Chamber and committees

Eilidh Doyle would have contended that. I will quote her verbatim:

“I was always getting asked when I was retiring and how long I was going to go on. None of my male counterparts was asked those questions.”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 18 April 2023, c 37.]

She felt that it is a very gendered experience.

I am sure that the member will want to recognise, as I did in my opening remarks, the opposition that the Labour Party has shown to this bill in the House of Commons, which has included sharing the lobby with SNP members in order to table an amendment to block stages of the bill and then to vote against it. I am sure that the member will want to recognise the UK Labour Party’s position.

I welcome the minister to her role—I forgot to do that in my speech. Like me, does she feel that the debate has been not just political but across civic society, where there has been huge opposition to the bill? Our churches and faith groups have also spoken out. The debate is not solely political; it is happening in wider society, too.

In opening the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour, I want to state our clear opposition to the UK Conservative Government’s Illegal Migration Bill. It is a pernicious piece of legislation that strips vital protections from some of the most vulnerable people. It further tarnishes the international reputation of Britain and diminishes our standing in the world.

Compassion, tolerance and support for human rights: those are the values that I recognise for Britain in a global world—not what is in this bill. The bill has rightly been condemned, including in the House of Commons by my colleague Yvette Cooper, the shadow Home Secretary, who described it as

“a con which will make the chaos worse”.

Labour voted against the bill in the House of Commons, and tried to pass amendments to block its passage to the next stage.

It is clear that the bill is not a solution. It is an ideologically motivated assault on the rights of people who are fleeing warfare, persecution and human trafficking. It is another example of the Conservative Government’s cruel approach. It follows the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which led to the creation of the Rwanda scheme—a scheme that breaches international law and the UN refugee convention. Even by the Tories’ standards, the Rwanda scheme has been shown to be unworkable and a waste of taxpayers’ money. The idea that the Government can offshore asylum claims to another country that is more than 4,000 miles away is cruel and absurd in equal measure.

The impulse to travel and cross borders to seek safety and a more peaceful and prosperous life has been a facet of human behaviour since the beginning of time. Indeed, for many of us in this Parliament, it is part of our own story, including that of my ancestors, who were fleeing hunger, and of others who came to these shores, leaving behind war, discrimination or violence.

The Tories need to recognise that we do not exist in isolation. We are part of an increasingly interconnected world, and the world is becoming smaller as we become more connected.

We live in a world that is still deeply unequal, with persecution, violence and warfare being very real threats for a significant percentage of the global population. People will seek to migrate and find asylum in safer and more prosperous nations—people such as the many who have gone before us, placing all that they have at peril on unforgiving seas and risking everything for a place of sanctuary. Therefore, we need a Government that is focused on solutions and not fixated on stoking division and playing political games with people’s lives. That is why Labour has called on the UK Government to create more safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum and to provide additional resources to the Home Office to help to process the backlog of asylum applications.

Criticism of the UK Government’s proposals has been widespread, with third sector organisations roundly condemning the plans as poorly conceived, unethical and impractical. The International Rescue Committee has stated that

“The Bill will not stop small boats crossing the Channel. It will only add to the trauma of the people in these boats, while further damaging Britain’s global reputation for fairness and compassion”;

Amnesty International has concluded that

“There is nothing fair, humane or even practical in this plan”;

and Liberty has described the bill as

“a shocking attack on the rule of law”.

The Scottish Refugee Council has described the bill as a tool to dehumanise asylum seekers and the Institute for Public Policy Research has described the plans as “impractical and unethical”.

Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary herself, has acknowledged that there is a more than 50 per cent chance that the provisions break international human rights law. Really? Is that how low we have stooped? It is outrageous, and the Conservative Party should be utterly ashamed. It seems that crashing the economy was not enough for the Tories; they feel compelled to drag Britain’s international reputation through the mud, and they seem happy to act with total disregard for the laws and treaties that govern international relations.

In the assessment of Enver Solomon of the Refugee Council, the bill is

“an unworkable, costly and nasty piece of legislation. It treats refugees like criminals”

and it would see the UK cast alongside

“Russia and Belarus as countries who show no respect for international law.”

To be blunt, the Government’s approach is reckless, breaches Britain’s international obligations and diminishes our status in the world.

As we have already heard, it is important to remember that the right to seek asylum is a fundamental human right, as outlined in the UN refugee convention of 1951.

The UK has always welcomed those who are fleeing persecution, regardless of whether they come through a safe and legal route. As it stands, the bill will mean shutting the door on victims who have been trafficked into slavery here in the UK because

“If they come here illegally they will not be supported to escape their slavery.”

