Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill has returned to this House in good order. A number of amendments were made in the other place, with all but one made by the Government. Throughout the passage of the Bill to date, the strength of feeling about the importance of a properly functioning immigration system that is controlled and managed so that it is fair and works for the people of this country has been evident. Proper enforcement and respect for the rules is crucial to that.

As we discussed in this House on Monday, the Government’s new asylum policy statement sets out significant reforms to the UK’s asylum and illegal migration system to restore order, control, fairness and public confidence in the system. That statement builds on the measures in the Bill, our consideration of which returns our focus to the core objectives of the Bill.

This Bill will strengthen UK border security. It is part of a serious, credible plan to protect our borders that sees the Government working closely with our international partners upstream and in our near neighbourhood. It is a plan that sees this Government bringing to bear the powers and impact of the system as a whole, under the leadership of the Border Security Command, against those who seek to undermine the UK’s border security. It is a plan that delivers for our law enforcement partners by creating the new powers that they need to intervene faster and earlier against more of those involved in serious and organised immigration crime activity, providing for better data-sharing and creating stronger intelligence to inform enforcement activity. It is a plan that disrupts the sales pitch spun by the gangs by preventing illegal working in sectors that are not currently required to confirm whether a person’s immigration status disqualifies them from working.

Turning to the Lords amendments, I will start with the non-Government amendment passed by the other place. Lords amendment 37, tabled by the Opposition, is in our view unnecessary. It would mandate the Home Secretary to collate and publish statistics on the number of overseas students who have had their student visa revoked as a result of the commission of criminal offences, the number of overseas students who have been deported following the revocation of their student visa and the number of overseas students detained pending deportation following the revocation of their student visa.

It is first worth emphasising that the Government strongly value the vital economic and academic contribution that international students make in the UK. They enrich our communities, including my own in the city of Nottingham. The immigration rules provide for the cancellation of entry clearance and permission to enter or stay where a person has been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK or overseas. Where a student’s permission is cancelled, as a person without leave to enter or remain they are liable to administrative removal from the UK. Foreign nationals who commit a crime should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced and that, where appropriate, we will pursue their deportation.

On the specifics of the amendment on publishing data on these topics, the Home Office already publishes data on a vast amount of migration statistics, including information on visas, returns and detention. The official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review in line with the code of practice for statistics, taking into account a number of factors including user needs and the resources required to compile those numbers, as well as the quality and availability of data. This ensures that we balance the production of high-quality statistics against the need for new ones to support public understanding on migration.

I want to be clear, however, that we recognise that there has been heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and members of the public in learning more about the number and type of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals in the UK and about what happens to foreign national offenders—FNOs—after they have been convicted, and after they have completed their sentences. The Home Office is looking closely at what more can be done both to improve the processes for collating and verifying relevant data on the topic of FNOs and their offences, and to establish a more regular means of placing that data into the public domain alongside the other Home Office statistics that I have talked about. When this work progresses, the Home Office proposes to publish more detailed statistical reporting on FNOs subject to deportation and those returned to countries outside the UK. I hope that, on that basis, right hon. and hon. Members will support the Government motion relating to Lords amendment 37.

The Lords amendments introduced by the Government further strengthen and expand the powers and offences that target organised immigration crime groups. The most significant is Lords amendment 7, which introduces a new offence that criminalises the creation or publication of material relating to unlawful immigration services online, on internet services including social media, and on messaging platforms. Such material will be considered criminal when a person knows or suspects that the material will be published on an internet service and it has the purpose, or will have the effect, of promoting unlawful immigration services. I hope that the policy objective is clear to Members: it is crucial in order to tackle the facilitation of organised crime online, and to ensure that law enforcement has the appropriate tools to break down organised crime groups’ exploitation of the online environment, including social media.

Lords amendments 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15 work alongside this new offence, providing intermediary liability protections for internet service providers, meaning that they will not be impacted by this offence and the actions of those being targeted in this offence—namely, individuals who are promoting unlawful immigration services online. The offence will have extraterritorial effect and therefore may be applied to online material created or published anywhere in the world and by a person or body of any nationality.

