‘Make no mistake – this is one of the most pernicious pieces of union-bashing legislation you will ever see’
The ongoing Conservative Party psycho-drama has dominated the headlines over the last few weeks (writes TUC General Secretary PAUL NOWAK).
While it has been good to see Boris Johnson finally held accountable, it’s meant that many important issues have slipped under the radar.
The Strikes Bill returns to parliament today (23 June). It won’t get anywhere near the coverage of the vote on the Privileges Committee report, but it should.
Make no mistake – this is one of the most pernicious pieces of union-bashing legislation you will ever see.
And the TUC is by no means alone in saying this.
Over the weekend the UN workers’ rights watchdog, the ILO, demanded that the UK bring trade union rights into line with international law.
In a rare intervention, it instructed UK ministers to “seek technical assistance” from the body and to report back to the ILO in September.
The last time the ILO issued this type of rebuke to the UK was in 1995.
Litany of critics
The spiteful legislation has faced a barrage of criticism from employers, civil liberties organisations, the joint committee on human rights, House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, race and gender equalities groups, employment rights lawyers, politicians around the world – as well as a whole host of other organisations.
It is no surprise that this Bill has upset and enraged so many.
The UK already has the most restrictive anti-strikes legislation in Western Europe. And these reforms will take the country in an even more draconian direction.
That would mean that when workers lawfully vote to strike in health, education, fire, transport, border security and nuclear decommissioning, they could be forced to attend work – and sacked if they don’t comply.
As the TUC has repeatedly warned the Strikes Bill is undemocratic, unworkable and almost certainly illegal.
Far from preventing strikes, the Bill will poison industrial relations and escalate disputes.
And for what? So Rishi Sunak can throw some red meat to his backbenchers and look tough to his ungovernable party.
Next steps
So where do we go from here?
The Strikes Bill is back in the Commons after a series of bruising defeats in the Lords.
The government will whip its MPs to vote down much-needed amendments as they try and fast-track the legislation onto the statute books.
Our challenge remains the same. Unions will continue to fight the Bill at every stage and will not rest until these poisonous reforms are defeated, and if passed into law, repealed by the next Labour government.
Last summer, ministers changed the law to allow agencies to supply employers with workers to fill in for those on strike. Unions are currently challenging the change in courts – with a judgment expected soon.
The right to strike is a fundamental British liberty that is vital for the balance of power in the workplace.
We must defend it at all costs. And as I told a TUC rally last month, we are also very clear that we will stand by any worker who exercises their fundamental right to strike.
The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill will be the focus of a new public consultation launched today by the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee.
The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill was introduced in the Scottish Parliament in May 2023.
If passed, the legislation will give local authorities the ability to add an additional charge to overnight accommodation if they choose to do so. This will be based on a percentage of the cost, with the rate set by individual councils.
The Committee is seeking views from businesses, tourism organisations, community groups, individuals, and other key stakeholders over the summer ahead of its consideration of the general principles of the Bill.
Following the consultation period, the Committee will listen to the views of stakeholders before producing a report setting out its findings. MSPs will then debate the Bill in the Chamber and decide whether it should proceed.
The Committee is launching the call for views ahead of a meeting in Kirkwall later today with Destination Orkney to discuss their views on the Bill.
Commenting on the launch, Committee Convener Ariane Burgess MSP said: “We’ve now launched a call for views on the Scottish Government’s Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill and want to hear from as wide a range of communities, tourism organisations, businesses, and individuals as possible to inform our scrutiny.
“Tourism is one of Scotland’s leading growth industries, contributing more than £4 billion to our economy each year, so ensuring these proposals work for those connected to the industry is essential.
“The Bill provides a framework for local authorities to decide how money raised should be spent within local communities, how flexible they can be with where and when the levy would apply and whether certain exemptions should apply, all of which we want to gather detailed views on from urban, rural and island communities across Scotland.”
The call for views will run from Monday 26th June 2023 to Friday 1 September.
Those wishing to respond can choose to provide a detailed response to the Committee about the Bill or make brief and general comments, joining the conversation about the Bill on the Committee’s engagement website.
Councils empowered to raise money for local tourism
A Bill to enable councils to invest more in local tourism facilities and services through a levy on overnight stays has been published.
If passed by the Scottish Parliament, the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill will give councils the power to apply a levy on stays in overnight accommodation based on a percentage of the accommodation cost.
All money raised would have to be reinvested locally on facilities and services substantially for or used by visitors, enhancing the tourist experience and benefitting local communities and their economies.
