Pete Wishart
MP for Perth and Kinross-shire · Scottish National Party · United Kingdom
“The area I represent has the biggest river system in the UK and some of the most inclement weather in the UK, so my constituents and I are fully familiar with being prepared and being ready for what could possibly come. What I struggle with a little bit is the other stuff in the statement.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have to say that I found the Minister’s statement extraordinarily complacent and singularly unhelpful. It is a damning indictment of successive Governments’ failure to get to grips with a full-blown pension crisis. It is not good enough to simply criticise Capita. We know how bad it is.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We heard the Home Secretary make the claim that her changes to indefinite leave to remain would somehow act as a disincentive to people who sought to arrive in the UK on small boats, but she has failed to convince her Back Benchers and some of her Cabinet colleagues.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yet the fact that they would drag us out of the ECHR tells us something reassuring about the ECHR, because when the likes of the new right Tories and Reform want to do that, that shows that the ECHR is doing its job properly and defending us from the likes of them. That tells us why we actually need it.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Look at them! The appalling behaviour from the Conservatives on sensitive issues such as this and the language that they have used today is an absolute and utter disgrace. No wonder communities up and down this country are concerned about their very safety, given the language that these Conservatives use.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When I saw the motion on the Order Paper, I had to look twice as I was absolutely certain that it must be a Reform motion, but then I remembered that they do not get Opposition days. The motion is indeed in the name of the Conservative party.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
609 held · 608 searchable for Pete Wishart. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“The more available and accessible they are, the more they will do for the effort to smash the gangs and the people involved in this vile trade. We have discussed the whole Bill in the last two weeks and it focuses primarily on increasing offences. Although tackling organised crime is necessary, it addresses only one side of the problem. Without safe routes, desperate people will continue to attempt dangerous crossings. We have a choice in front of us. We can continue with a range of policies that ignore the root causes of these journeys, or we can take meaningful action: expand safe routes, uphold our humanitarian commitments and make migration safer and more manageable. A truly modern and compassionate asylum system must include safe routes as a central pillar as well as all the other things this Government want and intend to do.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No one is claiming that the establishment of safe routes would end all unsafe journeys. I do not believe that that is the appropriate test. It would not end small boat crossings, just as Ministers do not make ending all people smuggling and human trafficking the test of this new Bill, and their policy of smashing gangs and stopping the boats. Safe routes cannot be expected to end all dangerous journeys or exploitation by smuggling gangs, and their capacity to reduce them depends on their accessibility. We also support safe routes because they are morally right—it is the right thing to do—and because safe routes save lives. The more available and accessible safe routes are, the more lives will be saved. Safe routes undercut smuggling gangs.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That may well be the case, but I suggest to the hon. Member that Ukrainians are not getting on small boats across the channel because they have an effective and efficient safe route to get to this country that is not available to most other nations. There is no safe route, for example, for Eritreans or Sudanese people. There is just nothing available. The only means they have to get to the UK are small boats. There is also the Hong Kong scheme. We do not see very many people from Hong Kong getting on board small boats to come across because, again, they have an efficient, effective scheme that is inclusive and deals with most of the problems. The Ministers also say that safe routes will do nothing to stop people getting on small boats and nothing to stop these journeys.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The fact is that they have no other option but to get on an unseaworthy boat to sail across the channel to get to the UK, as they can only make a claim for asylum when they are based in the UK. I am not asking the Government to open the country up to 247 million refugees. That would be absurd and ridiculous. I do not think anybody is suggesting that at all. All we are asking is for the Government to see if they could do something more to ensure that there are routes available for some of the most wretched people in the world who are looking to come to the United Kingdom, and that we do not leave them exclusively at the mercy of the people that I know the Government are sincere in wanting to tackle.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This has been a very good debate and we have got to the heart of some of the issues. I will push the new clause to a vote because, of all the things that those involved with the welfare of and looking after refugees and asylum seekers tell us, their main ask of this Government is to look at a strategy for safe routes. I think we are getting to the equation at the heart of all the issues that we are considering today: the demand side and the supply side. We are supporting Government measures to ensure that they tackle the demand side—they might have useful armoury, like this Bill, to achieve that—but surely we should give even scant attention to the supply side: the reasons that so many people are coming here.