Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Friday 25th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

May I start by giving thanks to you, Mr Speaker, and colleagues who are attending today, and in particular the staff of the House of Commons for their assistance? I think it is fair to acknowledge that today’s debate is slightly unexpected, so I am particularly grateful for all the help that I have received and that your team have provided over the past few days.

It might be unexpected, but this is nevertheless a very timely debate on Scotland’s particular needs. It also comes the day after the election of Scotland’s newest councillor. I want to give a shout-out to Lynda Holton, who won the by-election in Glenrothes last night with, I think, the SNP’s second highest share of the vote ever in the area and Labour’s second or lowest share of the vote ever. I think that speaks to the disappointment felt in recent times and to the notion that sometimes politicians in this place do not adequately address the needs of Scotland or other parts of the United Kingdom.

Before I get to the substance of my speech, I want to be clear about something. Given the nature of the Bill, I will concede that it is not for everyone. It is a short Bill and, to be fair, it is not for everybody; but, to repeat the point that Members made in the Second Reading debate on the assisted dying Bill, we can get into the details later on. I want to be clear: all of us across the Chamber can disagree on a wide range of areas, but I am up for working with colleagues from across the House, particularly Scottish Labour, to amend the Bill, to find some common ground and to meet the commitments that Scottish Labour has already made, which are pertinent and relate to this Bill.

I am glad that we have this valuable time. We do not always get the time to debate areas of particular interest to Scotland. It is ironic that I have been given time to debate something that relates to SNP policy, but also to Labour policy and, to a certain extent, to Liberal Democrat policy—it is unfortunate that the Liberal Democrats have been unable to attend today. This issue has become particularly apparent given the catastrophe visited on our economy and our citizens as a direct consequence of leaving the EU. When I say that, I know that I do not say anything that is particularly controversial.

I remember with fondness my time working closely with the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he was far sighted enough to see the utter catastrophe that would be visited on Scotland and the rest of the UK if we embraced a hard Brexit. I valued the time working with him on that. I have since been a bit surprised that he has subsequently embraced that hard Tory Brexit. I know that things change in politics—we take the circumstances when they change—but I am not entirely sure what has changed for the positive since we left the EU in 2016: the economy has tanked; rights and opportunities have been taken away from our citizens; and we have lost billions—£40 billion a year—to the Exchequer. Those are not just my numbers. On that point, before I mention another Labour figure, I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. He is right to talk about growing the economy. Does he agree that if the Scottish Government had used the powers they actually have to grow the Scottish economy between 2012 and 2023, it would now be £8.5 billion larger and my constituents would be much better off?

[Stephen Gethins]

I am a great admirer of the hon. Lady—she joined me on the Russia sanctions list this week and I pay credit to her for her work for the children of Ukraine—but I am somewhat surprised that, given those growth figures, she has now turned out in favour of independence! We all know what happened when Scotland remained part of the UK and the hit that we took. It is disappointing that Labour has embraced that. I will take a second intervention before I make some progress.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about the epiphany the Secretary of State for Scotland has had in the intervening decade about the merits and de-merits of Brexit. Is it not the case that no matter what this Minister thinks—or what any other Minister thinks in any British Government, Scottish or otherwise—they are not in thrall to the realities of the economy; they are in thrall to voters in middle England?

[Stephen Gethins]

As usual, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

I want to come on to the way in which we discuss and debate migration. Migration is a good thing. It benefits all of us. All of us throughout time have benefited from migration. I have been deeply disappointed by—I am sorry to say, Mr Speaker—the poison that often seeps into our rhetoric whenever we discuss this issue. We need to be honest: nobody is talking about uncontrolled migration and we need a migration policy. I want to talk about some of the industries that have talked to me, in a really sensible way that I think this House should listen to, about how we deal with migration.

I said to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) that I would mention Labour. Analysis by the Labour Mayor of London reckons that Brexit, which this Government have embraced—I do not know what happened to the Secretary of State for Scotland; I consider him a colleague—loses us £40 billion a year. So when the Government are making cuts to the winter fuel allowance and cuts to the disabled, that is all to go and pay for a Brexit that nobody voted for and nobody wants.

While I am talking about people embracing a hard Tory Brexit, I want to refer to a former Member of this place, Michael Gove. Even before the Brexit vote, the architect of Brexit could see the damage that would be caused to Scotland’s economy. What did the architect say?