Under the plans, councils would be required to consult communities, businesses and tourism organisations before putting a visitor levy in place. They would also have to consult on how any revenue raised should be spent.
The proposals follow public consultation and form part of the New Deal for Local Government which gives councils greater financial flexibility and strengthens local democracy.
The Scottish Government has also invited representatives from the tourism industry, COSLA and other partners to join an expert group to consider how it could best be implemented if passed.
Public Finance Minister Tom Arthur said: “Scotland is already a very popular tourist destination and the domestic and international visitors we welcome every year have a significant and positive impact on the Scottish economy. Giving councils the power to introduce a visitor levy is one tool that will provide additional resources to continue to attract visitors to Scotland.
“Levies on visitors staying in paid-for accommodation are already used around the world and it is reasonable for local areas to want a small contribution from tourists to help support and sustain visitor economies.
“There have been significant contributions to the Bill so far from the tourism industry, COSLA and other partners and I look forward to continuing to work with them as it progresses through Parliament.”
COSLA Resources Spokesperson Councillor Katie Hagmann said: “COSLA welcomes the Scottish Government’s move to give councils the power to apply a visitor levy. This represents a key step towards reaching COSLA’s long-standing goal of a more empowered Scottish local government.
“COSLA has consistently called for the ability of councils to set and raise taxes based on what is needed and decided locally. By providing each local authority with the power to set a rate charged to visitors, and to do so independently of the Scottish Government, the Local Visitor Levy empowers local decision-making, with councils able to respond to the needs of their area and the people who live there.
“COSLA is well aware that Scotland’s councils and communities have a great diversity of needs – what works for one council will not necessarily be suitable for another. We welcome the flexibility offered by this legislation, and will consider if there are opportunities for it to go further. We are looking forward to seeing further investment both in tourism and our communities in the future.”
City council Leader Cammy Day has welcomed today’s publication of a Bill by the Scottish Parliament to empower councils to raise money through tourism.
If passed, the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill will give the City of Edinburgh Council the power to progress plans for a levy on stays in overnight accommodation, which it has been campaigning to see introduced for over five years.
The council has produced a substantial body of work to back its case for why a levy is the right move for Edinburgh, including a detailed consultation in 2018 which saw 85% of 2,500 respondents expressing strong support for its introduction. This figure included a majority of Edinburgh-based businesses and accommodation providers.
It was estimated then that a levy in Edinburgh could raise in the region of £15m per year to invest in sustainable tourism and managing the impact of tourism on the city. The Bill published today stipulates that levies must be based on a percentage of the accommodation cost, and spent of services substantially for or used by tourists.
Council Leader Cammy Day said: We’ve been building the case for Edinburgh to introduce such a levy for years so it’s great to finally see this Bill brought forward.
“We’re very proud that Edinburgh is one of the world’s most popular visitor destinations, but we’re equally aware that this success comes at a cost. That’s why we believe it’s right to ask visitors to make a small contribution to help us sustain and improve our tourism offer while managing its impact, and why we’ve been a key driver working with COSLA and the Scottish Government to see this legislation brought forward.
“A visitor levy is common practice in other major cities and destinations so why not here, in the place named ‘best city in the world’ to visit by Time Out magazine?
“From our citywide consultation held in 2018, our proposals gained overwhelming backing from Edinburgh’s residents, businesses and attractions – and, importantly, also from the majority of accommodation providers.
“Clearly, this model will need to be reviewed in line with the recommendations of the Bill so reshaping this with input from industry partners and communities is our next priority. It has been an extremely challenging period for our culture and hospitality industries so it’s more important than ever that we are fully committed to working together with them and other partners to co-produce a scheme that works best for the whole of our Capital city.”
EDINBURGH SNP POLITICIANS WELCOME INTRODUCTION OF TOURIST TAX LEGISLATION
Tommy Sheppard MP and SNP Council Group Leader, Adam McVey, have today welcomed the publication of a Bill which would give Edinburgh City Council the power to invest more in local tourism facilities and services through a levy on overnight stays.
Sheppard, whose Edinburgh East constituency encompasses some of the City’s most popular tourist attractions like Edinburgh Castle and the Royal Mile, has committed to work with the local tourism industry, City Councillors and MSP colleagues to “get the Bill over the line.”
If approved by the Scottish Parliament, the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill will grant councils the authority to impose a levy on overnight accommodation, calculated as a percentage of the accommodation cost.
All funds generated from this levy would be reinvested locally, primarily in facilities and services used by tourists. This reinvested aims to enhance the tourist experience and bring significant benefits to local communities and their economies.