I turn now to the amendments to the core immigration crime offences set out in clauses 13 and 14, which concern the supply and handling of articles used in immigration crime. Lords amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11 enable us to disrupt the actions of not only those who commit offences directly, but those who facilitate them through the provision of tools, materials or services. That sends a clear and unequivocal message: those who enable immigration crime, whether through direct action or indirect facilitation, will face consequences.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

When the Bill was introduced, I thought that it was the ultimate horror and an attempt to outdo Reform, but it was a mere aperitif compared with the main course of the horrors of this week. On these specific measures, does the Minister recognise the possible impact on support agencies and services that assist refugees and asylum seekers? Did he not listen to the many representations from those groups about the difficulties that the measures will cause them?

[Alex Norris]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is horrified by our attempts to crack down on organised immigration crime, which is the ultimate industry in profiting from misery and desperation, and which leads to vulnerable people losing their lives and has such impact on public confidence domestically. If he waits a little longer, I hope I can give him a degree of succour on the point he makes.

The amendments seek to criminalise those who are concerned in the supply of relevant articles for use in immigration crime and will bring into scope possession with intent to supply, or the making of an offer to supply, such an article. The amendments will also bring into scope those who are concerned in the handling of a relevant article for use in immigration crime.

Lords amendments 16 to 32 strengthen the powers of search and seizure in relation to electronic devices. Lords amendment 16 seeks to expand the definition of “authorised officer” to include officers of the police services of Scotland, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the National Crime Agency. Lords amendments 17 to 32 ensure that those officers have the relevant safeguards, protections and legal clarity when utilising the powers, and make the required consequential changes.

Lords amendments 5, 6 38, 39 and 40 were tabled in response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the Bill and debate in the other place, and ensure that proportionate, robust and appropriate safeguards are in place. Lords amendments 5 and 6 introduce additional safeguards to the offences set out in clause 13, and exempt from these offences any item or substance designed for personal cleanliness or hygiene. This includes items such as soap, toothpaste, sanitary products and other essentials that individuals may carry for personal dignity and wellbeing. I hope that gives the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) a degree of comfort. Limitations to this exemption are set out where certain items present a heightened risk of being repurposed as weapons or used in ways that endanger others. That strikes the appropriate balance on this important point.

Clause 43 enables stronger conditions to be placed on those who pose a threat pending their removal. Lords amendments 38, 39 and 40 do not alter the original intention of the clause, but ensure that the Bill sets out the limited circumstances in which an individual could have conditions such as electronic monitoring or curfews placed on their leave to enter or remain. This includes cases where the Secretary of State considers that the person poses a threat to national security or public safety, or where they have been convicted of a serious crime or a sexual offence.

The Government made a number of small amendments in the other place that seek to clarify the provisions to which they relate. Lords amendments 33, 34 and 35 are minor and technical changes to remove references to data protection legislation that are redundant following the enactment of section 106 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.

Lords amendment 36 amends the consultation requirements to require the Secretary of State to consult the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and the relevant Scottish Ministers prior to making regulations that determine the purpose for which trailer registration information may be shared with the police. The amendment does not affect the Secretary of State’s discretion to consult representatives of police bodies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats and I want to stop dangerous small boat crossings. We want to stop the smuggling gangs and bring them to justice. The former Conservative Government failed to do either. My constituents in Woking and people across the country need this Government to deliver a compassionate, effective and fair immigration and asylum system. If this Government thought that this Bill and the amendments were enough to do that, the Home Secretary would not have come to the House on Monday to announce another raft of immigration measures.

[Pete Wishart]

Like me and several other hon. Members present, the hon. Gentleman spent hours in Committee considering these measures, only for the Home Secretary to come along this week and trump them with even harsher measures. Does he agree that it almost feels like we are all wasting our time considering measures that will be superseded by the measures announced by the Home Secretary?

[Mr Forster]

The hon. Gentleman and I, and others, worked really hard in Committee, proposing humanitarian visa amendments, and trying to lift the ban on asylum seekers working—both measures that would have made things better for taxpayers and for vulnerable refugees. Sadly, we were not listened to, but I hope that we will be listened to if we have the pleasure, or the unfortunate duty, of serving on the Bill Committee for the next Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

We are working with Ministers across Government on closing every hotel as soon as possible, and by the end of this Parliament. As we have all seen, that is a complex process that must be delivered through a controlled, managed and orderly programme of work. We do not want to be in a situation where, without an alternative ready, we start exiting hotels before it is time to do so. I assure my hon. Friend that we will take a balanced and evidence-based approach towards making decisions about the locations that we will use and how we will exit hotels. I look forward to talking to him in more detail about these plans in due course.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

The Government are currently spending some £2.1 billion on hotels, but the system is not working. It does not have to be that way. The Public and Commercial Services union and Together With Refugees have shown that a humane asylum system, which expedites asylum hearings and supports employment, could reduce asylum costs by 40%. Will the Home Secretary at least look at the evidence and concede that she does not always have to try to outdo the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)?

