Chamber and committees

Oh!

With all respect to the new minister, I cannot see how he can be crystal clear about anything when, in his statement, he conceded that there is no national data. How can the Government make policy when no national data is published? There will be another task force, but what will be its measurable outcomes and when will it report?

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.

Part of the reason why they might be relaxed is that it is all just rhetoric and they are not in dynamic alignment with the European Union at all.

On the same theme, yesterday, Alan Wilson of Scotland’s electrical trade body, SELECT, warned that

“Scotland absolutely must not be left behind when it comes to apprenticeship funding.”

That is how he feels. He highlighted the emergence of a two-tier system. Funding for electrical apprentices in England stands at £23,000, and in Scotland it is £8,000. It is three times more in England. He is right to say that we need electricians here and now, that we will need electricians in the future, and that a two-tier system is totally unacceptable.

With a 30 per cent real-terms cut over seven years—by his calculation—and no increase in funding in that time, does the minister accept that those warnings are real, and will he now act to close that unacceptable gap?

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.

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.

Angus Robertson is hiding behind words, as usual. Are cases in which Ukrainian soldiers are injured in defence of their country not humanitarian aid cases? Despite our country’s united support for Ukraine, the Scottish National Party Government has managed to tie up vital medical equipment in bureaucracy.

Angus Robertson said that he supports Ukraine, but his Government has imposed conditions that mean that wounded Ukrainian soldiers cannot be treated with Scottish-donated equipment. That is, frankly, a scandal. Will the cabinet secretary take the opportunity to put the record straight? Will he act today to lift the restrictions on the use of that equipment and let our medical aid simply do what it was meant to do: save lives?

If it would be helpful, Presiding Officer, I indicate that I do not intend to move amendment 55 or any of the large number of consecutive amendments in my name in group 12. If you wish to dispose of them en bloc, I would have no objection to that.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that the bill creates an independent chief inspector of education, but how would she describe the change from the Scottish Qualifications Authority to qualifications Scotland? In truth, is it not the case that the only thing that is really changing is the name?