Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Friday 25th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins]

I am glad to respond to that. I was deputy director of our Remain campaign, and I was delighted when not only did every part of Scotland vote overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, but every local authority area voted to remain in the EU—even those that had voted against joining the EU.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you give guidance on whether re-running the Brexit debate from 10 years ago is in any way linked to a single clause of this Bill from the Scottish National party?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

That is not a point of order. The Bill has a broad scope, so it does allow for some broadness in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins]

I am glad the hon. Member is proud of the opportunities he will be denying young people by going ahead with Labour’s plans. I found that debate yesterday slightly frustrating. My hon. Friends will have sat through similar debates in which Labour Member after Labour Member—in fairness, there are a number of them; they won the election, after all—talk about how dreadful Brexit was and the damage it did to our young people, universities, small and medium-sized enterprises, and security, and to Britain’s place in the world. But what are the Government doing about it? Nothing. They are embracing the hardest of hard Brexits. They could rejoin the customs union and reintroduce freedoms, to bring benefits to citizens the length and breadth of the UK.

[Gareth Snell]

I sat on the Opposition Benches, behind SNP Members, during those long, tumultuous days of the Brexit debate, and I remember watching SNP Member after SNP Member game the system to push us towards a no-deal Brexit, in the hope that the Government of the time would abandon the plan. There were Labour Members who argued consistently that we should adopt plans and deals; SNP Members voted against that at every opportunity because their narrow grievance politics was more important than a good deal for this country.

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Member is a born-again Brexiteer, and he has taken on the nonsense of Brexiteers. He should have a look at the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, passed by this House, which banned a no-deal Brexit, which he said he was pushing on. Who was one of the co-authors of that Bill? I was. I worked with Labour colleagues, Liberal Democrat colleagues, Green colleagues and SDLP colleagues to stop the damaging “no deal” that Brexiteers embraced; he has embraced it, and Boris Johnson embraced it.

Let me move on to Scottish Labour; we have heard quite enough nonsense from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) today. I was one of the authors of the Bill that we called the Benn-Burt Act because of the fine work done by those Members—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins]

I know the Isle of Sheppey. I know Kent very well: the kingdom of Kent is a fine county—the garden of England. I know some of the challenges that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises. He is representing his constituents very effectively in doing so and I am grateful to him not just for raising the issue, but the way in which he raises it. Kent is a fine place.

[Gareth Snell]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Gethins]

I am trying to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey. Kent is not Scotland and Scotland is not an island. We have some fine islands, as my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) is keen to reminds us on a regular basis, but they are not the same. To compare the Isle of Sheppey with Scotland is a false comparison. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and he is right to raise it—the value of these kinds of debates is that we can have such exchanges. The reason that I went through what has been said by all the think-tanks, the experts and the sectors—I could have gone on for longer, but I suspect you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would have hauled me up for that—is because there is such a body of evidence in Scotland around the issue. That is why the idea has had such a serious reading from every single party in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Quigley]

The hon. Gentleman is asking us to take a leap of faith. The Bill is one line. If he had the answers to those questions already, the referendum result might well have been different. [Interruption.] Sorry, the Bill is two lines.

The Bill could create uncertainty for employers, particularly in sectors that rely on a flexible and diverse labour market, such as construction, healthcare and agriculture. I have outlined the similarities of my constituency to those of my Scottish colleagues, but were I to suggest that the Isle of Wight had its own immigration laws to help correct our demographics and workforce, they would beg me to talk more about ferries.

[Gareth Snell]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and he makes a pertinent point that there are parts of the United Kingdom outside Scotland that also suffer with demographic challenges. One of those is Stoke-on-Trent. To suggest that Stoke-on-Trent should be able to issue its own visa or have its own immigration policy to solve that is for the birds. Given that the last Government left record high levels of inward migration to this country, does he agree that part of the solution is to think about how we make it more attractive to work in these places, rather than simply rewriting the system for our own benefit?

[Mr Quigley]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. While the Bill clearly seeks to help and support employers in Scotland with workforce issues, consideration must also be given to employers in England that do not want an extra layer of bureaucracy added to their recruitment processes. Moreover, this Bill does not explain how a devolved system would integrate with the existing national framework. It is one thing to talk about devolving powers, but where is the clarity on how the new system would coexist with the broader UK immigration process? Without the answers, we risk creating more confusion than solutions, with businesses, local governments and migrants alike caught in a web of complexity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I did not accuse the hon. Gentleman of being dishonest. Those are his words. Maybe he is reflecting on his own contribution. Let me take that intervention straight on and give the House the actual quote from the deputy leader of the Scottish Labour party, not what Members have determined that she may have said. I will come on to why what she said is really important and completely aligned with UK Government policy. The quote from the deputy leader of the Scottish Labour party was:

“there would be dialogue and discussion but we need to recognise that growing home-grown talent is really important.