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is a very difficult thing to say. We have some rough ideas when it comes to the Ukraine and Afghan schemes. These schemes are really worth while. We have seen them work, because there are no Ukrainians crossing the channel—we have had five individuals. It is absurd and ridiculous to suggest that every single refugee in the world is going to come, but the Government—we passed this in a clause earlier—are putting a cap and a quota on people using these safe routes. They are not interested in opening up and developing these safe routes; they want to stop and put a quota on people using them.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Absolutely. I think we are starting to get into territory where there is general agreement. With these amendments, we are asking the Government to look at what more they could do to achieve their clear objective of smashing the gangs. The gangs are successful and will adapt to whatever is put in their way by the Bill. These people know how to work this business. People have said it has only been going five years, but this business is developing at pace. They will amend their business model and practice to adapt to whatever the Government throw at them in the new criminalisation clauses. Their trade will probably get more lucrative as a response, so let us beat them. Let us take them on. Let us really spike their business model by offering an alternative way and means to secure entry to the UK so asylum can be claimed.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I have been impressed by his contributions thus far in public, but it is utterly absurd and ridiculous to suggest that offering safe routes is somehow on a par with the Rwanda scheme. It disrespects the hon. Gentleman’s case to suggest there is any similarity about this. We are trying to ensure that the business model of the gangs will be smashed and tackled.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For every single organisation that works with refugees and asylum seekers and is concerned about their care, this is their main ask. We should listen to them.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If we look at the international situation, we know the hotspots and the areas and issues that have difficulty, because there are people queuing up in France to come to the United Kingdom. Safe routes should not be the only solution; they are part of a solution. We also have to look at what we are doing on the ground in these countries about particular difficulties and issues. We seem to be making the situation 10 times worse by withdrawing international aid from a number of these countries, which will only put more pressure on these areas. The scheme is part of a package. It looks at the criminalisation clauses and uses safe routes as a means to assist that process, getting involved in countries where there are difficulties and issues and trying to help resolve the tensions and difficulties there.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I realise and understand that it is me standing between everybody else around here and lunch, so I will be brief. I am grateful to the Minister, and there is very little I disagree with her on: we have to tackle the upstream situations and do all we can to ensure that we alleviate some of them. I agree with all that. All I am seeking to do with the new clause is to add to the armoury for taking on the gangs. That is the intention of this Government, but without this new clause, the whole system is not complete; we are just leaving all those asylum seekers at the mercy of these illegal gangs and their vile trade. All I am asking is whether we can devise a strategy that would help the Government in their mission. I will press the new clause to a vote. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“But it is going to grow by that scale only because the Tories made such a hash of their mission to cut immigration that they inadvertently quadrupled it.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Far from being a burden, by the end of the century we might be in a situation where immigrants could be at a premium—a highly sought commodity. I am sure that is a prospect that would make our Reform colleagues’ heads explode, as well as those of some Conservatives. The conventional Westminster consensus view from both Labour and the Conservatives is that immigration is a burden—it is out of control and something that must be tackled and controlled. They might look at the general UK population trends and believe they validate the point. The UK population is currently 68.3 million. It is apparently going to grow by another 5 million to 72.5 million by the mid-2030s, then it is going to fall.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“All reputable sources agree that the world population will soon peak and then fall rapidly. As population growth slows down, we are starting to see the difficulties occur. They will start to be felt in nations that experienced rapid growth in the 20th century, like the United Kingdom and most other European democracies. Already we see countries in Europe, such as Italy and Spain, starting to see the real difficulties of population stagnation. Even China is beginning to experience the wider impacts of population slowdown. Japan stands out as a stark example: it is not just at population stagnation, but population decline, which might see it fall from third in the GDP ranks to eighth, because of the impact on the economy.