Hansard

Merci, Presiding Officer.

The motion has received cross-party support because we—in this chamber, in the public gallery and across Scotland—do not agree with the passage of the UK Government’s Immigration Bill. The reason is simple: this so-called reserved legislation will have a devastating impact on devolved areas of responsibility.

I quote from a cross-party document—the Smith commission report—which says:

“The parties ... have agreed that the Scottish and UK Governments should work together to ... explore ... the possibility of ... different powers being in place in Scotland for asylum seekers to access accommodation and financial support and advice.”

How far back does the Immigration Bill take us from the spirit and the letter of the Smith commission report? I will tell you, Presiding Officer—it takes us back to the 1950s.

The changes that relate to employment and extend immigration officers’ powers, along with the changes on housing and asylum decision appeals, reflect Westminster’s intention to further discriminate against people such as me—the people who choose to come to live here.

The implementation of the bill will truly bring back institutionalised racism. When I first drafted the motion, I thought that the bill was

“in danger of driving people further into the hands of unscrupulous employers, risking deepening exploitation”.

Let me amend that part of the motion. I know that the number of unscrupulous employers in the north-east and across Scotland will not increase, but what will increase is the number of employers who are reluctant to employ anyone who appears to be foreign, bringing institutionalised racism to the workplace.

The Law Society of Scotland’s briefing for the debate—I thank it for the information—states that clause 9, which is on the offence of employing an illegal worker,

“appears to empower immigration officers to arrest persons, without warrant, who are not subject to immigration control, and who may be British citizens, if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting they are committing the offence of employing illegal workers.”

I agree with the Law Society of Scotland and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association that

“employers will be reluctant to employ anyone who does not hold a British passport”.

I remind the chamber that a British passport can cost £72.50 to £85.50 and can take up to six weeks to be delivered. The bill will make employers reluctant to employ people without British passports

“whom they regard as not looking or sounding British, or having a British name.”

The new powers to allow immigration officers to search licensed premises without any need for suspicion that an immigration offence is being committed relate to licensing law, which is a devolved matter. This Parliament, this Scottish Government and the minister have to be clear: the UK Government must not be allowed to legislate on devolved matters without our consent.

While the Parliament’s Equal Opportunities Committee is conducting an inquiry into race, ethnicity and employment to see what measures can be taken to achieve positive outcomes in employment in 21st century Scotland, Westminster is attempting to take the whole of the UK back to the 1950s and the years of discrimination and institutionalised racism.

Like employers, landlords will be put in a very difficult position when they are asked to do the work of immigration officers. There can be only one consequence of landlords knowing that they can face fines of up to £3,000 if they fail to inspect tenants’ passports and other identity documents to establish that they are here legally: the bill will deter landlords from letting accommodation to anyone who appears to be foreign, bringing institutionalised racism to housing.

The Scottish Government’s Minister for Housing said that the legislation risks driving vulnerable migrants to rent from landlords who are happy to flout the law. I think that landlords in Scotland will just choose not to rent to anyone who looks or sounds foreign. I agree with Margaret Burgess, the minister, when she said that private individuals or businesses should not take on the role of the Home Office and the Border Agency.

I thank Shelter Scotland for its support and briefing. It said:

“We share the very serious concerns of the Scottish Refugee Council and others about the legislative approach the UK Government are taking with the Immigration Bill.”

It also said that it has

“particular concerns about the implications for Scotland’s law on both tenancy and homelessness.”

It added that it strongly believes, as others do, that the Scottish Parliament’s legislative consent should be sought, and that the Parliament should be accorded the time to scrutinise the aspects of the bill that relate to devolved powers. We need consultation, committee scrutiny and a full debate with a vote at the end—nothing less.

On asylum decision appeals, I am appalled—appalled, Presiding Officer—that, when the rest of Europe is responding to the biggest refugee crisis since world war two, the UK Government wants to remove in-country rights of appeal against Home Office immigration decisions. That will result in more families being split up, adding to the crisis instead of supporting the very desperate people who reach our shores.

Last October, Stuart McDonald MP, the shadow Scottish National Party spokesperson on immigration, asylum and border control, described the bill as

“regressive, illiberal, ill-considered and inhumane”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 13 October 2015; vol 600, c 222.]

In its briefing, the Scottish Refugee Council said:

“Removal of this right to appeal is simply egregious not only in terms of its searing impact on those affected but also in terms of facilitating State-sanctioned destitution in rule of law terms as it extinguishes the right to effective remedies in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

I have a lot of words from the Scottish Refugee Council about the bill. I do not have time to use them all, but some more of them are that the bill is

“driven by ideology, based on supposition”

and

“lacking any credible evidence base”.

Members can look at the briefing. The SRC is not alone—a lot of organisations are pushing very hard against the bill. It adds that the bill is

“Possibly unlawful in neglecting child welfare and the removal of appeal rights against destitution”.

The SRC of course agrees with all the other legal briefings that we received for the debate, which say that the bill breaches our devolved settlement.

Today, we have been asked to unite and to stop any extension or application of the bill to Scotland without the consent of this Parliament.

I am an immigrant, and I am proud to be one of the many new Scots contributing to modern Scotland. Institutionalised racism cannot come back to this country of ours.