Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Friday 25th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. I was going to come to that, but it is good to look at that now. There are reasons for that, although I am not entirely clear about them; the Committee did not get to the heart of that in its analysis. We live in a United Kingdom and have a massive mega-city, London, so there is always the allure for young Scots to come down to London. I did it myself, and I am pretty certain that the Secretary of State spent a good part of his young life in London. Most Scots at some point find themselves living in London. But it is worse than that for Scotland, because we have a centuries-old historical culture and tradition of emigration. Immigration has not really been that big an issue for us. We obviously benefit from it, but the key feature in the history of Scotland and this debate is emigration. As everybody knows, there are Scots communities all around the world, from Canada and New Zealand to the United States, and they have always acted as a draw for our young people. Not so much now, but previously, young Scots settled abroad, so we got into this cultural trend of people leaving Scotland. We have to address that.

One other thing that the Scottish Affairs Committee looked at but did not come to any great conclusion about was deindustrialisation and its impact on encouraging people to emigrate. We obviously have deindustrialisation in Scotland, and we need only look at some of our major cities, and at the difficulties and features of life in those cities, to see why people would leave. We are wrestling with problems that successive UK Governments have bequeathed Scotland, whether through Brexit policy or the two-child benefit cap, mixed with the historical attitude to emigration and deindustrialisation. Those are the things that my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry and his modest Bill invite us to address.

My hon. Friend has not got the solution in the Bill; he said that, and that it is an open Bill. I am quite surprised that the Secretary of State does not understand how Committee works for private Members’ Bills. My hon. Friend is giving an invitation to the House. I am laying out the difficulties and issues that we have identified—I will get on to demography in Scotland in a minute; hon. Members should wait till they hear about that—and my hon. Friend is saying, “Help us.” Let us work together. We have a real problem in Scotland. There are some fantastic contributions to be made, with real in-depth analysis by people who understand how to look at critical questions and come up with solutions. Help us deal with this, so that we can address the range of issues that we have. Believe me, if we do not start to address them, we will be in really serious trouble.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have been listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman. We see from other countries that there are ways of dealing with the issue without having full devolution, for many of the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) laid out. As was highlighted earlier, the Home Secretary made the Scottish Government an offer to work with the Migration Advisory Committee on solutions. Full devolution would be expensive and time consuming, and it would not deliver.

[Pete Wishart]

This is helpful, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry was hoping for such positive contributions. I am very much aware of the work that the Migration Advisory Committee does, and I commend it for that, but its list of occupations required in Scotland is not nearly enough—it does not even touch the sides of our difficulties. If the hon. Lady has some thoughts on how that could be beefed up and made more effective and useful, we are all ears—come and serve on the Committee and help us. We need positive solutions to identified problems. That is the territory we want to get into.

We have long-term population decline in Scotland. When I started to engage in this debate in the early 2000s, there was a real fear that, for the first time since the 19th century, Scotland’s population would drop below the iconic 5 million mark. That was only reversed because of the imagination of the previous Labour Government and their generosity when it came to immigration policy—something that the current Government would never even think about. The vision of Tony Blair about how Europe would work and how the single market would develop helped Scotland to address some of the issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

We are concerned about the higher education system in Scotland at the moment, and this Government will do everything it can to support it. Let us work through that particular point, because it is important. The main driver for Scottish universities being in the place they are is the funding model they have been forced into having. It caps Scottish students going to university. That means the universities are completely and utterly underfunded, so their business model has had to reach into international waters to bring in much greater numbers of international students to balance the books. That model is completely broken if those international students decrease in number for a whole host of economic and other reasons. We end up in a situation whereby the whole financial issue is completely and utterly broken. To show the sums of money we are talking about, Edinburgh University is not in deficit—and it is important to say that—but it will be if it does not take action, and the deficit will be £140 million. That is a direct result of the Scottish Government’s funding of higher education.