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“All over the world, advanced democracies are facing the same range of problems and are now positively addressing their own issues with a range of interventions that they hope might spare them the worst of the consequences. Ironically, the global population is still growing and it is uncertain when population growth will peak, but most predict it will come as early as the 2060s. When I heard that we had a demography professor as a witness in our evidence session, I was quite excited, given my interest in population and demography, but he seemed to be more interested in eugenics than global trends. I think we almost got him to confirm that almost all predictions show that we will soon be heading to population decline. Given his particular and weird worldview, I do not think he accepted even that.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“With our falling birth rate, we are reaching the stage where we have too few working-age people available to look after an ever-increasing older population. We are already experiencing issues and difficulties in the health service; the care service in Scotland is heading for a workforce crisis; and hospitality outlets and businesses are closing in rural constituencies like mine because they have not got the staff. The simple fact is that Scotland needs more working-age people to refresh our population. If we fail to secure the people we require, we will be in serious trouble. Scotland is not alone in this—we are just a little bit further along than some other nations.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thought we were ready for lunch! I am ill prepared. This Committee has a strong work ethic—I am desperately trying to find my notes. The new clauses are practically the exact opposite of everything about this Bill. I am delighted, if quite surprised, that they have been selected for debate. As you would expect, Dame Siobhain, I am going to use the opportunity to promote this cause. Unlike everything about the Bill, the new clauses have at their heart the recognition of the value of immigration, how it is a benefit and why it is necessary to keep our communities and workforce healthy and sustainable. Scotland has an emerging demography and population crisis, and that is only going to get worse unless we do something about it.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with this, because it is utter and total bunkum. I ever so gently encourage him to look at the migration figures within the United Kingdom and at how many people are leaving Scotland and how many are coming from the rest of the UK to settle in Scotland. It is at a record high, and it is growing. We have never seen figures quite like this before. They are attracted to Scotland because we have a better health service, we have a better taxation system and there are more opportunities.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We only need to look back at the last Labour Government to see what imagination can do and what effective Government can deliver. We had the Fresh Talent scheme—a fantastic scheme that gave us a competitive advantage when it came to university students.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will be brief, but a lot of the questions that were asked were relevant and deserve a response. First, it is not me that the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh needs to debate and speak to about this; it is Scottish businesses, business organisations and the political consensus in Scotland. The hon. Member should sit down with Jackie Baillie, who raised visas as a live issue during the general election campaign. I do not know what happened to that ambition from Scottish Labour. It seems to me that it was totally slapped down by the bosses down here in the Home Office, who wanted absolutely nothing to do with it. We do not hear about it as much anymore, but it was a real ambition from Jackie Baillie and the Labour party to secure this provision for Scotland.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will be back to the issue and we will make sure that we take things forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. — (Martin McCluskey .)”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We saw a fantastic scheme that has given Quebec, and particularly the Montreal metropolitan area, huge advantages over the rest of Canada. It works there and it works in Australia. Through imagination and making sure they are done in the right way, these schemes work and bring real benefits. International examples show that distinct tax codes that would allow people to stay within a distinct area in Scotland could be easily delivered. We are going to continue to debate this issue as this Bill goes forward. The whole Scottish business community and the care sector are saying to us, “This is a priority.” It is not going to go away, but again it is rebuffed. Is a place on the Migration Advisory Committee really the best that the Government can with this range of difficult circumstances?”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will try to be as brief as possible, because I understand that we have got a time constraint. Fresh Talent possibly did do that, but it would be different this time round because we have a distinct tax code in Scotland. We have Revenue Scotland as a result of further devolved powers from a few years ago. To address the questions from Conservative Members as to how a scheme would work, because of that tax code anybody who came in through a distinct Scottish visa scheme would be bound by that, and the obligations and qualifications would be to work in a list of occupations that is designed in Scotland. Members are talking about this as if it has never been done anywhere else in the world. When I chaired the Scottish Affairs Committee, I took it to Quebec, and we sat down and examined exactly what happened there.”
