bill.

As members have heard before, the bill also contains powers that seriously and significantly impinge on the rights and safety of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Make no mistake: the bill will force children into harm’s way.

The Scottish Government, the Parliament and many in wider civic society are united in our stance that the bill has no place in Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the UK Government’s Illegal Migration Bill will negatively affect all those seeking asylum in the UK; notes that clauses 23 and 27 of the Bill together will amend the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, by placing a restriction on the powers of the Scottish Ministers and removing the entitlement for victims of human trafficking and exploitation to access Scottish Government-funded support services if they have arrived in the UK through irregular means after 7 March 2023; further notes that the Bill’s provisions are likely to impact on the ability to support potential victims of human trafficking and, therefore, will impact on the delivery of the Trafficking and Exploitation Strategy and efforts to eliminate human trafficking, as victims may actively avoid identification and associated risks of removal from the UK, and acknowledges that the Scottish Government has not been permitted to lodge a Legislative Consent Memorandum on the UK Government’s Illegal Migration Bill in the Scottish Parliament.

14:29  

I will begin with a couple of important procedural points about how we got here. I make no apology for making these points.

This was meant to be a debate about legislative consent but, yesterday, the Scottish Government’s motion revealed that this is not an LCM debate, which we are used to having, as it has not been permitted to lodge a legislative consent memorandum. The minister’s motion says as much.

Let us be absolutely clear who has refused that permission: it is not the UK Government that has done so, as lodging a memorandum is nothing to do with it; it is the Scottish Parliament. Here, I will address you directly, Presiding Officer.

I point out that at no point did I blame the UK Government regarding the LCM, but it is certainly the UK Government’s fault that the bill includes clauses that alter our executive competence by amending the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, which the Scottish Conservatives backed in 2015. Could the member perhaps explain the reason for the change?

I will, but first I will make the point that I was in the process of making. The bill does not affect devolved competence. The Presiding Officer, presumably having taken legal advice, has decided that the Illegal Migration Bill is not a relevant bill for the purpose of an LCM.

The Presiding Officer is a guardian of the processes of the Parliament. The legislative consent process of this Parliament does not apply, so legislative consent is not required. In short, the view of the Parliament is that the bill does not engage devolved competence. Migration is quintessentially a reserved matter.

That is a view that I have expounded in the chamber when speaking against a business motion and when speaking in the debate that we held a few months ago. During that debate, there was no indication of the Government’s views on legislative consent, because no memorandum had been published. We had no formal documentation regarding its views on the competence of the bill. I made the point that we did not know whether the Government thought that devolved competence was engaged or whether it believed that legislative consent was necessary. If it believed that consent was necessary, we did not know why or in what way.

The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, who is sitting beside the Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees, said:

“I confirm to Parliament that we will shortly lodge a legislative consent memorandum on the bill and I will write to the UK Government today”—

Will Donald Cameron give way?

I will not.

The cabinet secretary said:

“I will write to the UK Government today to inform it of our intention to do so.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2023; c 12.]

It would appear that the cabinet secretary was ill-advised to make such a pledge, as it turns out that the only people who think that devolved competence is engaged are those in the Scottish Government, not the UK Government and not—

Will the member give way on that point?

I will not.

He mentioned me directly.

And not the officials in this very Parliament, who are of the same view. Again, the question is why we are here today debating the bill. The fact is that today’s debate is simply an attempt—after a full debate on the bill on 25 April, when the substantive issues were exhaustively canvassed—to make another attack on UK Government migration policy. So far, so predictable.

As I said in that first debate, it would, of course, be better if the Government was using the time instead to debate the real issues facing Scots—issues where this Parliament actually does have competence, such as national health service waiting lists, drug deaths, the widening attainment gap in schools and numerous transport failures, including the mismanagement of the delivery of new ferries to Scotland.

Will the member give way?

Yes.

I am grateful for the opportunity.

