🚫 Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting)

• The session focused on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, particularly on clauses related to fees for qualifications and financial provisions.

• Clause 51 was discussed, which aims to validate fees charged for qualification assessments and services provided by the Home Office and Department for Education since 2008. The clause ensures that these fees were lawfully charged and prevents the need for refunds.

• Clause 52 was agreed upon, enabling Parliament to allocate funds for expenditures related to the Bill. Clauses 53 and 54 were also passed, allowing the Secretary of State to make necessary amendments and confirming that regulations must be made by statutory instrument.

• An amendment to Clause 53 proposed requiring consultation with Scottish Ministers before amending Scottish legislation, but the Minister assured that such consultation was already standard practice and the amendment was not pushed to a vote.

• Government amendments were made to Clause 55 to extend certain provisions to the Isle of Man, and to the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey, based on their requests.

• New Clause 30 was added, allowing for electronic monitoring and other conditions on limited leave to enter or remain in the UK and on immigration bail. This aims to manage individuals who pose a threat but cannot be removed due to international obligations.

• New Clause 31 was introduced to clarify the rights of EU citizens under the EU Settlement Scheme, ensuring that all beneficiaries are covered by the withdrawal agreement, regardless of their exact compliance status with free movement rules at the end of the transition period.

• New Clause 1, which sought to require a strategy for safe and managed routes for asylum seekers, was debated but not passed. The debate highlighted the government’s commitment to existing routes and the complexities involved in creating new ones.

• New Clauses 3 and 4, proposing a Scottish visa scheme, were not supported. The government emphasized the need for a unified UK immigration policy and suggested that existing powers could be better utilized to address Scotland’s demographic challenges.

The session of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting) displays a moderate level of disagreement among the participants. Here is a detailed analysis that justifies the rating of 2 out of 5 for the disagreement displayed during the session:

1. Procedural Agreements: The session begins with general procedural agreement regarding the validation of fees charged in relation to qualifications (Clause 51). Matt Vickers states support for the measure, and it is subsequently agreed to without opposition, indicating a lack of disagreement on this specific clause.

2. Amendment 20 - Consultation with Scottish Ministers: A notable disagreement emerges concerning Amendment 20 proposed by Pete Wishart, which requires consultation with Scottish Ministers before making certain regulations. Pete Wishart argues that the power granted to the Secretary of State is overly broad and could impact legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament, advocating for consultation to prevent unintended consequences. However, Dame Angela Eagle reassures that such consultation is already part of normal practice and is unnecessary as an amendment. Pete Wishart’s decision not to push the amendment to a vote might indicate a resolution or acceptance of the Minister’s assurances, but it still demonstrates a clear point of contention.

3. New Clauses 30 and 31:
   • New Clause 30: There is disagreement on the appropriateness and timing of the new clause concerning conditions on limited leave to enter or remain and immigration bail. Pete Wishart expresses concern that the new clause was introduced late and has a cavalier attitude towards human rights. Margaret Mullane and Jo White, however, support the new clause, viewing it as necessary for public safety. Dame Angela Eagle clarifies that the new clause is in compliance with international human rights law and is necessary for public protection, indicating divergent views but eventual agreement on the necessity of the clause.
   • New Clause 31: The discussion on New Clause 31 largely centers around clarifying rights under the EU Settlement Scheme. There is some questioning from Conservative Members regarding the scope and numbers impacted, but the clause is generally supported as aligning with the government’s intentions to treat cohorts of EU citizens the same.

4. New Clauses 1 and 6 - Safe and Legal Routes: These clauses spark debate on the establishment of additional safe and legal routes for asylum seekers. Pete Wishart argues passionately for the inclusion of safe routes as a means to reduce dangerous crossings and undermine smuggling gangs. This is countered by Chris Murray, who argues that such routes would have limited impact on the demand for channel crossings, and Matt Vickers, who questions the criteria and potential impact on UK asylum policy. Despite the disagreement, the new clauses are voted down, reinforcing the disagreement on the approach to managing asylum routes.

5. New Clauses 3 and 4 - Scottish Visa Scheme: These clauses provoke strong disagreement, especially from Pete Wishart advocating for Scotland-specific immigration solutions. Opposition is voiced by Chris Murray, who argues that such schemes would not effectively address Scotland’s demographic challenges. Seema Malhotra reiterates that immigration is a reserved matter and that the new clauses would complicate the visa system. The disagreement is significant, reflecting fundamental policy differences, yet the clauses are eventually withdrawn by Pete Wishart.

Conclusion: The disagreements noted in the session, particularly on amendments and new clauses, are focused on specific policy points (such as Scottish autonomy in immigration policy and the establishment of additional safe routes for asylum seekers). These disagreements, however, are handled with procedural etiquette; most are resolved without needing to proceed to a vote or causing significant friction. The overall atmosphere of the debate remains relatively constructive, with ample explanations and clarifications from the ministers, leading to a rating of 2 for disagreement.

This rating reflects the presence of some disagreement, but not to an extent that disrupts the session’s progress or significantly polarizes the committee members.