Edinburgh City Council have announced its proposal to implement a nightly charge of £2 for the first week of a stay, to be added to the price of any room. It is estimated the scheme would bring in between £5 million and £35 million a year, depending on the final model agreed.
Commenting, Tommy Sheppard MP said: “It’s great to see the Scottish Government move forward with proposals to give councils the power to apply a visitor levy. It’s particularly welcome here in Edinburgh – a city which proudly welcomes over welcomes over 4 million visitors annually.
“This isn’t a question of fleecing tourists as some suggest, but a rather a matter of fairness. It cost money to keep our streets clean, well-lit, and safe. It costs to support our festivals, to keep our museums and public spaces world class.
“Residents pay for this through their council tax and yet many living outside the city centre don’t get a lot of benefit from it. It’s only fair that people who come here for a few days or weeks and take advantage of these facilities make a modest contribution too. That’s what this legislation will give Edinburgh City Council the power to do.
“I look forward to working with the local tourism industry, Edinburgh Councillors and my MSP colleagues to get this Bill over the line.”
SNP group leader Adam McVey, added: “Edinburgh has well-developed plans for a tourist tax, and I’m delighted this legislation has moved to the next stage to make these plans a reality.
“More than 90% of residents backed plans for this levy in the City when asked and the engagement from industry means the Edinburgh plan is well thought out and deliverable for businesses too.
“This has been a key ask of local government for the last 6 years and it’s fantastic that the SNP Government have responded so positively through this process to further empower Councils on this policy as well as progressing many others.”
BOYACK CONCERNED THAT VISITOR LEVY IS STILL YEARS AWAY
Following the introduction of a Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill, Sarah Boyack MSP has written to the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance, Tom Arthur, to welcome the Bill but raise concerns that the powers for local authorities to implement a Levy could be years away.
In her letter, the Scottish Labour MSP said that “there are some key aspects of the proposed Bill that lack detail and will have an impact on local authorities like the City of Edinburgh that are ready to get on and introduce a Levy.”
Boyack referred to the Section 12 of the draft Bill which requires local authorities to carry out consultation prior to making a decision to implement a Scheme, raising questions about whether consultation already carried out by the City of Edinburgh Council would be accepted by Ministers to meet the requirements in the draft Bill.
It comes after the City of Edinburgh Council Leader, Cllr Cammy Day, raised concerns that having the power and implementing a Visitor Levy could still be two years away. Sarah Boyack is concerned that the draft Bill means that this is an underestimation.
Commenting, Sarah Boyack MSP said: “I welcome the introduction of this Bill, which will make a huge difference in public purse and will allow our councils to fund vital local services.
“A Visitor Levy Bill is long overdue.
“However, the lack of detail, particularly on timescales, in the draft legislation concerns me given that the warning from the City of Edinburgh Council that having the powers and implementing a Visitor Levy could be two years away is actually an underestimation of the time it will take to get a scheme up and running.
“Our Councils are severely underfunded. Introducing a Visitor Levy like other cities across Europe could raise approximately £15 million extra every year which would go towards funding local services.
“I am keen to ensure that there are no unnecessary hurdles for Edinburgh to implement a Visitor Levy and get the full benefits for local services as quickly as possible.”
In a recent Parliamentary Question on a Visitor Levy the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance agreed to meet with Sarah Boyack MSP and representative from Edinburgh City Council on the Government’s proposal. It is hoped that this meeting will take place within weeks.
New offence for encouraging serious self-harm with perpetrators facing 5 years behind bars
offence to apply regardless of whether target goes on to cause serious self-harm
move will protect vulnerable while not criminalising those who share their recovery journey
Vile trolls who hide behind the anonymity of the internet to encourage others to cause themselves serious harm will face prosecution as part of an overhaul of online safety laws announced today (18 May 2023).
Additions to the Online Safety Bill will make it a crime to encourage someone to cause serious self-harm, regardless of whether or not victims go on to injure themselves and those convicted face up to 5 years in prison. The new offence will add to existing laws which make it illegal to encourage or assist someone to take their own life.
Police or prosecutors will only have to prove communication was intended to encourage or assist serious self-harm amounting to grievous bodily harm (GBH) – this could include serious injuries such as broken bones or permanent physical scarring.
The offence will apply even where the perpetrator does not know the person they are targeting – putting an end to abhorrent trolling that risks serious self-harm or life-changing injuries.
Encouraging someone to starve themselves or not take prescribed medication will also be covered.
Research from the Mental Health Foundation shows that more than a quarter of women between 16-24 have reported self-harm at some point in their life and since 1993 the levels of self-harm among women have tripled. Today’s announcement is the latest step in our work to provide greater protections for women and girls who are more likely to self-harm.