Beyond that, the Migration Advisory Committee has also noted that the scale of migration needed to try to address depopulation would be significant, but that Scotland’s labour market needs are broadly similar to those elsewhere in the UK. The committee has highlighted in its work notable similarities and differences within nations and regions of the UK, and its ambition is to produce an analysis that is localised, but as rigorous as possible. We look forward to seeing that. However, the committee’s geographic focus has at times been limited by the reliability or availability of regional data. It will work with stakeholders to improve the geographical migration data they use, with a view to enabling greater improvement in localised insights.

Beyond this Bill, the proposals of the party of the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry in recent years include an expanded skilled worker visa for Scotland, a bespoke Scottish visa, a Scottish graduate visa and a remote rural partnership scheme. In relation to a Scottish rural visa pilot, the Migration Advisory Committee has noted that both Australia and Canada have place-based immigration programmes, but it is suggested that these schemes may not be a long-term solution to rural depopulation. We heard from the former Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, that depopulation in Scotland has been a century long and therefore any scheme will not be a long-term solution to that kind of rural depopulation.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My right hon. Friend is making an interesting point about the challenges facing rural areas where there are shortages of people. Denmark has a rota system for doctors going into rural areas for a few months at a time, because it, like Scotland and parts of England, have these challenges. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that having a separate immigration policy for Scotland is not the answer and that this issue is being grappled with across the world?

[Ian Murray]

Absolutely, and the biggest grappling that we have to do as a Government and a country is resolve the disconnect between immigration, skills, opportunities for young people and the way in which our economy works across every single part of the United Kingdom.

One of the Migration Advisory Committee’s key concerns about some of these schemes is the efficiency of any rural visa, primarily the ability to incentivise migrants to remain located in rural areas after any visa requirements to do so lapse, especially given that the UK is a geographically much smaller country than Australia or Canada—and I mentioned the issue with regard to Quebec. Migrants moving to rural areas would be subject to the same factors driving non-migrant populations to relocate, such as inadequate health services, which is right at the top of the agenda in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The hon. Gentleman skirted over the question of the cost of doing this. The burden is not the individuals, but there is a huge cost to the UK Home Office of delivering the system and helping people through it—everything from detention centres at airports and elsewhere, to the processing of the claims, the greeting and receiving of people when they sadly arrive on boats and by other routes, and the management of the borders. All those things are costs, and that is a burden to the taxpayer—it is a fact of life that it does cost the taxpayer. I am wondering where the hon. Gentleman thinks the money will come from and what they are going to cut in Scotland to fund this.

[Brendan O’Hara]

As long as we are, unfortunately, part of the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom Government will have a responsibility and a role to play. We should be allowing asylum seekers to work and contribute to the economy, because the current system is a complete nonsense. We should also be looking very closely at how we treat these vulnerable individuals. I do not think we should be taking any lectures from the previous Government or this Government on how we treat the most vulnerable people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) on bringing forward this Bill. It takes me back to the halcyon days when I served as an immigration Minister. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak about that experience and explain why I therefore disagree with the premise of his Bill.

There were things the hon. Gentleman said that we might find agreement on. He says that migration is a good thing. I would add that, yes, it is, but it needs to be controlled and it needs to be where there is need. I recognise that there is certainly need in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. We need to make sure that any immigration policy that we support and any changes that the Government introduce are led by those principles.

The hon. Gentleman talked about pooling and sharing sovereignty. We are in a United Kingdom, and I agree that being part of the United Kingdom is the right thing. That is why I am a Unionist at heart. I am proud to have served in what was then Her Majesty’s Government as a Home Office Minister, working on a number of issues that covered the entirety of the UK.

The hon. Gentleman spoke at length about young people. We know that the demographics of Scotland are a particular challenge, but as the Secretary of State and others highlighted, the Scottish Government’s record on young people is woeful, with one in six not in education, employment or training. It is a scandalous level of disregard for the future of the whole UK but in particular Scotland, where young people are the lifeblood of the future of economic development and can help us ensure that we do not have to deal with the issues that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have highlighted today.

