Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Friday 25th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Gethins]

I will finish with a conversation on migration, but I will take one more intervention, because I want to hear the perspective of another Member from elsewhere in the UK.

[Deirdre Costigan]

The hon. Member makes the point that there is a body of evidence in favour of his Bill. I point him to another body of evidence: the fact that there are 100,000 children in Scotland who do not have a home to call their own. At the same time, we have children in schools in Scotland with the widest poverty-related attainment gap ever. That is the body of evidence that we need to look to. Does he agree that his party would be better off looking at addressing those issues to attract workers to Scotland, rather than creating more red tape for businesses?

[Stephen Gethins]

I have to say I am a bit struck by that, when the Government are bringing in their cuts to the disabled, which will push more children in Scotland into poverty. That is a Westminster policy driving Scottish child poverty, at the same time that we have UN reports talking about the benefits of the Scottish child payment. If that policy was brought in across the UK, it would take tens of thousands of children, including those in the hon. Lady’s constituency, out of poverty. We know that that would happen. I am glad that that was the final point, because it talks to me of the paucity of ambition we have seen from the Labour party, which I find disappointing and which will drive more children into poverty through cuts to the disabled. If it simply replicated what we did in Scotland with the Scottish child payment, there could be benefits throughout the United Kingdom.

I look at the countries around us that have taken a more positive approach to European integration and to working with other countries—look at Ireland and the benefits that it has had from independence and European integration. Where under previous Governments we saw unfairness, we now see that gap being reduced, because of their wide range of powers—a country that previously suffered from emigration is now benefiting from immigration. That is ambition. Those are the benefits that these things can bring, and they are right on our doorstep.

That point talks to me about the conversation around this issue. Can we please pull the poison out of the migration debate? Nobody is talking about uncontrolled migration, and we obviously need to distinguish between migration and refugees. Maybe, on the eve of his funeral, we can reflect on Pope Francis’s compassion for the most vulnerable in society. We would all do well to reflect on that, especially on the heartbreaking conversations I have had around those people desperate enough to get into small boats and try to cross the channel.

I will talk about the Scottish Trades Union Congress; Members might do well to listen to it. The First Minister is right to highlight both the negative effect of pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment and the need for a separate Scottish approach. The STUC supports additional powers on migration for the Scottish Parliament. If Government Members will not listen to us, to Reform Scotland, the care sector or the higher education sector, maybe they will listen to the Trades Union Congress instead.

The First Minister was right to push back on the hard right and on how we conduct ourselves in office. We must challenge Reform, and I am deeply disappointed that its Members are not here today, because I have been reasonably generous in taking interventions from Members of different parties. I wish they were here so that we could push back on the rhetoric that, I am sorry to say, too many in this House too often lean into.

This idea was initially proposed by Michael Gove to offset Brexit. That is the idea we got from him. Brexit left us poorer, with fewer rights and more isolated, and it left young people with fewer opportunities. It hit public finances and our rights, and it left the UK isolated and vulnerable—more isolated than at any other time since the second world war.

I am an internationalist; I want to see countries pooling and sharing sovereignty. I want to see a European Union that provides a model in the modern age, a European Union that—[Interruption.] This is the thing that Labour—like the Tories and Reform—leans into: this sense of British exceptionalism. They lean into the sense that this is the only Union out there, but that exceptionalism is so small in its outlook. That is how I would describe it: small, isolated and lonely.

I want to see us rejoin the European Union. Ireland and England have never had a better relationship in their history than they do now. Our relationship is one of partnership, of equals, and of previously being within the Union that built that. Labour was elected on a small minority. I say to Labour Members that it is time to listen. This Bill is imperfect; I can see that. It will not be for everybody, but let us approve it in principle, let us get it through, and then let us work together on a commitment that has been made by our party and the Scottish Labour party. I am deeply grateful for the time you have given me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Quigley]

That is a bit of a reach.

How will the Scottish Government manage border security between England and Scotland? How will they ensure consistency with UK immigration policy? How will they safeguard against misuse or confusion about legal status? These questions remain unanswered, and regrettably this Bill would create far more uncertainty than solutions.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Scottish National party’s own Minister for independence has let the cat out of the bag and said that border checks were expected to be a “hard reality” in the future? Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill, in its one sentence, is the Trojan horse that will bring forward that hard reality?

[Mr Quigley]

I was not aware of that, but I think that this one-sentence Bill is probably the SNP’s hard border to getting any further.