Research also shows more than two-thirds of UK adults are concerned about seeing content that promotes or advocates self-harm while online.
Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk KC, said: “There is no place in our society for those who set out to deliberately encourage the serious self-harm of others. Our new law will send a clear message to these cowardly trolls that their behaviour is not acceptable.
“Building on the existing measures in the Online Safety Bill our changes will make it easier to convict these vile individuals and make the internet a better and safer place for everyone.”
The new offence will be created following a recommendation from the Law Commission in 2021 and balances the need to protect vulnerable people while not criminalising those who document their own self-harm as part of their recovery journey.
Justice Minister, Edward Argar MP, said: “No parent should ever worry about their children seeing content online or elsewhere encouraging them to hurt themselves.Our reforms will punish those who use encourage vulnerable people to inflict serious injuries on themselves and make sure they face the prospect of time behind bars.“
This new offence builds on measures already in the Online Safety Bill, which will better regulate social media and ensure that social media companies like Tiktok, Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram and others are held legally responsible for the content on their sites.
Experts say government’s Strikes Bill will make Britain an international “outlier” on union laws
Unions will be forced to “undermine” their own strikes, lawyers say
Leading employment lawyers have warned that government’s new Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill will give ministers “unfettered power” to restrict the right to strike.
In a joint statement, the legal specialists say the new legislation will make Britain “an outlier” on strike laws compared to other European and Western democracies.
Those adding their names to the statement include:
Alan Bogg, Professor of Labour Law, University of Bristol
Keith Ewing, Professor of Public Law, King’s College London
Ruth Dukes, Professor of Labour Law, University of Glasgow
Highlighting the new sweeping powers the Bill will give to ministers, the lawyers say:
“The legislation gives a Secretary of State a largely unfettered power to determine what a minimum level of service should be in a particular service, and consequently the circumstances in which and the extent to which workers in these sectors can lawfully exercise their freedom to strike.”
Highlighting how Britain risks becoming an international outlier on strike laws, the lawyers say:
“The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill would place an unacceptable restriction on a worker’s right to take strike action to defend their terms and conditions of employment. It adds to an existing body of highly restrictive laws on strikes, including the Trade Union Act 2016.
“It would make Great Britain an outlier among comparable countries. If ministers are keen to learn from overseas, a more promising place to start would be the creation of a culture of social dialogue and balanced cooperation through the introduction of sector-wide collective bargaining, together with the clear legal recognition of a positive right to strike.”
Highlighting the strain the Bill will put on industrial relations, the lawyers say:
“Trade unions will be required by an employer acting with the authority of the state to take steps actively to undermine its own strike, for which its members will have voted in a ballot with high thresholds of support. Such an obligation is unprecedented in British law, and it places trade unions in an intolerable conflict with their own members.
“The legislation also removes significant protections for individual workers exposing them to the risk of dismissal and victimisation. It will do nothing to resolve the current spate of industrial action, which will be settled by negotiation and agreement, rather than by the introduction of even tighter restrictions on trade unions.”
The TUC has accused the government of ducking scrutiny over the Bill.
If passed, the Strikes Bill will mean that when workers democratically and lawfully vote to strike they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply.
The Bill gives ministers power to impose new minimum service levels through regulation.
But consultations on how these regulations will work in specific services have not been completed, and parliamentarians have been given few details on how minimum service levels are intended to operate.
The TUC says the new legislation will “do nothing” to solve the current disputes across the public sector, and “only make matters worse”.
Alan Bogg, Professor of Labour Law at the University of Bristol said: “This Bill would risk leaving Britain an international outlier in its restrictive laws on trade unions.
“When combined with existing legislation, these proposals constitute a further departure from established norms and international treaty obligations.
“Rather than bringing Britain into line with other European countries, it deviates significantly from the legal traditions of our neighbours where the right to strike is often given explicit constitutional protection.”
Ruth Dukes, Professor of Labour Law at the University of Glasgow said: “These minimum service requirements will do nothing to help workers and employers reach agreement.
“But they might well prolong and inflame disputes.”
Commenting on the lawyers’ letter, TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: “This is a damning assessment of the government’s Strikes Bill. Make no mistake – these new laws are a naked power grab that will allow ministers to severely restrict the right to strike.
“This spiteful legislation would mean that when workers democratically vote to strike, they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply.
“Compulsory work notices during strikes will place a huge strain on employer and union relations and will do nothing to help resolve disputes.
“If this nasty legislation gets on to the statute book, the TUC will fight it all the way – including through the courts.