It is shocking that the demographics of Scotland are as they are, and I compare this with England. I represent a constituency where our demographics are changing, and around one in five young people are now under the age of 16. We are investing in those young people. As I say when I go into schools, “You are the future of our country. You need to get good jobs and do well. You will be paying the pensions of older people. You will be caring for people and running the country. We need you.”

We believe in investing in our young people, and it is a shocker that the Scottish Government have sleepwalked into letting young people fail so badly. There is such talent among young people in Scotland, and they have been sorely let down. They should be the lifeblood of the country, and the Scottish Government should be doing more to support them.

A number of Members have mentioned the Migration Advisory Committee. I will go on to speak about it in more detail, but the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary have indicated very clearly their willingness to engage rather undermines the hon. Gentleman’s argument for the need for the Bill in the first place. The Migration Advisory Committee has a role to cover the needs of migration across the country—that is, the whole of the UK, including Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned fresh talent. He talked about examples where the Scottish Government worked very closely with the Home Office. The Secretary of State highlighted an example, too—the Afghan women medical students. That is an example of how we can work together in the interests of the UK and Scotland. We are doing that already, so what on earth is the reason to have a separate Bill on migration?

I want to touch on the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) in his excellent speech. He spoke from a place of real knowledge about the challenges for island communities, including ferries. I have very fond memories of spending time in the Isle of Wight as child. It is smaller, but the challenges are very similar. I feel his pain in relation to the ferries. I could repeat what he said about the failure of the SNP Government on ferries, but given the many things I need to talk about in the next half an hour or so, I will just say that he highlighted that very clearly. He also laid out clearly some of the challenges and burdens of a separate system of immigration. It is not a cost-free option. It is costly to the taxpayer, duplicative and confusing for businesses. He also debunked the myths of a virtual border—something we heard rather too much about during Brexit.

On the basis of the SNP’s track record, any future Labour Government in Scotland, which we all hope to see in 2026, will have a lot on their plate. I do not think that dealing with immigration is anywhere near the top of the agenda, because a Scottish Labour Government would see very clearly the benefits of working across the United Kingdom, between Whitehall and Edinburgh, to make sure we all delivered for all our communities. Certainly, setting up a new system would not be a priority. It was a bit disingenuous of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) to suggest that we were conceding victory to the SNP next year. It is precisely because of the SNP Government’s mess that we need to win next year and it is precisely because of their mess that the idea of a new immigration policy as a priority, when they have failed in so many other respects, is not something we should entertain.

I want to move on to my more detailed remarks. As I have said, I am very pleased to speak in the debate because I believe in devolution. I am a passionate believer in devolving power to the most appropriate level, to competent bodies. I served as a councillor in Islington in the days when we were devolving things to neighbourhoods. For my younger colleagues, this was in the days before the internet—those days did exist. We wanted services to be within pram-pushing distance and decisions devolved to the communities best placed to make them. I had the honour of serving in the Government of Gordon Brown as an immigration Minister for three years, spending a lot of time travelling across the UK to look at the issues. I will touch on that in relation to Scotland in a moment. I both debated the issue and followed it since in the UK generally, and specifically in Scotland.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) highlighted the recruitment issues and the workload crisis, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) so eloquently put it, as is his wont, attracting people somewhere is not down to immigration policies. Immigration is one element, but as the academic Richard Florida highlights, people will go to places where there is good education, a good cultural offer, excellent transport links and a tolerant community. We can all learn about how we can make our own constituencies attractive.

Of course, we do not have problems attracting people Hackney South and Shoreditch, except on the knotty issue of the cost of housing, which is another very important factor to attract people. Given all the challenges of covid, many people moved from expensive areas like mine, where a typical two-bedroom flat is £750,000 and rents are through the roof, to areas where they could get cheaper housing, because they had the opportunity to work from home and good broadband. I therefore suggest to the SNP Government in Scotland that they think about broadband speed, and sweetening the offer on housing to attract younger people to live and work in Scotland. They should make sure that their schools, health service and so on are delivering to attract them to what is a beautiful country with much to offer. But why is it that people are not staying? That is a failure of the SNP Government and we need to be absolutely clear about that.