Can the member say when he may wish to get on to discussing the very women whom the minister discussed in her opening speech, who are impacted by the bill and who were protected by devolved legislation—which the member’s party voted for—and who are frightened? That is our responsibility, as a Government and as a Parliament: to protect the most vulnerable in our society. It is a shame that the member does not think so.

I look forward to the summing-up speeches, because that, frankly, is no answer to the question. The bill is not within the legislative competence of this Parliament.

I now turn to the issues that have been raised. The UK Government has introduced the bill to ensure that the only route to asylum in the UK is a safe and legal one. Since 2015, the UK has offered sanctuary—

Will the member take an intervention?

No.

The UK has offered sanctuary to more than 580,000 men, women and children through safe routes such as refugee family reunion and the UK resettlement scheme, as well as welcoming people through the country-specific routes for Ukraine, Hong Kong, Afghanistan and Syria.

Will the member take an intervention?

I have taken two interventions so far. I will not take another one.

The UK Government has made it clear, again and again, that the bill is focused on illegal migration. It seeks to address the growing number of instances of people smuggling and to reduce the incidence of unsafe migrant crossing. The number of people who arrived illegally in 2022 was more than 45,000, which represented a 60 per cent increase on 2021.

By restricting illegal migration, there will be greater capacity to provide a safe haven for those who are at risk of war and persecution. The bill provides for the UK Government to commit to resettling a specific number of the most vulnerable refugees from around the world every year.

The UK Government has been responsive to concerns that have been raised during the bill’s progress in the Houses of Parliament. It has made a number of amendments at report stage, including enhancing the safeguards for unaccompanied children by setting out the limited circumstances in which removal of children will be exercised, such as for the purposes of family reunion or removal to a safe country of origin. Amendments were also made to the bill’s detention powers for unaccompanied children, which will now be permitted only for purposes that are prescribed in regulations that are made by the secretary of state.

I must ask you to conclude, Mr Cameron.

For those reasons, we will vote against the Scottish Government’s motion at decision time.

14:35  

I rise in support of the Scottish Government’s motion and in opposition to the UK Government’s Illegal Migration Bill.

My party has been steadfast in its opposition to the bill, voting against it in the House of Commons, and in April when we debated the bill in this Parliament, articulating clearly our opposition to it. Let us make no mistake: the Illegal Migration Bill is brutal, pernicious and totally ill considered. It challenges the fundamental human right to seek asylum, which is enshrined in the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which was adopted in 1951.

In conducting its legislative scrutiny of the bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which comprises cross-party politicians from the House of Commons and the House of Lords, has, as we have heard, concluded that the bill breaches the UK’s international human rights obligations, including those under the European convention on human rights. Indeed, even the Home Secretary has acknowledged that there is a more than 50 per cent chance that the legislation will break international human rights law.

Even today, we have seen that the UK Government does not even know how much its absurd and cruel plans will cost. It is clear that the legislation will, despite repeated warnings, remove the safeguards for victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, exposing people to a greater threat of harm or, as is too often the case, death.

Presiding Officer,

“The Modern Slavery Act gave hope to victims, but this Bill removes that hope. I genuinely believe that if enacted as it is currently proposed, it will leave more people—more men, women and children—in slavery in the UK.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 26 April 2023; Vol 731, c 809].

Those are not my words; they are the words of former Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May. That is emblematic of how far and how quickly the Conservative Party has lurched to the right on those issues.

I urge Conservative members in this chamber and its front-bench spokesperson—I believe him to be a man of integrity and to be a good man—to use their voices to oppose this immoral piece of legislation, even at this late stage as it concludes its parliamentary process at Westminster. How can they justify supporting a bill so lacking in such basic compassion, empathy and humanity?

Of course, as we have heard already, this debate is focused on the impact of the legislation in a devolved context, so I will turn to that issue in my remaining time.