“The Conservatives cannot legislate away worker dissatisfaction.”
The full statement reads:
We the undersigned are specialists in employment law.
Between us we have decades of experience as academics and practitioners in analysing the existing statutory regime for industrial action and the wider industrial relations landscape in Great Britain and internationally.
In our view the Strikes Bill (Minimum Service Levels) Act would place an unacceptable restriction on a worker’s right to take strike action to defend their terms and conditions of employment. It adds to an existing body of highly restrictive laws on strikes, including the Trade Union Act 2016. The cumulative effects of this legislation would place the UK well outside the mainstream of industrial relations in comparable countries.
The right to strike is guaranteed in international law by a succession of important treaties. These include the Council of Europe’s Social Charter of 1961; and the UN’s International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights of 1966. It has also been recognised as a human right by the International Labour Organisation, and by the European Court of Human Rights. Our obligation to respect ILO conventions and the Social Charter was reinforced by the 2020 Trade and Cooperation Treaty with the European Union.
In Great Britain the right to strike is already heavily limited. The statutory regime places significant requirements on trade unions contemplating industrial action including the need to conduct a postal ballot under highly complex rules, the need to clear high thresholds of support (even higher in ‘important public services’), and to give 14 days’ notice of action.
The Strikes Bill as drafted would remove none of these requirements while placing a hugely onerous new set of requirements on unions and union members.
The legislation gives a Secretary of State a largely unfettered power to determine what a minimum level of service should be in a particular service, and consequently the circumstances in which and the extent to which workers in these sectors can lawfully exercise their freedom to strike. If a strike takes place in these services, an employer will have the power to issue a work notice effectively to requisition workers during the strike.
Trade unions will then be under a duty to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that workers comply with the work notice. Trade unions will thus be required by an employer acting with the authority of the state to take steps actively to undermine its own strike, for which its members will have voted in a ballot with high thresholds of support. Such an obligation is unprecedented in British law, and it places trade unions in an intolerable conflict with their own members.
The legislation also removes significant protections for individual workers exposing them to the risk of dismissal and victimisation. It will do nothing to resolve the current spate of industrial action, which will be settled by negotiation and agreement, rather than by the introduction of even tighter restrictions on trade unions.
The proposed minimum service legislation constitutes a further departure from established norms and treaty obligations. It would make Great Britain an outlier among comparable countries. If ministers are keen to learn from overseas, a more promising place to start would be the creation of a culture of social dialogue and balanced cooperation through the introduction of sector-wide collective bargaining, together with the clear legal recognition of a positive right to strike.
Professor Alan Bogg, Professor of Labour Law, University of Bristol
Professor Nicola Countouris, Director of the Research Department, European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) and Professor in Labour Law and European Law, University College London
Professor Ruth Dukes, Professor of Labour Law, University of Glasgow
Professor Keith Ewing, Professor of Public Law, King’s College London
Professor Lydia Hayes, Professor of Labour Rights, University of Liverpool
Dr Ioannis Katsaroumpas, Lecturer in Employment Law, University of Sussex
Professor Aristea Koukiadaki, Professor of Labour Law and Industrial Relations, Head of The University of Manchester Law School
Professor Virginia Mantouvalou, Professor of Human Rights and Labour Law, University College London
Dr Ewan McGaughey, Reader in Law, King’s College London
Professor Tonia Novitz, Professor of Labour Law, University of Bristol
A new plan brought in by the UK Conservative Government is yet another attempt to remove genuine asylum seekers from the UK (writes FOYSOL CHOUDHURY MSP).
The scheme will require asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Syria, Yemen, and Libya, who may have been in the UK for up to 18 months, to answer the 11-page document that consists of 50 questions, ranging from political persecution to trafficking experiences.
More shockingly, this form must be answered within 20 days to avoid refusal and must be completed in English.
These demands being made of the most vulnerable in society are unreasonable and undermine genuine claims of asylum seekers who are traumatised from experiences of conflict or persecution.
Firstly, the language barrier to filling out highly complex questionnaires will automatically exclude those who do not speak English and may also lead to people paying to use translation tools when they can ill afford to do so.
Secondly, the time frame to complete this is unjustified and will exacerbate inequalities between asylum seekers who do not have the assistance to fill in the form.
Legal experts say that a 20-day timeframe is not enough time to seek and receive any legal advice, which could overwhelm our legal system here in Scotland when the service is already under crippling pressure. Due to the crisis in immigration legal aid, there are simply not enough immigration legal aid representatives to assist all the individuals who must complete their questionnaires within short timeframes or face the grave repercussions of their claim being withdrawn.