As I have said, I started my career devolving services to the most appropriate level, in Islington—a borough of that size! It started as 24 neighbourhoods, but we reduced down to 12, because we had to take account of costs and so on. I pay tribute to Councillor Maurice Barnes, who proposed that approach to delivering services to make sure that they were really embedded in the community. In 1998, when the Labour Government came in having promised devolution, we saw under Donald Dewar the new dawn of a devolved Scotland. The giants who led on that devolution proposal should be respected for what they delivered. Devolution in Scotland was a breakthrough, and it is something I support, but if we are going to devolve power, we also need to make sure that the authority is competent to deal with those devolved powers. The electorate in Scotland, of course, will have their say on that in 2026.

Today, we have not heard much of the nitty-gritty of exactly what the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry is proposing, so it might be worth pausing for a moment to remind ourselves of what this one-line Bill looks to be suggesting. The Scottish Parliament is governed by the Scotland Act 1998, and the devolution settlement in Scotland operates on what is known as a reserved powers model, of which a lot of our Scottish colleagues will be fully aware. Schedule 5 to that Act lists the powers that remain reserved—that is, which are the responsibility of the UK Parliament. Generally speaking, anything not listed in schedule 5 is devolved by default to the Scottish Parliament. Under paragraph B6 of part II of schedule 5, immigration and nationality is a reserved matter. Modifications to the list of reserved matters can be made in two ways: by an Order in Council under section 30(2) of the Act, or via primary legislation. The hon. Gentleman is proposing primary legislation, but with one line, no proper detail and no working up. We would be walking, ridiculously and recklessly, into the unknown if we were to adopt the Bill that is before us today.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

As a fan of the England cricket team, I am used to having a belief that something that is slightly rubbish will be able to achieve a lot more, but that is dwarfed by the belief of the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) that 17 words will solve all the problems with the Scottish Government that have been listed. Perhaps my hon. Friend could say a bit more about some of the work that needs to go into solving those knotty problems.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I plan to do so later in my speech, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Modifications under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 —that is, Orders in Council—require Scottish, as well as UK, parliamentary approval. However, modifications via primary legislation only require approval from both Houses of the UK Parliament. By taking this approach, the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry is saying that this is a matter entirely for this Parliament—this House and the other place—cutting out his colleagues in Holyrood. That is an interesting take on events, given that we already have a good relationship between Holyrood and Whitehall on many of the issues we are discussing today.

The most significant and long-term changes to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament have been made by Acts of Parliament, rather than Orders in Council. That is also interesting; we could have a long discussion about that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I suspect that I would be trying your patience if I started discussing the constitutional settlement for Scotland, so I will resist that temptation. However, the Scotland Acts 2012 and 2016 implemented recommendations made by the Calman commission and the Smith commission respectively, so there has been change along the way. Devolution was never intended to be a static thing; it was intended to reward the competencies, skills and needs of our devolved bodies, but those bodies need to play properly and professionally, not engage in cheap political gimmicks. I enormously respect the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, but the flimsiness of this Bill suggests that it has not been properly thought through.

If the Bill were to omit some or all of paragraph B6 of part II of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, it would transfer responsibilities for those matters to the Scottish Parliament. There is a really big issue here, which is why I believe we should not adopt the Bill. We have seen how the different tax rates in Scotland can create challenges, for example with how the armed forces are paid. The Ministry of Defence has a formula for different branches of the armed forces, so someone on a tour in Scotland is paid more to take account of the tax rate. We cannot have two members of our armed forces personnel doing the same job with the same title but earning differently. They are UK armed forces.

[Graham Leadbitter]

Will the hon. Member concede that the current situation in that regard is unacceptable? There are many thousands of personnel working in my constituency who now pay less tax in Scotland; if they get transferred to a base in England they pay more tax, but there is no mechanism in the other direction. It is completely discriminatory against the people of Scotland.

[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.

[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.]