Those are not my words; they are the words of Conservative former Prime Minister Theresa May, who is hardly renowned for being liberal on immigration but who has been critical of the Government’s approach with the bill. She is right to raise the issues of human trafficking and modern slavery, because the bill will drive a coach and horses through protections for people—women in particular—who are trafficked to Britain as victims of modern slavery.

In October 2019, this nation was given a profound reminder of the enduring prevalence of human trafficking when 39 people from Vietnam were found to have died in the most horrendous of conditions, locked in the trailer of a refrigerated articulated lorry. That harrowing case reinforced the urgent need for both our Governments, in Holyrood and Westminster, to redouble their efforts to protect people who are victims of human trafficking.

It is true that immigration is a reserved issue, but this Parliament should use its powers to help those who are fleeing persecution and face a heightened risk of human trafficking. In that respect, the Scottish Refugee Council has called on the Scottish Government to use the powers that it has under section 9 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 to create an end-to-end anti-trafficking protection process, bypassing the UK national referral mechanism to stay compliant with the European convention on human rights. I urge the cabinet secretary to explore how the Government can most effectively use those powers to ensure that the national referral mechanism, which is operated by the UK Home Office, is not the only process for identifying trafficked people.

I also ask the minister, in her concluding speech, to update Parliament on the work that is being done to help communities meet the challenge of welcoming refugees, particularly those who have come from Syria and Afghanistan to live in communities across Scotland and who need more support. Our local authorities clearly need more support to be able to offer the services that are required. I hope that the minister will also update Parliament on the planning and support for refugees who have recently come from Ukraine.

I am clear in affirming my belief that the bill is a shameful, immoral and unworkable piece of legislation. I believe that it is motivated by political calculation that plays to people’s worst instincts by stoking fear and division. Labour’s amendment adds to the Government motion by highlighting the recent assessment by the Equality and Human Rights Commission that the bill threatens to undermine the universality of human rights and the protections for victims of trafficking and modern slavery, as well as breaching the UK’s obligations under the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights.

Let us be in no doubt: the Tories’ Illegal Migration Bill, in its current form, will do real harm. It will remove the protections for victims of modern slavery, will seek to abandon Britain’s international obligations and will reduce our standing in the world. It is not the way that we should choose. There is another way by which we can offer safe and legal routes to those fleeing persecution, violence and war. Let us in this chamber say with one voice that refugees are welcome here, that there is a place for them, that they will be safe, and that this bill is pernicious, unworkable and wrong.

I move amendment S6M-08680.1, to insert at end:

“, and agrees with the assessment of the Equality and Human Rights Commission that the bill risks undermining the universality of human rights and protections for victims of trafficking and modern slavery, as well as breaching the UK’s obligations under both the 1951 Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights.”

In a week in which research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has revealed that the number of people who are living in very deep poverty has increased significantly in the past two decades, does the cabinet secretary at least acknowledge that removal of those subjects from ministerial briefs sends a concerning message about the Government’s commitment in those spaces? Would she also recognise that, although she is a very talented member of the Government, she has a brief that is huge and very varied, and that having a minister who is responsible for older people and social security would be of great help to everyone who is involved in tackling poverty?

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement and for outlining to Parliament the decisions that were taken during the recess.

It is critical that we do not lose sight of the purpose of reform, and every day that the bill spends in court is another day in which trans people do not have access to a reformed process.

The UK Government’s use of a section 35 order was the wrong approach. As the cabinet secretary said, it is a mechanism to be used as a last resort. The issue is too serious and too important to be reduced simply to a political debate or a constitutional football.

The cabinet secretary mentioned the section 104 meetings between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, which were held in relation to the UK Government’s 2018 proposals. In response to the letter that was sent by my predecessor in the role of Scottish Labour spokesperson, Pam Duncan-Glancy, the former Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government confirmed that the Scottish Government had committed to working with the UK Government under section 104 in relation to the bill. Can the cabinet secretary outline the detail and outcome of those discussions? We asked for that confirmation throughout the bill process, and it was confirmed that that was in hand.

Moreover, given the length of time that the case is likely to take, as has been widely reported, will the cabinet secretary give an outline guide to the Parliament on how long she expects the matter to be in the courts, in line with the legal advice that she will have received?

Finally, while reform is locked in legal proceedings, can the cabinet secretary outline what specific actions the Government is taking to support trans people, in particular, to access important services such as healthcare, for which waiting lists remain too long?

We need to move on to the next theme, which focuses on periods, pregnancy, parenthood and related issues. I will bring in Emma Harper to ask about the issue of clothing, which has already been raised.

To whom do you want to direct that question, Emma?

Is there anyone in particular to whom you want to direct that question?

Stephanie Callaghan has some questions.