This scheme comes at a time when the UK Government is introducing a controversial bill, the Illegal Migration Bill, which means those arriving into the UK by boats are not eligible for asylum claims and could lead to them being deported to a third country, like Rwanda.
Recent rhetoric by Suella Braverman, Home Secretary of the United Kingdom, fuels anti-migration ideology and the tagline “stop the boats” to control the supposed “waves of illegal migrants” create a negative and manipulated image of asylum seekers.
This is echoed by the Prime Minister, who joins in this discourse of hostility towards those fleeing conflict. The UK government are using their ‘fear of the other’ rhetoric to stoke fears and racism to deflect attention from its policy failures and see it as a vote winner for the next general election. They are using people seeking safety for political gain, trying to deflect attention from the cost-of-living crisis, the NHS crisis and their unpopularity in the polls.
Despite the false narrative spread by Westminster of an “invasion” of asylum seekers, the UK accepts fewer asylum seekers than other European countries. Whilst the UK issued 10,492 positive decisions in 2021, seven European countries issued more positive decisions than this. These include Germany (59,850), France (33,875), Italy (21,805), Spain (20,405), Greece (16,575), Austria (12,105) and the Netherlands (12,065).
Furthermore, Westminster is attempting to drive a false narrative that asylum seekers all choose to come to the Global North, and the UK. Suella Braverman has suggested that 100 million displaced people around the world are attempting to enter the UK. Despite this dominant discourse, the reality is very different. Most asylum seekers move to a neighbouring country and currently, 84% remain in the Global South.
Human rights groups and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) claim that the “stop the boats” policy would make the UK an international outlaw under European and UN conventions on protecting asylum seekers.
Fundamentally, seeking asylum is not illegal. The UK was at the forefront of signing the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the 1951 Refugee Convention, which are historic developments to protect and uphold basic human rights.
Under the Refugee Convention, asylum seekers are under no obligation to apply to the first safe country they reach; enter a country by regular means; or provide documentation. It is important to note that the UNHCR has condemned this bill and has urged the UK Government and all MPs to consider the humanitarian impacts of pursuing this bill.
What is also concerning, are the claims that right-wing Tory MPs are attempting to amend the bill which would pull the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Alongside this, Braverman has been advocating for the government to leave the ECHR already, which is worrying to anyone committed to safeguarding fundamental rights. Leaving the convention would put everyone’s rights at risk. It’s a person’s last resort for holding the state to account when it has abused their rights.
Although asylum is a reserved matter for the UK Government, this new plan for applications will have a direct impact on Scotland. Scotland’s Dungavel immigration detention centre will likely see an increase in the number of people detained here, as the process for securing a successful asylum application will become much harder due to these restrictive rules. As this centre is based in Scotland and we will be impacted by the higher number of asylum seekers detained, Holyrood must hold discussions with Westminster to ensure that the UK’s commitment to the UNDHR and the Refugee Convention is upheld.
We must ensure support is provided to asylum seekers to guarantee they face a fair process. The Scottish Refugee Council are working alongside lawyers and experts to propose changes to the current plan.
These suggested amendments to the questionnaire include simplifying the document; providing translations in relevant languages; creating a user-friendly guide for completion of the questionnaire and providing an extension for all unrepresented individuals.
In response to this plan and the Illegal Migration Bill, we need to encourage the Scottish Government to support asylum seekers with the application form and recognise the importance of entering into a discussion with Westminster, so that commitments in international law can be upheld.
To raise my concerns about the new bill, last Thursday I asked Shona Robison, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, what impact the UK Government’s proposed Illegal Migration Bill could have on Scotland’s legal aid services.
The Cabinet Secretary was unable to assess the overall impact this will have but agreed that it is likely to cause a magnitude of issues. I will continue to press these issues in the Scottish Parliament to ensure legal professions are best supported, which will ensure effective assistance is provided to asylum seekers.
The Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill has been passed by the House of Commons
The UK Government made a manifesto commitment to ban imports of hunting trophies of endangered animals and yesterday supported the passage of Henry Smith MP’s Private Member’s Bill which delivers this.
The Government will continue to support the Bill in the Lords helping to protect animals listed by the internationally agreed Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
After the debate, International Biodiversity Minister Trudy Harrison said: “This is a pivotal moment in delivering one of our key manifesto commitments on international conservation and animal welfare.
“Using an internationally agreed list of species, this will play an important part in helping reverse the decline of wildlife across the world. I look forward to it becoming an Act of Parliament.”