[Seamus Logan]

This might be an opportunity for the hon. Member to catch her breath. She is making a number of claims about Ukrainian women and Scottish people, but I want to go back to something she said earlier about Stranraer and Cairnryan, which is a place I am familiar with as an Irish person and a guide. I just wanted to correct the record: Stranraer port closed many, many years ago. The example that you gave is completely impossible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Members should not use “you”. The hon. Member was told off twice earlier for using it, and he came and apologised to the Chair. I would not have mentioned it, were I not being accurate in making clear for the record that he had been inappropriate with his language.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Unbelievable as it may seem to the hon. Gentleman, I was a Minister between 2007 and 2010. I was a child Minister, of course. [Laughter.] I can understand his confusion, but that was the case at the time, and it continued for some while, because I then dealt with the local Member of Parliament—by then I was in opposition—about the challenges of that particular route. As he will know, the route from Scotland to Larne is the shortest route that can be taken, so people would make that journey. I have done that journey and driven along the long and winding single-track route to get there. It is not somewhere to get stuck behind a lorry, for sure.

I was really demonstrating the point about the challenges of having multiple agencies. It is difficult enough with one Government, frankly. I spent over a decade on the Public Accounts Committee, looking at the problems of Whitehall, and even within one Government things do not always go smoothly as different agencies interact. To add an extra layer of complication seems to me something we would not want to see.

The police at that time were overstretched, and moving to Police Scotland did not help. That is not a criticism of that policy, although I know colleagues have strong feelings about that, but it did not mean there were suddenly, magically, more police officers who could be deployed differently because of the challenges in that area.

[Ms Billington]

SNP Members talk about a period before Brexit that was ideal, and yet their proposal for this immigration system would increase the complexity at the border, including by creating a land border, despite the complexities of dealing with the island borders that we already have.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Indeed. My hon. Friend was not an MP when we were discussing Brexit, but oh my word, there was a lack of thought about the issues with the land border prior to that. Madam Deputy Speaker, you may recall that when the former Prime Minister, now Baroness May, was proposing her Brexit deal, only 17% of Members of Parliament had been Members of Parliament when the Northern Ireland agreement was signed, so there was a distinct lack of understanding in this place. We all expect and hope that Members will read into these issues, but often that got missed, and there was a distinct lack of understanding about the border. We do not want to go down that route again.

[Amanda Martin]

As well as the concerns around Brexit, there is the Gibraltar-Spain border, which we are still in the process of dealing with, despite the previous Government.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Absolutely. A lot of tripe was talked at the time about having virtual borders. Even with some of the tensions between Scotland and the UK, which were evident in what SNP Members said earlier, we are not, I hope, at the point where we would have watchtowers and border guards with guns, but once we have a border, that is a risk.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

Of course, there has previously been a border between England and Scotland: Hadrian’s wall was built between 122 and 138 in the Christian era, and the Antonine wall was built between 140 and 150. There is a history of borders—and I do not think any of us were there at the time—but none of us in this House wants to see a return to that, do we?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, there is another leader in this world who has talked about building a wall.

[Pete Wishart]

I have a lot of time and respect for the hon. Lady, and she has contributed so much to the work of this House, but she has been simply absurd in some of her proclamations in the last few minutes. All we are asking for is the opportunity to address some of our workforce issues, because we have a real crisis in Scotland. We have a distinct and separate tax code in Scotland. There would be a requirement that a person coming here would live and work in Scotland, which could be easily assessed and monitored because of our individual tax code. It is straightforward and simple. Watchtowers and border guards? Come on! The hon. Lady is 10 times better than that.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

If the cap fits, maybe the hon. Gentleman should consider his position. I am not suggesting for a minute that we would see border guards and towers, but once there is a land border there is a risk. We have seen in other parts of the world and among allies of ours more recently quite intemperate discussion about borders, walls and security. We would not want to go down that route.