House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The headline was that it cost taxpayers £750 million and failed to deport a single asylum seeker against their will. There was £270 million to support economic development in Rwanda, £95 million for detention and reception centres and £280 million for other fixed costs. Fifty million pounds was spent preparing for flights that never took off. Then there is the farce of the Kigali four—the four volunteers sent to Rwanda, who were the only people who actually made it through the whole scheme. Tortoise did us a favour by unearthing the script that was used when the Home Office tried to persuade people to take up a “generous one-time offer” of a relocation package to Rwanda. One source said that demonstrated an “insane level of resource that went into just proving the concept”.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Rwanda is so safe that it is currently accused of supporting the M23 militia, which is claimed to be recruiting child soldiers and carrying out killings and rapes of civilians in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Saying all that, Rwanda played an utter blinder. It milked this for all it was worth. It saw these mugs coming. So far, Rwanda has made £240 million—money that will not have to be paid back. The Bill was described by the Law Society as “defective” and “constitutionally improper”, and it was declared unlawful in the Supreme Court. All those rebukes did nothing for the Conservatives other than to encourage them to ensure that the idea became a reality. We just have to look at the sheer waste and the sheer stupidity that was the very essence of the Rwanda policy.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Good morning to you, Mr Stuart, for week two of our fascinating journey into the depths of the Bill. There will be absolutely no argument from me about this one, and I wholeheartedly agree that the Bill must go through. When we look back at the whole sorry Rwanda debacle, we will wonder how on earth such a crackpot scheme was not only conceived, but actually constructed and delivered. A few words will be forever on the gravestone of the last Conservative Government: “stop the boats” and “Rwanda”. It was the first time, in my experience, that an Act decreed a new reality. Through sheer willpower alone, the Conservatives declared that Rwanda was a safe place, and in true Orwellian style, they even called the legislation the Safety of Rwanda Act. It was the most blatant political attempt ever to try to convince us that black was white.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister may have been coming on to the second part of the question asked by the hon. Member for Stockton West, but will she be brave enough to tell the Committee that this Labour Government will never consider sending asylum seekers and refugees to a third country?”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I remind the Minister what the then Home Secretary said on that Bill when introducing it: “I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.” The previous Government could not care less about our obligations under international law or about human rights, and they were quite happy to set them aside. Now we have a Home Secretary who stands by certain provisions of that Act, with all its difficulties concerning its relationship with convention rights.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are other prize quotes from the Home Secretary and various Ministers within the Home Office—absolutely and totally correct, right and true—about the horrible Illegal Migration Act. Now we have a Labour Government inconceivably standing by large swathes of an Act that they so rightly and widely rubbished and wanted rid of only a short while ago. It would be different if the Government were maintaining some benign, useful or helpful parts of that Tory Act, but they are maintaining some real, pernicious nasties. Provisions that were damaging, dangerous and contrary to human rights under the Tories are just as damaging, dangerous and contrary to human rights under this new Labour Government.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I cannot believe that this Government want to continue that horrible and heinous Tory set of proposals and clauses in this Bill. This was their great opportunity to wipe the slate clean of the previous Government’s hopeless and useless crackpot Rwanda scheme and their heinous and horrible Illegal Migration Act. I will give the Minister a few quotes from some of her colleagues, some of which I wish I had come up with myself. The now Prime Minister said at the time that the Illegal Migration Bill would drive “a coach and horses” through protections for women trafficked to the UK as victims of modern slavery. The now Home Secretary said that that IMA does the “total opposite” of providing support for those who have been trafficked, and that it was nothing other than “a traffickers’ charter”.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I must say to the hon. Member for Stockton West that he really does not want to know my views on British citizenship, because they are likely to blow his head—but we will leave that one at that. It is disappointing to note the absence of our Liberal colleagues. Back in the day—the good old days, Mr Stuart —when we had an effective, efficient, diligent and conscientious third party, there would always be someone present to ensure that the views of the third party were represented. I am sure that the Liberal Democrats have good excuses, but I hope they start to take a bit of interest in this important Bill, because it has been disappointing thus far. I say to the Minister, “‘Useful clauses?’ Come on!” We are talking about sections 29, 12, 59, 60 and 62, some of the nastiest and most pernicious parts and aspects of the Illegal Migration Act.