At the moment there are no plans for”

A Scottish visa,

“but I think if you have governments taking common-sense approaches”

to skills shortages, as

“an incoming Labour Government would do,”

that helps resolve the problem. That is what she said, and what we are working on.

Let me conclude my remarks with some clarity on the Scotland Act 1998. As I said, if something is in the Scotland Act and is mentioned in schedule 5, it is reserved. If it is not, it is deemed to be devolved. The Bill would devolve immigration to the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament. I make that point strongly at the start because it leads into all the other arguments we have heard from hon. Members from across the House about what the requirement would be at Berwick, on the border between Scotland and England.

[Gareth Snell]

I, too, have read the very short sentence in the Bill, which does not talk just about immigration. It states:

“including asylum and the status and capacity of persons in the United Kingdom who are not British citizens”.

My understanding—I am happy to be corrected—is that if the issue was devolved to the Scottish Government, they could, essentially, grant indefinite leave to remain and all sorts of British citizenship statuses through their powers in Scotland. That could distort the entire immigration system of the United Kingdom.

[Ian Murray]

And the consequence is that we would require checks in both directions. As the Minister for Independence—did my hon. Friend know that the Scottish Government had a Minister for Independence?—clearly said, as we have heard, that a hard border would be required in particular cases. Scottish Ministers, incidentally, have just awarded themselves a £20,000 pay rise—certainly not on the basis of their performance.

It is important to acknowledge the complexities of immigration as a cross-cutting policy area. SNP Members do not want to talk about it as a cross-cutting policy area, because many of the policy areas around immigration are devolved to the Scottish Government. This is not simply about numbers. It covers issues of social cohesion, as we heard this morning, economic stability and public services. Ensuring we have a fair and properly managed immigration system that takes account of those complexities is a priority for this Government. We have made clear that the immigration system we inherited is not working. Indeed, the previous Government, which the shadow Secretary of State served in, said that the immigration system in the UK was broken. Under the previous Government, between 2019 and 2024, net migration almost quadrupled, heavily driven by a big increase in overseas recruitment.

I have the net migration figures here, and they have been a key part of the debate. In 2023, the net migration figure for the United Kingdom was 906,000. If there was a proportionate share of that net migration going to Scotland, then the immigration to Scotland would be somewhere in the region of 80,000 to 85,000. Indeed, it was below 60,000, so a huge number of net migrants who are coming to the UK are not going to Scotland. The big question has to be why. We had a huge tirade from the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry about Brexit and its consequences, but those lower figures are still higher than before the UK left the European Union. The big question has to be asked: why are people not going to Scotland to work and live?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

This UK Labour Government are determined to reset our relationship with the European Union, have a much closer trading relationship and do what is in the UK national interest. The biggest impediment to growth in the economy in Scotland is the SNP Scottish Government, and that has been proven through time.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way once again. He will know, because he was here with me when it happened, that this House came within six votes of coming to a settled position on customs union membership, which I appreciate is no longer the Government’s policy. When they became aware of how close the vote was going to be, 48 Scottish National party Members abstained, so that it would fail and they could pursue their hard Brexit grievance, to try to make sure Brexit failed, because that is what they wanted to put on their party leaflets.

[Ian Murray]

We should not rerun the Brexit debate in this House, but it is worth acknowledging that the Bill is written in a different way from what the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry wants to deliver. He wants to pretend that it will go to Committee, and we will all sit around the campfire with marshmallows and decide on a wonderful way forward, but that is not what the Bill says.

My hon. Friend gets to the heart of the problem, because ultimately this is all to do with the advancement of the Scottish National party’s independence agenda. Nothing else gets them out of bed in the morning. I get out of bed in the morning to try to make sure that everybody in this country, including in my constituency, has better lives and better opportunities. SNP Members get out of bed to push for independence. That is the difference. When the Division bells rang on that occasion—I remember it very well—everybody thought that the vote would be carried. Those SNP Members sat on their hands and the vote was lost by six. All their credibility in trying to push something else through was completely shot at that moment—and do not forget that they also pushed for the 2019 general election at the same time.

I will now canter through page 2 of my speech. It is important for us to work together to ensure positive integration outcomes and improved processes overall. Let me turn to the valuable contribution that workers from overseas make to our economy, our public services and national life throughout the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry has highlighted, the remote parts of Scotland face depopulation issues, and they have for a long time—I talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) about this on a regular basis. Skills shortages also remain across Scotland, as they do in different places across the UK. Indeed, according to the latest population projections from the National Records of Scotland, the factors driving population change are exactly the same across the whole United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

The flippancy with which SNP Members deal with these relevant and serious issues is there for all to see. I hope that a lot of our non-Scottish colleagues who are here today have seen how utterly deplorably they operate in this Chamber and how rude and patronising they are when we are dealing with serious issues for our constituents. Brand Scotland is there to do exactly that: to ensure that we get inward investment into Scotland, to sell Scotland to the world and to have a much more thriving economy for our communities.