[Stephen Gethins]

I have the same respect for the hon. Member and her service, and she usually talks an awful lot of sense, but right now she is speaking of the isolationism that I would expect to hear from the Conservative or Reform Benches. Borders have been taken down in the single market and the customs union. In Northern Ireland, they have not needed a border. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) was quite right. I ask her to temper her language and talk about this sensibly. She speaks about the disaster of Brexit.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is important that we have debate in this place. People have made points to me and I am simply responding to those points. As I said, I am not suggesting that we would want, or would see, watchtowers with armed guards, and in my area of the country we had the second-largest anti-Brexit vote, so I know where I and my constituents stand on that issue. However, we do not want to add extra borders where we do not need to.

[Sean Woodcock]

We all benefit from my hon. Friend’s long experience in the House. She was around during the discussions after the referendum in 2016. Does she recall that a Division on remaining in the customs union was lost by six votes when all 48 SNP MPs abstained?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend makes the point.

[Peter Lamb]

The issue is not necessarily about having a border between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland; a border has in effect been put in the Irish sea by the Windsor framework. However, the SNP appears to be calling for a border between Scotland and England, without Scotland re-entering the European Union, leaving Scotland completely isolated. SNP Members talk about the UK’s delusions of grandeur—about us sitting on a few small islands and considering ourselves great—but they want to restrict the lives of Scots to only a part of that island.

[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.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

I am particularly concerned about the idea of tying everything to a certain tax code. Anyone who has dealt with modern slavery knows that the more a visa is tied to a place or employer, the fewer rights the person with the visa has, and the more likely they are to be exploited. The tax code example has a whole load of unintended consequences, none of which are considered in the 17-word Bill.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend took the words out of my mouth; he says it better than I could. Let me turn for a moment to what the SNP-led Scottish Government wish to deliver. In 2020—I think this was referred to—they published a paper arguing for some devolution of immigration policy to Scotland. I remember well before then, when I was a Minister, having discussions about that and—I would not normally be so crass—slapping down the idea that there could be a separate immigration policy for Scotland. The paper argued that Scotland was more reliant on migration than other parts of the UK, and noted that the population of Scotland would be falling if it were not for migration from the rest of the UK and overseas. An Opposition day debate on a motion condemning the UK Government’s response to that paper took place on 11 February 2020.

At the time, Brexit was widely expected, and the Scottish Government’s expert advisory group discussed a possible fall in net migration to Scotland of between 30% and 50%, but so far the opposite has happened, as it has in the rest of the UK. Net international migration to Scotland in 2022-23 was an estimated 48,000, according to the most recent figures from National Records of Scotland. That is about four times the pre-pandemic average of 12,000. In January 2025, the Scottish Government said that the recent increase in net migration to Scotland could be largely explained by international students, but might not be sustained when restrictions introduced by the last Government feed through. There is an important point there about the education system. We have seen the Scottish Government introduce free tuition. That sounds like an absolutely wonderful policy, and a lot of people lobby for it, but the reality is that it squeezes the funding of our higher education institutions, so that they have no option but to find overseas students who will pay more. We have seen an element of that in England, but the problem is exacerbated in Scotland because of the proposals of the Scottish Government.

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Lady must be horrified by the Scottish Labour party and its backing of free tuition.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I have absolute confidence and faith that my Scottish Labour colleagues will have done the maths, will know where the money will come from, and will have looked at the matter in the round, and will be more willing to work with Whitehall on these issues. We will no doubt discuss with the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Home Secretary and others in Government, as necessary, how they will ensure that everything matches up, because that is right. Scottish Labour will invest in young people—something that the SNP has a woeful record on. That investment includes putting people through the right skilled routes, so that we have the skills that are needed in Scotland.

My point is that under the SNP, the Scottish Government have this immigration policy that they have promoted hard, but they have never dealt with its consequences. A new Government—a new broom coming in next May in Scotland—who understand these issues, are able and willing to get their head around how to tackle them, and are willing to work with Government in Whitehall, will deliver for the young people of Scotland and for the Scottish economy.