Conservative MP for Crawley Henry Smith said: “At the last General Election we stood on a manifesto commitment to ban imports of hunting trophies of endangered animals. The House of Commons passing this legislation today marks an important moment in ensuring that this pledge to support conservation becomes a reality.
“I’m grateful to the Government for supporting my Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill and I look forward to it now progressing through the House of Lords.
“Our country does not want to be part of a trade in the body parts of endangered species. Today the Commons sent this message loud and clear.”
The Bill will ban the import of trophies hunted from around 6,000 species including lions, elephants, rhinos, and polar bears.
It follows the government’s world-leading Ivory Act which came into force last year, introducing a near total ban on the import, export and dealing of items containing elephant ivory in the UK. We will also be setting out measures in due course on whether to extend that ban to other ivory bearing species.
The Government will also support Angela Richardson’s Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill in the Lords, which will provide the ability for government to ban the sale and advertising of activities abroad which involve low standards of welfare for animals.
Scottish Government urged to U-turn and support UK-wide legislation to end the exploitation of animals abroad
The Scottish Government is being urged to support legislation at Westminster which would help end the abuse of wild animals across the world exploited to entertain British holidaymakers.
The Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill, which recently had an unopposed second reading in the Commons, would help end many endangered species including elephants, tigers, monkeys and dolphins being cruelly exploited as part of the tourism trade.
Elephant calves are deprived of food, water and sleep and then subjected to torture and beatings to force them to submit to giving rides to tourists and performing tricks. The Bill proposes a ban in the UK of the advertising and sale of practices abroad where animals are exploited, harmed and killed for financial gain.
The Bill requires legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament, but the Scottish Government is refusing to support the Bill on the grounds it has not been given enough time to consider the draft law.
Unless the Scottish Government changes its approach, and supports the legislation, then either it will proceed through the parliamentary process but exclude cruel holidays advertised and sold from Scotland, or the entire Bill risks being withdrawn.
Chief Executive of the charity, Save the Asian Elephants, Duncan McNairsaid: “Of course we understand there is political complexity between Scotland and Westminster but it would be a tragedy if Scotland jeopardised the entire future of the Bill by withholding support and also failed to legislate north of the border. At present no commitment has been made for either of these.
“There are well over 1,000 UK firms promoting these abhorrent activities abroad, including those based in Scotland, such as Scotland’s largest independent travel agency, Barrhead Travel. If the Scottish Government, despite its strong track record on animal welfare, doesn’t legislate alongside Westminster it risks becoming the UK’s capital for cruelty, as tourists will simply book from here instead.”
In 2016 a Scottish holiday maker was killed after being thrown from an elephant during a trek in Thailand. The elephant was reportedly stabbed by its handler after it failed to respond to commands before rearing up and throwing off and crushing 36-year-old Gareth Crowe.
Prior to that in 2000 Helen Costigan’s sister Andrea Taylor was killed in a violent attack by a traumatised elephant, also in Thailand. Helen has since spoken of the shocking scenes which led to her sister’s death, yet still today 120 UK companies advertise this cruel and dangerous tourist attraction.
Helen Costigansupports the new legislation and says: “New law is long overdue to regulate an often greedy and heartless tourism industry, placing profits far above any concerns for animal welfare or human safety.
“I plead with Scotland’s government to support these measures in memory of Gareth Crowe and my own dear sister Andrea, taken from us so horrifically aged just 20.”
Duncan McNairadded: “This Bill is a significant, long awaited and well-supported piece of legislation which is not only an important step towards protecting numerous animals from hideous cruelty, but can also prevent needless deaths such as Gareth’s and Andrea’s, both killed by animals driven to insanity by the cruelty they’d been subjected to.”
An Electoral Calculus poll carried out last year shows overwhelming support across every single UK Parliamentary constituency, including throughout Scotland, for such a new law. Of those polled, 85% support a new law to ban advertising venues abroad where this type of cruelty occurs. Only 2% are opposed.
The Bill will go to Committee stage in the House of Commons on 8th March.
Constitution Secretary said Bill threatens vital laws
The UK Government should withdraw the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill after MSPs voted to withhold the consent of the Scottish Parliament, according to the Constitution Secretary Angus Robertson.
Speaking during a debate in the Scottish Parliament, Mr Robertson said the Bill, which is currently in the House of Lords, threatens vital regulations in the environment, food standards and employment sectors and must now be withdrawn.
With MSPs refusing to provide legislative consent, Mr Robertson said the reaction of UK Ministers would be a key test of whether or not it plans to continue to ignore or override the views of the Scottish Parliament.