[Shabana Mahmood]

What I am interested in is recognising the extent of the problems that this Government have inherited and coming up with proper solutions to those problems. For me, this is not about party politics or individual politicians, but a moral mission to fix a broken system that is unfair, costing the country far too much money and putting huge pressure on communities. I ask the hon. Gentleman to engage with the detail of the proposal, rather than playing party politics himself.

Asylum Policy

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. The reality is that there are a lot of failed asylum seekers within the asylum accommodation system, and I am sure she would accept and agree that where somebody has a failed claim and no right to be in this country, the best thing to do is to voluntarily leave the country. We already provide packages to help people make that decision. I do not want to see people homeless in this country, but I know she cannot possibly think that the answer to that is essentially for there to be no consequence of a failed asylum claim. We need to run a system where the rules are enforced, as uncomfortable as that might occasionally be. We recognise that we do not want people in destitution; that is why we make financial packages available for people to voluntarily leave the country, and that will always be the case.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

In its manifesto, Labour promised to defend migrants’ rights and build an immigration system based on compassion and dignity. Instead, we have a policy that is welcomed by Reform UK and has even found favour with Tommy Robinson. Throwing refugees into destitution, denying any meaningful route to citizenship and forcible evictions—where exactly is the compassion and dignity in that?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Given that Tommy Robinson does not even think I am English, he will certainly not be supporting anything I have to say, but let us just leave that there. We do not need to hear any more about what vile racists have to say about anything.

Let me say to the hon. Member that it is not a surprise to find a Scottish National party Member of Parliament defending a broken status quo; that is what they do with the Scottish Government under the SNP every day, and it is what he is doing now. I hope he can agree that good, much-needed reform of a broken system is the best way to retain public support for having an asylum system at all.

Manchester Terrorism Attack

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The volunteers of the Community Security Trust are absolute heroes and do vital work every single day. They were there at the site of the attack, and the actions of those volunteers and worshippers at the synagogue in Manchester on 2 October saved many, many lives. So many people were cowering behind the door to the synagogue, keeping it shut and preventing the attacker from entering. I cannot imagine what must they have gone through while they did so, but they did so to keep others safe. They are all heroes. I have been very struck by the conversations that I have had with those volunteers.

I assure my hon. Friend that I and the Prime Minister have had constant contact with the Community Security Trust and other Jewish community organisations. We will say more in the coming days and weeks about how we intend to move forward on matters of security, and about the wider picture of giving reassurance to this country’s Jewish community, so that they can go about their business safely.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

First, on behalf of the Scottish National party, I join the Home Secretary in expressing our solidarity with the Jewish community after the horror of the appalling events at the Heaton Park synagogue. Such antisemitic hate must never be allowed to prevail or divide us. In Scotland, the police have increased security in our centres of faith, and have asked the public to remain vigilant following the attack. However, does the Home Secretary not see that by cracking down on our legitimate right to protest, she is simply giving succour to the haters, allowing them to dictate our approach to protest, and to alter basic freedoms that we have always enjoyed? Surely that cannot be the Government’s intention.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Government’s intention is to ensure that the right balance is struck between our fundamental right to protest and ensuring that our communities can go about their business without living in fear of weekly protests on their doorstep. Through amendments to sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act, we are suggesting making it explicit that the police can take cumulative impact into account when imposing conditions. That is not a removal of the right to protest; it is just saying that there are conditions. The protest can carry on, but not in a way that prevents other communities from being able to go about their business in safety and security. I am surprised—well, I am not surprised, because the hon. Gentleman is from the Scottish National party, but I hope that Members across the House understand that getting the balance right is delicate and difficult, and that this measure will put us back toward something that looks and feels much more like a balanced situation. Protests can go ahead, but with some conditions. I would be surprised if that did not get backing from across the House. I hope that it does.

Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and I completely agree. I think there is an absolute point of consensus in this place—and, I hope, much further afield—about the urgent need to secure peace in the middle east. This Government, led by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, will do everything we possibly can to support that important process.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

The optics of octogenarian priests being arrested alongside hundreds of peaceful protesters are absolutely awful for this Government. We had only three arrests over the weekend in Scotland, because Police Scotland seemed to deploy a much more conciliatory and community-based approach. Does the Minister support operational independence across the UK? If police forces feel it is in their interests to have different policing arrangements from the Metropolitan police, will he support them and say that there will be no Government interference in their operations?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his engagement over the course of the summer. I can give him an absolute assurance: yes, of course we believe in the absolute importance of the operational independence of the police. They have to make some very difficult judgments, but I hope he agrees that nobody should be above the law; there is not an age limitation with regard to these offences. The police have difficult judgments to make, but in the main they have acted proportionately and without fear or favour, in the best traditions of British policing.

Borders and Asylum

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the gig economy and the need to ensure that it does not become rife with abuse and misuse when it comes to illegal working. That is why we are bringing in—again, in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which unfortunately the Conservatives and Reform have continued to vote against—requirements for employers in the gig economy to abide by checks on illegal working. We have also recently signed with some of the major delivery companies a new agreement to share information, so that we can target abuse and crime.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

What a country the UK is becoming! Rarely has the national mood been so ugly and intimidating. People are congregating at hotels, screaming at asylum seekers to go home, and those on the right wing are so emboldened that they feel the streets belong to them. Does the Home Secretary not realise that every time she moves on to Reform’s ground, all she is doing is further encouraging and emboldening them? How about trying something different? How about just occasionally saying something positive about immigration? How about not dehumanising asylum seekers, and instead showing them some compassion, decency and humanity?

[Yvette Cooper]

I just point out to the hon. Member that I have spoken about Ukrainian mums and their experiences fleeing from Putin; the students in Gaza who currently cannot take up their places—we are working on expedited visas for them, so that they can pursue a better future—and the importance of having a proper, legal and controlled route as part of an effective system. That has been part of our history, but we also have to have a system that is properly controlled and managed. We have to have a system that is not open to abuse, misuse and exploitation by criminal gangs. We also need stronger border security, so that it is Government, and not gangs, who choose who comes to our country.

UK-France Migration: Co-operation

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend’s question is an important one. Once the final arrangements are ready to operationalise, we will set out in the immigration rules the precise detail of the way in which people will be able to apply from France. They will need to have proper identification and to go through security checks. Once people have applied, we will set prioritisation decisions, including on whether people have connections to the UK, and on the countries from which people are most likely to be refugees or to be targeted by smuggler and trafficking gangs. We will set out that detail in due course. Part of the reason for the one-for-one arrangement is that it has to go alongside returns to France for people who get on illegal boat crossings and end up paying huge amounts of money to fuel the criminal smuggler industry, which will make sure that we simultaneously strengthen our border security and save lives.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

This is a grubby, grotesque little deal, which in itself trades in lives with the selection of who qualifies for this one in, one out basis. This gimmick means we will now have different classes of the wretched, and it does nothing to address the crisis that compels so many people to make these dangerous journeys in the first place. It is a gimmick doomed to fail and it simply will not work. But there is one thing that could smash the gangs in one simple blow: establish the safe and legal routes, which have worked so perfectly in the past, for people to come to this country.

[Yvette Cooper]

The small boat crossings are dangerous and put lives at risk. We have seen people drown and people crushed to death on overcrowded boats. That is being driven and organised by criminal gangs who will do anything they can to profit from these dangerous journeys. The whole point of having the one-for-one approach with France is that we have an agreement that means we will return people who come on those dangerous boat crossings, who pay money to the criminal gangs, and who, frankly, should be returned or should be part of the returns arrangements. In return, we will take those who apply lawfully through the application process and who have had security checks. I think that principle is the right one. The UK, as we have shown through the Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes, will always do its bit to help those fleeing persecution and conflict. However, we also think there should be much stronger enforcement, and we should not have the illegal migration that undermines border security and puts lives at risk in the channel.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

As we have heard, the issues around the proscription of Palestine Action has thrown up a number of legitimate concerns. There is no doubt that it will have an impact on our right to protest and on the civil liberties that we have enjoyed for decades. Although it is absolutely right to condemn and prosecute criminal activity, especially those that threaten our national security, surely this must be done within the framework of existing legislation, as it always has been.

