Meeting of the Parliament 21 January 2016
I thank Christian Allard for securing the debate. I echo many of the sentiments that he expressed.
The Conservative Government’s Immigration Bill is both an important and an unhelpfully controversial measure. I am pretty sure that, like me, the vast majority of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament will have no hesitation in recording their opposition to the bill. I also pledge the opposition of my Labour colleagues at Westminster.
I could not put it better than the forceful and powerful statement of concern that was issued today by a number of organisations and individuals, including the Scottish Refugee Council, Shelter and Homeless Action Scotland. They describe provisions in the bill as
“self-defeating and deeply harmful”
and as provisions that
“will facilitate great suffering on already vulnerable women, children, and men.”
The bill will be damaging to our communities, damaging to immigrants themselves, damaging to the way in which we support children and families and damaging to those of us who want to live in an inclusive, tolerant and compassionate country. Those are the substantive reasons why we should resist the bill, and we will resist it both here and at Westminster.
I want to focus on the impact that the bill will have on several areas of devolved responsibility, despite the worrying lack of clarity around scrutiny, accountability and governance.
At the heart of my concerns is the proposal to effectively outsource the enforcement of immigration policy by involving a series of private individuals, ranging from driving instructors and bank staff to landlords.
As members might imagine, I believe that most public services are best delivered by public servants, with the appropriate mechanisms in place for democratic accountability and scrutiny. In this case, the proposals on landlords in particular place a duty on private citizens and private businesses, as well as on local authority and housing association landlords, to inspect new tenants’ citizenship and immigration documents and conduct checks on existing residents.
As MSPs, many of us will have dealt with immigration cases, and we know that it is already a highly complicated and bureaucratically complex process. Going down such a path must present a huge risk to all those involved, not least the harm that could be done to people who are already in a highly vulnerable situation.
I believe that about 380 families living here would face an immediate challenge, but around 330,000 people living in private rented accommodation in Scotland could also be affected. The bill introduces a new right of eviction that is not assessed or overseen by our courts and the Scottish legal system, but whose authority stems directly from the Home Office.
It is not just the confidence-sapping fact that about 30 per cent of Home Office decisions are overturned on appeal that worries me; it is the introduction of new procedures to our private rented sector just as we debate how to make private tenure more stable and secure this very afternoon.
The regulations governing the procedures will be drawn up by the UK Government under what are often termed Henry VIlI powers—in other words, wide-ranging executive powers that are not subject to scrutiny by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, or by any other committee of this Parliament for that matter. Those powers could include the power to repeal related existing provisions in acts of the Scottish Parliament.
There is so much to worry about. The full impact of the bill needs to be examined in greater detail. We know that some migrants to this country are trafficked here and are used for forced labour or even sexual exploitation. The bill could give the traffickers more control over their victims by limiting their access to accommodation.
The bill amends the already horrendously complex support regime for refused asylum-seeking families and children, and it is forecast to leave many parents and children destitute. Leaving aside our feelings about that abhorrent proposal, the measure is incompatible with human rights duties and could therefore leave the legislation open to challenge in the Scottish and UK courts. In fact, there is every reason to expect landlords to respond to the bill by simply not taking on tenants from migrant populations. That would be hugely discriminatory against an already vulnerable group of people; of course, it, too, would leave the legislation open to challenge on the ground of its discriminatory impact.
I want the bill to be withdrawn or defeated. At the very least, the Scottish Parliament needs to ensure clarity and good governance. The bill is not the only legislation that is reserved to Westminster but which overlaps with responsibilities that are devolved to Holyrood. We need to establish sound procedures for scrutinising such measures and ensuring proper accountability. It may be that that scrutiny is being carried out at Westminster. If so, I would expect to hear the UK minister’s justification as to why there is no need for a legislative consent motion. At the very least, the Parliament should refer the bill to the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee for further investigation. I see that my colleague, Bruce Crawford, who convenes that committee, is in the chamber.
It would be very easy to simply rail against everything that comes from Westminster and pretend that everyone in Scotland is liberally minded. I do not kid myself that that is the case, but we have a duty to ensure that we carry out our duties and responsibilities as a legislature properly.
12:46