If the Bill is not withdrawn, the Scottish Government has published updated amendments to lessen the impact of the Bill.
Constitution Secretary Angus Robertson said: “The Scottish Government and a number of key organisations across a range of sectors have many concerns about the Bill and we have repeatedly called on the UK Government to withdraw it.
“Firstly, it risks deregulation and threatens the high standards the people of Scotland experienced and benefited from as an EU member state for over 47 years. Secondly, the Bill includes powers for UK Ministers to act in areas of devolved responsibility without the consent of Scottish Ministers or this Parliament.
“This is clearly unacceptable and how the UK Government reacts will be a key test of whether or not they intend to continue to ride roughshod over devolution. Thirdly, the Bill includes a ‘cliff-edge’ sunset provision, which could see thousands of laws wiped overnight.
“I am pleased colleagues across the Scottish Parliament have voted to withhold consent for the Bill and I urge the UK Government to scrap it entirely. If the UK Government are intent on a race to the bottom that will impact standards across the UK, we have published a series of updated amendments to the Bill to mitigate the worst of its impacts.”
New legislation to prevent the chasing and killing of wild mammals for sport has been passed by the Scottish Parliament.
The Scottish Government’s Hunting with Dogs Bill will close loopholes in existing laws that have allowed the practice of illegal hunting to continue. A new two dog limit for all use of dogs in the course of hunting will be introduced, as well as a ban on the practice of trail hunting.
The Bill also establishes a new licencing scheme to allow the use of more than two dogs in certain limited circumstances. This is to provide farmers and land managers access to appropriate and humane control measures, where necessary.
Environment Minister Mairi McAllan said: “This Bill represents a significant step forward in protecting Scotland’s wildlife from the cruel and senseless practice of illegal hunting,
“I am pleased that the Parliament has agreed on a new law which will close the door on the illegal chasing and killing of mammals once and for all.
“I’d like to thank everyone who responded to our public consultations and interested groups for their valuable input throughout this process.
“I believe that this new legislation has struck the right balance between ensuring Scotland pursues the highest possible animal welfare standards, while recognising the need for farmers, land managers and environmental organisations to undertake legitimate wildlife management.”
The vote was passed by 90 for and 30 against, with no abstentions.
The new legislation was introduced last year, two decades after a failed attempt by the Scottish Parliament to ban hunting with the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act, back in 2002.
The new Bill will bring into force a number of measures which significantly curtail mounted hunting activity, including reducing the number of dogs which can be used to hunt a wild mammal to just two, instead of a full pack, and reducing the number of dogs which can be used below ground to just one.
The Bill also includes a preemptive ban on trail hunting. Trail hunting is a sport which was created after hunting was banned in England and Wales following the passing of the Hunting Act in 2004. Its inclusion in the Bill means trail hunting can not be established north of the border.
The League Against Cruel Sports Scotland, has welcomed the new legislation. Director Robbie Marsland said: “As of today, Scotland has the most robust law anywhere in the UK to prevent the cruelty of chasing and killing wild mammals for sport – and this is something to celebrate.
“Despite a persistent campaign from those resolute to keep hunting alive in the Scottish countryside, the Scottish Government has been determined to end the sport of hunting, a sentiment which has today been supported by the Parliament.
“The passing of the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill now provides an opportunity to right the wrongs of the last two decades and close the loopholes which allowed hunters to continue with hunting as though the law didn’t exist.
“The inclusion of a ban on trail hunting is a significant victory for Scotland, meaning hunts will not be able to use this so-called sport as a smokescreen for traditional hunting.”
The new Bill also includes a licensing system which will allow for a full pack of hounds to be used in certain circumstances. The detail of the scheme has yet to be developed but animal welfare campaigners have concerns this has the potential to be exploited.
Robbie Marslandadded: “After twenty years of flawed legislation it is critical that this Bill is not simply a way of creating new loopholes for hunters to exploit, and the League is yet to be convinced the licensing scheme won’t do this.
“Despite the best of intentions to ban hunting, the determination and deep rooted defiance among those who wish to chase and kill foxes should not be underestimated. The League will work closely with Nature Scot and other stakeholders to ensure the licensing system is robust, effective and fit for purpose.”
Commenting from Holyrood, Scottish Countryside Alliance Director Jake Swindells said: “Whilst it is frustrating that so much time and resource has been wasted on this Bill, the licensing scheme is, at least, an explicit acceptance by the Scottish Government that the use of packs of dogs in wildlife management is effective and necessary.”
The Hunting with Dogs Bill is expected to receive royal assent in the next few weeks and come into force in the autumn.