This order looks nothing other than a direct response to Palestine Action being able to infiltrate an RAF base and cause damage to a defence aircraft. The decision to proscribe an organisation is ultimately a matter for the Government, and it is up to the Home Secretary to decide who goes on that list. It is based on intelligence that the Government hold. I do not think that the Minister has convinced many of us today that this has met the threshold for proscription, and we need to hear more about their concerns about this particular group.

Before reaching for that power, the Government must take into account whether it is proportionate, justified and in the national interest to proscribe such an organisation. Terrorism legislation, as we know, hands extremely broad powers to the state and, as such, it must always be treated with the highest degree of caution and restraint.

We live in a society where groups and organisations have the democratic right to campaign and express their views on particular issues in a democratic, respectful and lawful manner. It is important that the right to lawful protest is not affected by the Home Secretary’s decision today, and it is extremely concerning that this decision could lead to these powers being extended to other campaigning organisations.

Palestine Action has inexplicably been linked to groups such as the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement—groups unknown to the House until this measure was on the Order Paper today, but they are groups that, from a cursory glance at their activities, should of course be proscribed.

For Palestine Action to be included alongside those groups is, at best, a cynical and calculated move by the Government to ensure that this order gets through today. People all over the UK, including many of my constituents, rightly feel very strongly about the appalling crimes that are being committed against innocent civilians in Gaza on a daily basis. Many of those people have been taking part in weekly protests to make their voices heard, and to show solidarity with the Palestinian people. These people are now concerned that they might be caught up in this proscription.

I am also concerned that many young people who are sharing social media posts from Palestine Action could now be considered to have glorified what will soon be a proscribed group. We need clarity on what actions would result in people being charged under this terrorism legislation. For example, could a person wearing a Palestine Action badge handed out at a demonstration or a rally be charged with terrorism? Organisations such as Amnesty International and even the United Nations have expressed their concern about the UK’s broad definition of terrorism in this regard.

This week, an Israeli strike on a Gaza seafront café killed at least 20 Palestinians. This is what we should be discussing today and every day until a permanent ceasefire is reached and all the hostages are released. The Government must act in the national interest and keep us safe from all the challenges presented to them, but we need clear reassurance about the wider impact of what is proposed.

Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I hope my hon. Friend heard the point I made a moment ago about how the Government have brought forward this legislation in response to a recent Supreme Court decision. Essentially, an appeal against deprivation has resulted in a requirement for us to bring forward this clarification of the law. In response to her and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), this does not represent any widening of the existing arrangements. The right of appeal is completely unaffected by this legislation, which is incredibly narrowly drawn.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I am sure the Minister understands that due process is important and appreciates that the appeals process must be respected fully. He is intending making people temporarily stateless, so can he guarantee that the appeals process will be speeded up and people will have an opportunity to have their case heard in a timeous manner, so they can have their case resolved, not hanging over them for a long time?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member is absolutely right about the point of due process. I can say to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall that these powers are used very sparingly. Each and every individual case is decided on by the Home Secretary. I know that this Home Secretary has—and I am sure previous Home Secretaries have—taken these responsibilities incredibly seriously. Decisions are made carefully, on advice and in accordance with international law, and I am happy to give the hon. Member and others that assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We are tackling illegal working by significantly increasing enforcement. That is why we have had a 40% increase in visits and a 42% increase in the number of arrests for illegal working. There are fines of £60,000 per illegal worker discovered, and those who are discovered working illegally can be arrested and put on the route to deportation.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

Surely the best way to tackle illegal working is to make more legal opportunities. The “island of strangers” immigration policy will cause huge issues for the workforce in Scotland; the care service says that it could threaten the whole sector. Asylum seekers waiting for their case to be processed are in effect an unused resource. Why not shorten the time that asylum seekers have to wait before being allowed to work, to bring some relief to such sectors?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We are shortening the time that it takes to process asylum claims by getting the system that we inherited from the Conservatives working again. That is why there has been a 63% increase in the number of initial claims processed. That follows a 70% fall in the period before the last election.