[Gareth Snell]

The Secretary of State is being exceedingly generous with his time. SNP Members keep saying, “Don’t talk about the Scottish Government”, but the Bill’s aim is to devolve power from this place to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government, so I think the competence of the Scottish Parliament is in scope. Immigration is neatly and importantly linked to our national security. We have one system, which is an important layer of our national security. The Scottish National party wishes to frack that situation. Has the Secretary of State had any guidance from the Ministry of Defence or the Home Office on the implications of the immigration system changes that SNP Members are attempting to achieve?

[Ian Murray]

We have not yet examined this in any great detail in this debate, but defence and our national security are huge issues. We heard a bit about boat crossings; nobody wants to see those. We want to smash the gangs and stop the crossings. One person crossing by small boat is one too many, because they are putting in danger their life and the lives of others, and that has to stop. There is a huge defence and national security issue here, because the small boats crossings are run by criminal gangs in Europe and on the streets of constituencies all around the country.

The answer to the question my hon. Friend just posed is not in the Bill. This is a short Bill to devolve the whole immigration and asylum system to the Scottish Parliament. The Bill does not actually say what it will do. I have no doubt about the honesty and integrity—and any other word we might pluck out of the sky—of the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, but we cannot take the Bill at face value. He says, “Pop it into Committee and everything will be wonderful,” but we do not know the implications of his Bill. If he wanted to, he could have brought in a Bill that addressed that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

Absolutely, and I hope that my hon. Friend would say that this contribution from the Government Dispatch Box is a very good use of the Government’s time.

[Gareth Snell]

The very best!

[Ian Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend very much—I hope Hansard heard that. I did say that the attractiveness of Scotland as a place to live and work is down to policy delivery, and let me mention one policy in particular.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) on the way in which he opened the debate. I thank him for laying out why it is essential that until Scotland is an independent nation, free to return to the security and stability of the European Union, the very least we need to secure our economic future is a Scottish visa. Such a visa would allow the Scottish Government to bring people to Scotland to work in the parts of the economy in which they are most needed—in tourism, hospitality, care, our fishing industry, or wherever those closest to the problem can identify a need.

You will be delighted to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will not speak for long and will keep to the scope of the Bill. The Secretary of State will know that in my constituency of Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber, and indeed across rural Scotland, we have a large ageing population—a population that is therefore largely non-economically active—and that is utterly unsustainable. There is a demographic crisis coming, because we are suffering from population decline.

The Secretary of State knows that rural Scotland—Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber in particular—desperately needs people. It needs people to come and live, to open a business, to invest, to work, to put down roots, and hopefully to raise a family. Not only does he know that, but previous Secretaries of State have known that. Not only does the Home Secretary know that, but previous Home Secretaries have known that. But because of the anti-immigration hostile environment on the part of the previous Government and, I have to say, the complete moral cowardice on the part of this Government, it is an issue that they will not address. Indeed, it would appear—I hope I am wrong—that the Government are so craven that they will not even allow a vote on the Bill. I hope that I am wrong and that we can divide on the Bill.

This is not a crisis that has just emerged and it has not taken anyone, least of all the Government, by surprise; this has been going on for years. We have talked about it time and again in this place, but for reasons that have nothing to do with Scotland, and indeed that work against Scotland’s best interests, no one in this place seems prepared to address it.

More than five years have passed since February 2020, when I asked the then Tory Scotland Secretary about the introduction of a Scottish work visa. He replied that the Government had

“no plans to devolve immigration. The new system will recognise the needs of all the nations and regions of the UK, including Scotland.”

In September this year I asked the new Labour Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill)—the exact same question, only to be given an almost identical reply. She said:

“I look forward to working with the Home Office and engaging with sectors on ensuring that immigration works for all parts of the UK.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 299.]

So, five years apart, and a new Secretary of State and a new Government, but almost an identical answer. That is not change; that is continuity.

[Gareth Snell]

What the hon. Gentleman is talking about as a potential solution to the demographic problems he faces seems to be much narrower than the total of what the Bill would achieve, should it pass through the House. The Bill is about immigration, including asylum and status. I am sure he has had conversations with the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) about the practicalities of that. The UK has an asylum backlog, although that is getting lower because of work by the Home Office. Under the proposals for a devolved asylum and immigration system, would the Scottish Government take a proportion of that backlog, move those people to Scotland and process those asylum claims as part of an independent system in Scotland, or would he expect the remainder of the UK to keep that burden and share it out? I am genuinely interested in the practicalities of what he is suggesting.

