Debate contribution: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 23 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5045923
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
I am grateful for the opportunity to move the motion and speak about the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is currently progressing through Parliament. The Bill was introduced in Westminster on 30 January 2025. Its overall intention is to create a framework of new, enhanced powers and offences to improve UK border security and to strengthen the asylum and immigration system. The Bill also contains various measures that will strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies and the courts to tackle serious and organised crime.
The Bill contains a mix of excepted and reserved measures, some of which apply or are extended to Northern Ireland. There are, however, four matters that are transferred and therefore require legislative consent. In the interests of transparency, Members will wish to note that, as part of the parliamentary process, two revised versions of the Bill have been published since its introduction. That means that some of the clause numbers have changed. Indeed, as the Bill is currently at the House of Lords Committee Stage, I imagine that a further revised version of the Bill will soon be published. Today, I will refer to the clause numbers as set out in the memorandum and motion. Those relate to the Bill as amended in the House of Commons on 19 March 2025. I should emphasise that, whilst revised versions of the Bill have been published, there have been no amendments to any of the measures that require legislative consent today. Apart from the clause numbers, they remain unchanged. I also want to highlight the fact that the majority of the measures contained in the Bill do not relate to my Department, and I have not been consulted or engaged with on those measures. I am aware that the Home Office Minister wrote to the First Minister and deputy First Minister, but I have not had sight of that correspondence. I understand, however, that none of the measures that are of wider interest to the Executive Office requires legislative consent. My interest today is in three measures that require legislative consent and that fall within the remit of the Department of Justice and in one further measure that falls to the Department for the Economy. In the interests of expediency and the effective utilisation of Assembly time, it was agreed that I would bring a single legislative consent motion (LCM) to the Assembly on behalf of the Department of Justice and the Department for the Economy. I am therefore pleased to lead on this joint motion. Turning to the matters in the Bill that engage the legislative consent process, I will now provide an overview of the measures for which I seek the Assembly's legislative consent. The first establishes a framework allowing the Secretary of State for Transport, through the GB Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to share trailer registration information with specific government bodies including the police. It authorises the Secretary of State for Transport to supply trailer registration information to the Home Office and designated law enforcement bodies, including the UK police forces, HM Revenue and Customs and the National Crime Agency. It sets out how information shared under the legislation can be passed on by recipients, such as the Home Office or authorised policing personnel, allowing further disclosure to other public functionaries in the UK or abroad for specified purposes related to policing, criminal investigations, law enforcement purposes and safeguarding national security. The draft legislation ensures that those provisions do not override data protection or investigatory powers laws and clarifies definitions, including who qualifies as an authorised person or officer, and empowers the Secretary of State to define specific policing purposes, through regulations, after consulting the relevant stakeholders, such as police representatives, Scottish Ministers and the Department of Justice. The second is a measure to create two new criminal offences relating to articles for use in serious crime. It includes possession of a specified article that will be used in connection with a serious offence and importing, manufacturing, adapting, supplying or offering to supply a specified article where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the article will be used in any serious offence. The specified articles are defined in the legislation and include vehicle concealments used to transport illicit goods, templates for 3D-printed firearms components, an encapsulator, which is used to fake drugs and tablets, and tablet presses which, again, are used in the supply of illegal drugs. A serious offence is defined as one that is specified in Part 2 of schedule A to the Serious Crime Act 2007. The associated penalty on summary conviction is imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, a fine not exceeding the statutory minimum, or, on conviction on indictment, imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, a fine or both. The legislation includes a delegated power to allow the Secretary of State to amend the list of specified articles via secondary legislation. There is a requirement to consult the Department of Justice before doing so. Any changes must be considered by Parliament. It also amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 by adding the offences to the criminal lifestyle offences at schedule 5. The third measure extends the offence of a breach of an interim serious crime prevention order. The extension of that measure to all jurisdictions of the UK is to maintain the integrity of the offence and ensure enforcement. It is the only offence of a breach that engages legislative consent. The associated penalty is on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both, or, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, a fine or both. The final measure falls to the Department for the Economy. The clause deals with the validation of fees that are charged for the UK National Information Centre (UK ENIC) service. The UK ENIC service is the UK's national information centre for the recognition and evaluation of international qualifications and is used by the Department for the Economy's Careers Service. That concludes the overview of the Bill. As Minister of Justice, my preference is always to legislate for devolved matters through the Assembly. For the measures that fall to the Department of Justice specifically, however, Members will appreciate the very serious nature of the criminality that the clauses aim to deal with. I am hopeful that Members will in this instance agree that the extension of the Westminster Bill to Northern Ireland via legislative consent is the most efficient and expedient way in which to legislate for the matters that are before the House. I hope that the legislative consent motion will have Members' support.
1,123 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.52 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.87 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.11 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:50 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.