Above all, the most pressing question is this. Before those in the SNP ask for more powers, why not first demonstrate that they can effectively use the powers they already have? Before reaching for immigration levers—hon. Members can all finish this line for me—fix the ferries. Before seeking new authority, show that they can deliver on their current responsibilities. Whether we are talking about those in the Outer Hebrides, the Isle of Wight, or any of the countless communities that feel overlooked and underserved, the people across Scotland deserve far better than what they have received so far. They deserve competent leadership, not constant excuses. They deserve joined-up policies that work, not duplications and distractions. They deserve public services that are strong and reliable, not stretched to the brink. Above all, they deserve Governments at every level that are honest about what they can deliver and accountable when they do not.

This Bill may be wrapped in the language of empowerment, but in reality it risks becoming just another example of symbolism over substance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the point clearly and powerfully. As he has highlighted, there are other areas that the Bill would affect; it is not simply about setting a new immigration policy. There are a raft of contradictions that could play out in the mechanics behind it, making life very chaotic. I will address that point in more detail later.

When I was honoured to serve as an Immigration Minister in Her late Majesty’s Government, we had a lot of discussions across the nations of the UK. I sometimes felt that I was the Minister sent to the remotest parts of the UK; I made a lot of interesting visits to ports. Although the links between Stranraer or Cairnryan in Scotland and Larne in Northern Ireland were intra-UK, we had a very big challenge with illegal immigrants moving between them. The role of the UK immigration service—now Border Force—was to ensure that that was managed. Having a border at Scotland, with a different agency dealing with things, would mean an awful lot of cross-collaboration. It would make things clunky and very complicated.

For some time after the Labour Government left office—it became a problem for the Conservative party in government—people would get on a coach at London Victoria station and go to the Republic of Ireland, sometimes to claim benefits. There was benefit fraud, there were immigration issues and increasingly there were issues around drugs crime, which I know has been a problem for colleagues in Northern Ireland. People on the coach would get a text message telling them whether there were more immigration officers and police at Stranraer or at Cairnryan, so they would get off at the one at which the fewest checks were taking place on the day. It was a very well-worn route. At the time, the route was managed by the police and Border Force—this was before Police Scotland was set up—but it was a very thinly stretched team. It was intelligence-led by a UK-wide service, with support from the local force in Scotland.

[Deirdre Costigan]

My hon. Friend is describing in helpful detail what the Bill might lead to, with the mechanics of setting up an entirely new immigration system in Scotland. Given the issues with the performance of the Scottish National party that we have heard about, does she think it would be better for it to spend the record investment settlement that this Labour Government have given to Scotland on its broken education system, on building some housing and on helping young people into jobs?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend is right to again highlight the failures of the Scottish Government, which is one of the reasons that people are not staying. We know that this is a challenge, and not just in Scotland. Areas of England have also been left behind and have challenges in keeping their young populations. A lot of work is being done in places such as west Cumbria, where people who left for university outside the area tended not to come back. An awful lot of work has been done there to try to hold on to those young people, so that they bring their families up there and the younger population in those communities does not reduce. There are examples where this work is being done well, and there are examples where it is still early days, but we need to acknowledge the problem. We cannot gloss over it by saying that a new immigration policy will solve everything.

The Migration Advisory Committee has been raised a number of times. It is worth sharing one of the moments in the Home Office that was a screw-up. One of the challenges is that the Home Office is a Department of many parts, and a panic came across my desk that there was a sudden rash of marriages between Ukrainian women—this was a long time before the tragic war in Ukraine and the illegal invasion by Putin—and Scottish men. It triggered a bit of the Home Office to wonder whether fraud was going on. There were examples of newspapers advertising for brides from other countries, so it was not a frivolous concern of the Home Office.

It turned out that the Migration Advisory Committee had listened to colleagues in Scotland and acted on what they were saying. There was a severe shortage of fish filleters on the west coast of Scotland, so the Migration Advisory Committee had put it on the shortage occupation list for Scotland. It turns out that one of the many skills that Ukrainian women have is that many of them are very good fish filleters, so the word went round and they came and helped the Scottish economy. Obviously it ended up with a number of them settling and marrying Scottish men. [Interruption.] I fear I may choke from an hon. Friend’s seated intervention; I am a happily married woman. It is not a concern for me to look to our Scottish colleagues and see what the best of the pickings are. [Laughter.]