[Sean Woodcock]

If this Bill passed, does my hon. Friend imagine that the talk of making it harder for people to get between England and Scotland would have a beneficial or negative impact on growth prospects in Scotland? Does she imagine that there would be an impact on investment in public services in Scotland?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

That is exactly the point. The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry puts great faith in Committee stages. I have been here a long time, and they are not always as good as people say that they will be. Even if there was a Committee stage, there are so many other elements. That is one of the challenges with a Bill that is simply one line long. There are issues and knock-on effects for not just the Home Office, but all the other cross-UK institutions. I spent more than a decade on the Public Accounts Committee, and I know that if we pull a lever somewhere in Whitehall, unintended consequences flow into places we would never have thought of. The skill in government is to try to work that out, and a Bill like this would not deliver that necessary joined-up approach.

[Ms Billington]

I am struck particularly by what my hon. Friend says about the impact being felt elsewhere in Whitehall when a lever is moved. I give the example of a friend of mine, who was a doctor working in a depopulated part of Cumbria for part of the month and in Orkney for another part of the month. How would we organise the visa that enabled her to serve the population in Orkney? Would she need a visa to operate in west Cumbria or, indeed, in both places? Those problems that cannot be solved by a one-line Bill. We need to be serious about the fact that we need an overall immigration policy, rather than one entirely designed by and for Scotland.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. I absolutely take what the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry highlighted. As I said, there are really challenging issues with the demographics in the Scottish population. We all need to put our shoulder to the wheel to deal with those things, rather than saying, “If only the SNP Scottish Government were in charge of immigration, it would all be fine.” This Bill is a gimmick, and the hon. Gentleman knows that it will not work.

I will touch on the higher education figures. In the last two years, we have seen the number of home Scottish students drop. In 2021-22, the figure was just over 183,000, and it has dropped to just shy of 174,000. The number of non-UK students has gone down in the past couple of years, but it is nevertheless a significant number at 73,915. The Government are not against foreign students coming here—that is important—but we need to strike a balance, so that there are enough places for the young people in Scotland and across the UK who want to attend Scottish universities, and who are perhaps being squeezed out by the imbalance and the cost of going.

[Adam Thompson]

My hon. Friend talks eloquently about how students would be affected if the Bill were passed. It is also important that academic staff can move fluidly between institutions, but that movement should be managed nationally, not locally or regionally. Does she agree?

[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.

[Mr Quigley]

rose—

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Or an Isle of Wight visa! I give way.

[Mr Quigley]

An Isle of Wight visa indeed. My hon. Friend is being generous with her time. Does she agree that this very short, 17-word Bill clearly creates more problems than it will solve?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I hope that I am beginning to explain how some of these interactions—[Laughter.] I am only just beginning. [Hon. Members: “More!”] I fear I might be cut off, which is a great shame, because I had really looked forward to going into this in more detail.

If the person completed undergraduate and postgraduate in Scotland, they would qualify for permanent residence simply by having been in the country. We might want to support that, but we ought to debate, it rather than sleepwalking into the challenges of having two systems set up for different purposes. That would be confusing for the individual and for the businesses employing them, as they might not know whether visas were needed. It would be very complicated.

On the tax code, I have spent quite a lot of time considering how our tax system works, and every time a Chancellor of any party stands up at the Dispatch Box to announce something, it adds complexity to the tax system, which can be very confusing for people.

One of the last things that we wanted to do in the previous Labour Government, but which was too complicated to deliver in time, was codify all immigration law into one Bill—but, boy, was that a big task. It is the sort of thing that a Government would need to start at the beginning of a 15-year Government. Perhaps I should suggest it to the Home Secretary, because I am sure that this Government have the prospect of seeing it through. People come to my constituency surgery—and to those of many other Members, I am sure—to ask for information about their immigration status. They could not possibly work through the system on their own without professional advice, which is costly. That is discriminatory, really. They find it very difficult. The more complication we add, the harder it will be.

[Peter Lamb]

My hon. Friend, by talking about the minutiae, is doing a fantastic job of showing the vast complexity of one aspect of the SNP trying to cut off the connection between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Does she accept that this is an existential problem for the SNP? Every time they make an argument about the damage caused by losing the integration with the European Union, the infinitely greater combination of interactions between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom shows that this would be infinitely more damaging to the lives of Scots. This Bill is a fantastic example—