The Government motion highlights that the bill will have a profound impact on devolved legislation, amending the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, which was agreed by all parties in this Parliament. I accept that the Scottish Government cannot rewrite that legislation or, indeed, opt out of the worst clauses of the UK legislation. However, we have a responsibility to those who will be most impacted by the legislation to do everything in our power to find solutions to mitigate its worst aspects. I strongly urge the Government—and offer to work with it—in that vein to explore every avenue and to ensure that we are maximising our legislative competence to provide support for trafficking survivors and unaccompanied children.

There are ways in which that could be done. A greater focus could be placed on exploring how we enhance the monitoring, inspection and regulation of accommodation that is used in the asylum system to ensure that provision is of a good standard. We can work with various partners that have been briefing us and supplying us with important information throughout this process, not least the Scottish Refugee Council.

The legislation will also result in more people being destitute in Scotland, so it is imperative that the Scottish Government explores how it can provide additional resources to local authorities to ensure that we have the necessary resilience to cope with increased demand for support services.

In considering the various policy initiatives that could be explored further to mitigate aspects of the bill, we are calling on the Scottish Government to publish a comprehensive Scotland-wide mitigation plan by the autumn, and, as I have said, we would work with the Government on that. The plan should outline how Scotland will continue to remain compliant with international human rights law, including the European convention on human rights and the Council of Europe’s convention on action against trafficking.

As legislators, elected representatives and human beings, we all have a responsibility to do everything that we can within our powers to defend, protect and enhance the rights of the most marginalised people in our society and our world, including those who come to our country. I am clear that the bill is cruel, inhumane and unjustifiable, and the reality is that it will not work in terms of what it seeks to do. It cannot be used as a cover or as an excuse for the UK Government’s bigger agenda.

I urge the Scottish Government to work with partners to ensure that we do all that we can to mitigate the effects of the bill. For now, I add my support to the voices of those who are calling the bill out for what it is and opposing it clearly in Scotland.

14:40  

I deeply regret the circumstances that have brought us together this afternoon. Before I start, I point out that it is regrettable that Donald Cameron was not able to take my intervention. I have known and liked him for seven years, and I know his values, so I struggle to see how the bill is compatible with them or, indeed, the values of most of the members of his party in the chamber. I am happy for him to intervene on me to tell me why that is not the case.

When we discussed the matter only two months ago, I very much hoped that sense would prevail and that this appalling excuse for a bill would be prevented from making it on to our statute book. However, today, we stand on the precipice of that happening, with the Conservatives making our country a far less kind and a darker place.

I ardently agree with colleagues from across the chamber that the bill will do far more harm than good. There are so many reasons why it should not be passed into law. I very much echo the sentiment of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who put it best when he said:

“There are too many problems in this Bill for one speech.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 May 2023; Vol 829, c 1793.]

However, the biggest and the overarching problem with the bill is that it will do nothing but hurt the most vulnerable who are seeking safe harbour on our shores—those who have fled the most unimaginable atrocities, are in desperate need and are utterly deserving of our compassion and protection. This country has a proud history of offering sanctuary to those escaping such horror. It is because of refugees and migrants that our society is far stronger and our tapestry is far richer and more vibrant. However, the Conservative Party seems to be intent on trashing all of that and that legacy.

I will set out just some of the effects of the bill. It gives the Government the power to detain adults and children indefinitely, it will restrict victims of modern slavery from accessing life-saving support and it will make it impossible for families that have been torn apart to reunite easily, leaving children and young people alone and exposed. The United Nations has stated that, if it is passed, the bill will breach the 1951 refugee convention, so it is likely to be in contravention of international law. There are basic standards of governance in our society that must be adhered to. Surely, breaking international law falls well beneath those standards. However, as we are increasingly learning from recent events, the current Conservative Government does not appear to know much about those standards.

Furthermore, as well as the bill posing a huge risk to some of the most vulnerable people on our planet, the Liberal Democrats remain very concerned about the risk that the bill poses to our democracy. It takes power away from the courts, stripping them of their ability to review and intervene if a detention period or removal is unlawful. Instead, it places such decisions unfettered into the hands of ministers, potentially weakening our judiciary and upsetting that system of check and balance.