[Brendan O’Hara]

First, I would question the language about asylum seekers being a burden. I think asylum seekers are here in the main for good, honourable and honest reasons. I do not view them as a burden. I believe that the Scottish Government already take care of that, and yes, there will be cross-border co-operation until such time as we can have our own independent asylum policy. But again, I do not see that as being a great barrier that should stop a good idea from being further discussed.

The Government are continuing what the previous Government did and are absolutely oblivious to the needs of rural Scotland. They will not do anything, because essentially it is not politically expedient for them so to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Dare I say it, on the hon. Gentleman’s head be it. It was the Scottish Government who introduced the variation in taxation, which has left a challenge for anybody working in a UK-wide public body or UK-wide company. I repeat that personnel who are doing the same job on the same headline salary are ending up paying different taxes because they are working in different jurisdictions. That has caused a big headache for the Ministry of Defence and has been quite complicated to deliver. That is just one example—we could go into others, but we are here to discuss immigration—of what happens if we heedlessly and recklessly dive into changing something without proper preparation, thoughtful discussion and agreement.

[Gareth Snell]

My hon. Friend is exposing the problem that we were trying to raise this morning and this afternoon, although hopefully not this evening too. Where changes have been made to the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom, it has happened over time, with lots of thoughtful, considered conversations before legislation has finally been passed. What we have today is a Bill with one substantive clause that seeks to make a very large change to the constitutional settlement. We are being asked to trust the Committee process to come up with the specifics. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know the old phrase that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we leave the specifics to the Committee stage, we will end up with legislation that is bad for the United Kingdom and bad for Scotland?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend makes the point well. We could reopen the whole debate about the Windsor framework, the border in the Irish sea and the many challenges to do with that, but I will not try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, we looked a lot at the detail of that, including the costs and the complication.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I give way to a former member of the Committee, who looked at those details, too.

[Gareth Snell]

I remember fondly my time on the Public Accounts Committee under my hon. Friend’s chairmanship. A lot of the time, we were looking at duplication in Government agencies that caused bureaucracy, wasted money, and made things take longer. Under the Bill, there would be wholesale devolution of immigration and asylum policy to the Scottish Government. That would require UK Border Force, which carries out immigration checks for external ports, and customs checks, to be separated into two in Scotland. There would be one version for UK-wide customs checks, and presumably one for external immigration checks. Does she, with her long experience on the Public Accounts Committee, have any insight into how much that would cost, what delays there would be, what sort of additional burdens would be placed on taxpayers in Scotland and the United Kingdom, and what damage that would do to business and travel?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Certainly, it would not be cost-free. It would be a big burden on taxpayers across the UK, whichever tax system they were in. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire talked about using a tax code as a marker of whether people had moved. Has he not heard of working from home, or working on holiday? That is a trend that I have read about. People can be working for an employer in one country but living somewhere else. It can get very messy, and those complications are not dealt with by this one-sentence Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend is right. We have seen the pain and challenges caused by Brexit for academic movement. Knowledge has no boundaries or borders, but there is a danger of the Bill not recognising that.

Let me turn to the Scottish National party’s proposal for a Scottish graduate visa. Overseas students in the UK can get a two-year graduate visa. That is an extension available to those who complete their degree in the UK, allowing them to stay on and work without sponsorship for two years—or three if they are PhD graduates. The SNP Scottish Government have proposed an additional Scottish graduate visa that would be available to those on UK graduate visas. It would allow them to stay for another two years. Applicants would need to have graduated from a Scottish institution—we have already seen an interesting divide on that—to have lived in Scotland for an “appropriate amount of time”, and would have to intend to live and work in Scotland. The visa would be linked to a Scottish tax code, which we have heard a lot about today.

[Gareth Snell]

There is a discussion to be had in this place about how to retain graduates in the UK, so that they can contribute to our economy, but we have a national economy and a national supply chain, particularly in our defence industry, which is so important to Scotland. If, under such a visa, someone could live and work only in Scotland, or must have graduated from a Scottish institution, it would cause a disproportionate split between the rest of the UK and Scotland when it comes to highly skilled and high-value jobs, and there would be a problem in how that knowledge was transferred around the rest of the country.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

As ever, my hon. Friend talks enormous sense. Let us talk through the practicalities of the proposal that I have just outlined. A person graduating from a Scottish university would be able to stay on and work in Scotland without sponsorship for four years in total. To remind the House, that means two years on a UK graduate visa—or three for a PhD—followed by two years on a Scottish graduate visa.