Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

If followed, the approach raised by the regret amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, would in the Government’s view alter the devolution settlement more than is necessary or appropriate to deal with this matter. We should be cautious about amendments to the Scotland Act, which could result in an expectation of incremental adjustment to the constitutional arrangements. That is why the order is so narrowly framed and time limited. The approach we have taken is a sensible and proportionate action that will protect the devolution settlement, retain the integrity of the UK-wide medicines regime and enable MSPs to consider their Bill with clarity about how substances and devices that could be used for assisted dying could be dealt with—

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

The Minister mentioned the prospect of maybe producing a draft order but seemed to indicate that the Government would not do so until they had certainty on the Scottish Parliament’s final position on those two issues. Is there not a danger that the Government’s position will create a Catch-22 situation? MSPs will be voting not knowing what the Section 104 orders will be and, on the flip side, the Government will not produce those without knowing what the MSPs will settle on. It creates a contradiction on both sides. If part of the idea is to give as much certainty as possible, would that not be a flaw?

[Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue, because I can see that it is creating confusion, and I think that reflects how complicated and difficult the matter has been. The first thing to say is that it is not for the UK Government to draft any Section 104 orders; it is a matter for the Scottish Government to make sure that their legislation remains within the competence of their Parliament, and it is for them to request a Section 104 order and not for this Government to propose it to them. So, it would not be appropriate to draft and publish it, even if the other issues that I have mentioned were not present. But I am very sympathetic to the position of MSPs and others who would prefer to see a complete and neatly tied-up regime before them before they voted on it.

The fact is that it is complicated and strays into reserved areas, and the Scottish Government and the UK Government have sought to deal with that in the most efficient and respectful way towards the MSPs and the devolution settlement. The comfort that I give today is that we are in very constructive and collaborative conversations with them and stand ready to receive any requests for Section 104 orders.

On that note, I think we should celebrate the co-operation of the two Governments on what has been a very tricky issue. This is a Member’s Bill, so it was not a straightforward issue between two Governments that could be dealt with in the usual way. Both Governments are neutral on the issue. It is also a high-profile issue and, indeed, a highly emotive one.

This is what a constructive, mature and respectful reset of the relationship with the devolved nations looks like. I therefore commend this order to the House.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Weir of Ballyholme Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 28th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, throughout the passage of the Bill here and in the other place, many people have raised serious concerns about it, and about its impact on victims of modern slavery. I fear sounding like a broken record, but I said at Second Reading and in Committee that the Bill should exclude those who are subject to abuse through the heinous crime of modern slavery. I echo the words of the former Prime Minister, Theresa May. When discussing the Bill in the other place, she said that it has always been important to separate modern slavery from immigration status. My position remains unchanged.

I would prefer that modern slavery was out of this Bill entirely. For that reason, I shall support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. They get right to the heart of the matter as they seek to amend the Bill to ensure that potential and recognised victims of human trafficking will not be detained or removed before they can apply to the NRM and have their application considered. In the spirit of those amendments, I have tabled Amendments 102A and 105A to remove Clauses 23 and 24 respectively.

In Committee, the Minister tried to reassure us that the agreement with Rwanda covers ensuring that

“any special needs that may arise as a result of a relocated person being a victim of modern slavery are accommodated”.—[Official Report, 12/6/23; col. 1704.]

The impact assessment published on Monday was more tentative, saying there could be

“a perceived welfare loss for the individuals relocated to a third country who would otherwise be granted support in the UK although this may be mitigated to the extent that the support provided in a third country is comparable”.

This is classic British understatement. We all know that there will be loss of support. The Salvation Army has described the Bill as “potentially devastating”. The US State Department’s 2023 Trafficking in Persons Report, published since Committee, lists Rwanda as a tier 2 country, whereas the UK is a tier 1 country, and said that Rwanda did not refer any victims to services. So, I am far from reassured.

The impact assessment says that one of the strategic objectives of the Bill is “to protect the vulnerable”, but it is proposing mass detention of modern slavery victims under Clause 10 and removing their rights, under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, to a recovery period and support. I find myself in agreement once more with the former Prime Minister Theresa May, who described the Bill as

“a slap in the face for those of us who actually care about the victims of modern slavery”. —[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/23; col. 808.]

The Government are arguing that this is a Bill of short-term pain for long-term gain. For victims, it will be short-term and long-term pain. The JCHR’s Legislative Scrutiny: Illegal Migration Bill concluded that the Bill not only breaches international obligations but

“may also result in the increase in trafficking and slavery”.

With this in mind, I find myself extremely disappointed that an analysis of the potential number of victims affected by the Bill was not covered in the impact assessment. Particularly at such a late stage in the passage of such significant, flagship legislation, it is troubling that we do not have to hand the most basic information in order to make reasonable determinations, based on the evidence, about the efficacy of the Government’s proposals.

As I said in the previous debate in this House, as someone who introduced a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly to reduce trafficking and slavery, I cannot support the inclusion of modern slavery victims in this Bill, so I shall be supporting the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

However, your Lordships are wise enough to take a belt-and-braces approach to this Bill, so I am also supporting the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. They would mitigate some of the concerns about the lack of support by ensuring that victims of modern slavery exploited in the UK will still be able to access the support they need to recover. Why? It is simply the right thing to do.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I rise to support not only Amendment 103 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Morrow, but any and all the amendments in this group. This is for two principal reasons. First, the approach we need to take to the victims of the heinous evil of human trafficking must be compassionate, sympathetic and supportive. When the Government produced its now sadly shelved Bill on kept animals, it contained a clause which sought to outlaw the transporting of live animals for slaughter. But that approach—treating human beings as a commodity; as raw meat, effectively—is precisely what human traffickers are doing to their victims. We should show that same level of compassion to victims of human trafficking.