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The one that concerns me most, and the one that concerns the range of organisations, groups and charities associated with refugees and asylum seekers, is the retention of section 29. Let us remind the Committee what section 29 does. It extends the public order disqualification originally introduced by section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and mandates that victims of trafficking and modern slavery who have criminal convictions or are considered a threat to public order be disqualified from support and protection. To me, that provision is deeply concerning, as it means that victims of trafficking, many of whom have been coerced into committing crimes as part of their exploitation, could face detention, deportation or removal rather than the support and recovery that they need.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am glad that the Home Secretary stated that, as she always does when it comes to our relationship with, and compatibility with, human rights. I want to raise a couple of issues and ask a couple of questions about just how very loosely this Bill is connected with the Government’s obligations and about some of our real concerns on human rights. I will come to that in the course of what I hope will be a short contribution. It is completely incomprehensible that the Government have chosen to repeal only some aspects of the IMA rather than the whole Act, particularly since so many members of this Government have been so vocally opposed to the IMA in the past. Can we please just have a look at some of the stuff that they want to retain?”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not know where the hon. Member gets his figures, but let me give him some in return. Home Office statistics from 2024 revealed that 70% of the individuals disqualified under the provision had elements of criminal exploitation in their case. What is so wrong about this particular measure is that it stops us giving the necessary and relevant support that we should give—that we owe—to people who have been victims of human trafficking.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Scottish Act places a duty on Scottish Ministers to secure immediate support and recovery services for victims of human trafficking and exploitation. In Scotland we have tried to design a system that, unlike this Bill, places an emphasis on victim care and rehabilitation. That is the approach that we take in Scotland, and that is what we want to try to deliver within our range of devolved power, but it relies on the national referral mechanism identifying and supporting victims of trafficking. The disqualification provisions in section 29 could result in vulnerable individuals in Scotland being detained or deported without being properly identified and supported as trafficking victims, thus weakening the Scottish Government’s ability to implement their own modern slavery protections.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The retention of section 29 increases the likelihood of re-trafficking and re-exploitation as victims might fear coming forward to the authorities due to the threat of detention, removal or criminalisation. That has issues for us in Scotland. Quite rightly, I suppose, immigration is totally and utterly reserved, but we have responsibility under our devolved powers to ensure that victims of modern slavery who come to Scotland are looked after and tended to by Scottish legislation. There are powers that we have within Scotland. In retaining section 29 of the IMA, the Bill also restricts the ability of the Scottish Government to support the victims under the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is where we start to get back into very uncomfortable and dangerous territory, where it is going to be up to the individual to prove that they are not guilty of such crimes. This is a blanket clause that will entrap them and leave it to them to make their way through the courts to prove their innocence when they have been innocent all the time, or particularly when they have been victims of trafficking and forced into criminal activity. The system could punish vulnerable individuals who were coerced into committing crimes, often by their traffickers, thus reinforcing the power dynamic that allows traffickers to exploit their victims further.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am glad that the Minister got to that last sentence, because it is quite clear from section 29 that victims of modern slavery only have to be considered a threat to public order. It is quite likely that many victims of modern slavery will get caught up in this; in fact, they already have. Is the Minister happy that those who were probably coerced into criminal activity will now almost be blanket-banned from any opportunity to go through the asylum process in the United Kingdom?”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 7, clause 41, page 35, line 32, leave out subsection (17). This amendment would leave out the subsection of this clause that applies subsections (1) to (13) (relating to detention and exercise of functions pending deportation) retrospectively, i.e. as if they have always had effect.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is great to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain; it makes a pleasant change from what we have had in the past couple of weeks. I say that in the nicest way to Mr Stuart.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 41 therefore undermines accountability, weakens judicial scrutiny and risks setting a dangerous precedent through which the Government can retroactively legitimise actions that would otherwise have been unlawful. Given the weight of these concerns, there is a strong case for leaving out the retrospective provisions from clause 41, and that is what my amendment 7 seeks to do. Upholding the rule of law means ensuring that detention powers are subject to proper legal safeguards and that individuals are not denied their fundamental rights through legislative backtracking.