The bill panders to the ugliest form of our politics. It is a classic populist move straight from the playbook of the likes of Donald Trump. There is even an empty three-word slogan, delivered in staccato terms, that is designed to incite anger and defensiveness—stop the boats—while very little is offered to actually solve the problem.

If I was feeling especially cynical, I would muse that that was a very deliberate tactic to distract from the fact that the Conservative Government is unfit and incapable of running this country and is looking to punch down once again on the vulnerable and the dispossessed—a fact that the British people are becoming increasingly aware of. It is therefore saddening that there are those in the chamber who support such cheap politics. When we last debated this issue in the Parliament, every single Conservative MSP in the chamber voted against the condemnation of the bill, once again showing that Douglas Ross and Rishi Sunak are one and the same, content with exploiting refugees who are fleeing death and victims of human trafficking to pander to the furthest extremes of their base.

Liberal Democrats have always believed that we have a moral duty to offer help to those who need it. That is why we condemn the bill in the strongest possible terms. It is also why we are calling for an expansion and proper funding of the refugee resettlement scheme, as well as for the establishment of a new dedicated unit for asylum that can establish safe routes to this country, so that decisions are made with compassion and fairness, not ignorance and malice. We must ensure that we honour the UK’s long tradition of offering home and harbour to those who need it most.

14:46  

We heard Donald Cameron talk about the real issues—the issues for which we have responsibility. Let me explain what I think about that. We have a responsibility to victims of human trafficking and to unaccompanied children in this country. As Paul O’Kane said, we have a responsibility to protect and enhance human rights for all. It would be lovely if we lived in a world where we could rely on safe and legal routes into the UK. We cannot do that, in large part due to the UK Government but also because of the human trafficking trade. We are talking about people who have undergone horrific treatment and unimaginable trauma and who often have no idea how they got here or where they are, let alone have any influence over what method of transport they use.

It is insincere and cruel to approach this debate with an assumption that everyone has control over their entry here. The bill will prevent people with legitimate claims to asylum from accessing it for the very same reasons that they need it. It will send a message to those under the control of human traffickers that it is not safe for them to speak up and ask for help.

In Scotland, we are committed to upholding human rights and enshrining them, as far as possible, in Scots law. It has been incredibly frustrating, to say the least, that our voice on the bill has been ignored. It is no surprise that the UK Government is rushing the bill through to avoid scrutiny, because it does not stand up to scrutiny. We are extremely worried about what the bill will mean for vulnerable asylum-seeking children who flee to the UK for a place of safety. We agree with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child that the UK Government must “repeal all draft provisions” that would violate children’s rights.

Unlike the UK Government, the Scottish Government is committed to giving children’s rights the highest possible protection in Scotland. We are clear that unaccompanied child asylum seekers should benefit from the same rights, protections and safety that are afforded to any other child in Scotland.

With some issues that are so important and fundamental to our humanity, people expect—and deserve—cross-party agreement when we deal with them. Human rights should be one of those issues. Scotland’s human rights-based approach to supporting victims of human trafficking should be one of those issues. The Scottish Conservatives agreed with me on that when they voted, along with the rest of the Parliament, unanimously, for the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015. Back then, they agreed that the issue was bigger than party politics. I hope that, today, at least some Conservative members will consider standing up for what they know is right and backing our position that the Illegal Migration Bill should not amend the act or limit our ability to help victims, as laid out in the 2015 act, which they supported.

I will end by saying that I have been grateful for the engagement of stakeholders to date on the bill and its impacts. It is a sad and difficult truth that, under current constitutional arrangements, we do not have the power to stop, amend or fully mitigate the very dangerous impacts of the bill. However, we remain committed to doing what we can with the powers that we have. I will continue to work with those who have an interest to seek out any mitigations that we can implement to make sure that Scotland, if not the UK, is a place of safety and support for those who need that the most. In the meantime, I hope that colleagues across the chamber will join the Scottish Government and key human rights organisations in Scotland in supporting our motion and in telling the UK Government that its bill and its hostile environment have no place here.