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Bail for Immigration Detainees has stressed that clause 41 risks “further criminalising migrants and refugees”. It urges instead for a system that upholds human rights and dignity. Combined with the Illegal Migration Act, the clause could lead to longer, more expensive and potentially unlawful detentions in breach of article 5 of the European convention on human rights. The Government’s own impact assessment acknowledges that clause 41 effectively makes lawful past detentions that were not compliant with due process at the time, yet the European convention on human rights memorandum does not properly address whether that retrospective validation aligns with the fundamental legal safeguards of article 5. I would particularly like the Minister to address those concerns.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They have expressed great concern with this provision, saying: “We are concerned with the dangerous precedent which would be set if unlawful deprivation of liberty were to be treated as lawful—such retrospectivity undermines the rule of law and remains wholly unjustified in the materials accompanying the Bill.” I have looked at this issue and there does not seem to be any sufficient justification for this exceptional measure. The ILPA warns us that it could rewrite history, denying justice to individuals who could have sought remedies for unlawful detention. Amnesty International, which again gave very good evidence to the Committee, has also voiced strong objections. It has highlighted how detention powers have expanded significantly while judicial oversight has weakened, leading to risks of serious injustice.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 41 introduces a significant expansion of detention powers, allowing individuals to be detained from the moment a deportation is considered rather than waiting for a formal order. However, my main concern with the clause is that it is to apply retrospectively, meaning it would legally validate past detentions that were previously unlawful. As would be expected, the provision has sparked serious concerns among legal experts, human rights organisations and advocacy groups, raising critical questions about the rule of law, human rights and judicial oversight. We had the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association with us as part of an evidence session.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hear the Minister’s justification for the powers and why she feels they are necessary, but I do not hear any compelling reason for why they have to be introduced retrospectively. What on earth is that supposed to help with? She knows the range of concerns raised by a number of legal organisations. I wish she would address their concerns about the consequences of the clause.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will not detain the Committee for long. I do not like clause 41 anyway—I think the extension of deportation powers is overwhelming and I do not believe they are required—but I do not like this retrospection one bit. I have not secured an adequate explanation from the Minister about why that is necessary. I would therefore like to put my amendment to a vote, Dame Siobhain.”
House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Prior to this clause, those identified as piloting boats have usually been arrested and charged with the offence of facilitating a breach of immigration law under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 increased the maximum sentence for that offence to life imprisonment. In most cases, the second charge is dropped due to a lack of evidence—as I explained, the deeply chaotic circumstances where evidence could be acquired lead to a lack of evidence being presented in court proceedings. However, there have been some successful section 25 prosecutions. For example, they can happen when a person pleads guilty to an offence at the first opportunity before it is dropped.”
House of Commons6 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The European convention on human rights memorandum states that “parents who bring their children on the type of journeys that the Endangerment Offence captures will be excluded from prosecution in almost all circumstances”. The key words are “almost all”: there could still be prosecutions, and the memorandum notes that that could lead to families breaking up. There is another main target of the offence. It is designed to entrap and ensnare those who pilot the boats. Let us look at how far we have come with this new distinction and new category of people that the Government are now going after. It was in 2019 that the Government started bringing criminal charges against people identified as steering dinghies across the channel.”
House of Commons6 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What makes the clause particularly invidious, and why we should think about it very carefully, is that it does not do even one thing to tackle what the Government say they are tackling: the gangs—the people who organise this foul trade and are responsible for putting people on the boats. It does nothing to target them. The only people who will be in the sights of this invidious, cruel clause will be ordinary asylum seekers. The refugee convention is clear that refugees should not be penalised for how they enter a country to claim asylum. The clause runs a coach and horses through that obligation. It also breaches the Palermo protocol, which enables asylum seekers to claim asylum freely and honestly.”
House of Commons6 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am supposing that they make up the first category that the Minister has in mind with this offence. However, it is also possible to prosecute individuals who, in moments of panic or self-preservation, inadvertently put others at risk. That means that someone who makes a sea crossing out of desperation could face a prison sentence simply because of the circumstances of their arrival, rather than any deliberate intent to cause harm. This law makes no attempt to take account of the high risk and chaotic nature of these journeys, where panic, misjudgment or even attempts to help others could inadvertently lead to criminal liability.”
House of Commons6 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