“If, in the course of the negotiations, the Scottish Parliament wants to play a role in deciding how a visa system could work, much as it works in other parts of the European Economic Area, then that is something we’ll look into.”

He went on to say that

“the numbers who would come in the future would be decided by the Westminster Parliament and the Holyrood Parliament working together.”

That is a commitment made by a Conservative Minister prior to the Brexit referendum. I remember listening to it on Radio Scotland.

I am loath to quote Michael Gove. Frankly, when the history is written of this place hence, there can be few politicians who, along with former Prime Minister Johnson, will have caused as much damage. His legacy will be one of costs and damage economically, as well as in terms of opportunities for our young people. But in that moment of self-reflection, Mr Gove did say that Scotland needed a particular solution. I also thought that I would quote him because I was going to appeal to Scottish Labour today, and they appear to have embraced Michael Gove. They are now getting prepared to stick him in the House of Lords to make him an unelected bureaucrat for life—something he railed against. The Secretary of State is making faces; I am not sure if he has signed off on that yet, or how keen he is on it, but the Government, having heard what Mr Gove said about unelected bureaucrats, are about to stick him in the Lords. I understand from the Press and Journal—I believe everything that I read there—that he is about to become Lord Gove of Torry. I am not sure what the good people of Torry think of that, or what they have done to deserve it—my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) will have a better idea than I do—but I am not sure they will think an awful lot of that. Having embraced a hard Tory Brexit, Scottish Labour is now—

[Johanna Baxter]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Stephen Gethins]

Oh, here we go! If you can tell me why on earth Labour is putting Michael Gove in the House of Lords, I will gladly give way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Can I remind the hon. Gentleman to do less you-ing, please?

[Johanna Baxter]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for indulging me a second time. He references Brexit. Can he clarify for the House why his party spent less on campaigning against Brexit than on a local by-election campaign in Scotland? The newfound conversion to opposing Brexit might be welcome, but that clarification would be helpful.

[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.

[Stephen Gethins]

I am not that surprised that the Labour party wants to close down a debate on Brexit. The hon. Member is seeking to spare his party its blushes—in particular Scottish Labour—and I respect him for that. We know why we need to open up that debate. The Treasury will tell us why: it is because of how much money Brexit is costing our public services. Our young people know why: it is because of the opportunities Brexit is costing them.

I listened to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) yesterday in Westminster Hall. He made a good speech in which he tried to talk about opportunities for young people through a youth mobility scheme that he endorsed, but he also spoke of capping the number of young people who could participate, so that fewer young people had the freedom of movement that both he and I enjoyed. What a paucity of ambition from the Labour party for our young people, who have been left with fewer rights. I expected that from the Conservative party, but not in my wildest dreams would I have expected it from the Labour party, which now wants to crow about the situation and the cap on young people.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

The Westminster Hall debate was interesting, and was largely conducted in good spirit, though I think his speech slightly misjudged the tone of Westminster Hall. I and a number of Labour parliamentarians have been looking for practical steps to move forward our relationship with the European Union. We have had 15 years of moving backwards under the Conservatives, and we have now heard a speech that seems to be detached from reality. My job—our job on the Labour Benches—is to get a stronger deal with the European Union. One of the key first steps, we think, is a visa-based youth mobility system, and I am proud of that.

[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—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is an immigration Bill? While I did say that the scope is quite wide, will he please try to stick to immigration?

[Stephen Gethins]

You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was keen to knock on the head some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. Let me talk about Scottish Labour’s commitments. I will quote the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Anas Sarwar. I do not always do this, and I know that the Secretary of State does not like talking about him—he frequently disregards him—but let me at least give Anas Sarwar his place. He said:

“I’ve had a number of conversations with Yvette Cooper and UK colleagues in the run-up to the election and since the election. They already want to reform the Migration Advisory Committee to make sure there is proper Scottish representation. They recognise there are different migration needs in different parts of the country”.

As for reaching out a bit more to other colleagues, not everything in the Bill is for everybody in this House, but the Bill gives us an opportunity to meet commitments made. We could do that on Third Reading. We could introduce amendments and have a Bill team. I would love to have really good, strong Scottish Labour representation on that. [Interruption.] I would also like to have Conservative representation on it; let the team be reflective of who is in the House. I would be generous to the party of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie)—almost as generous as the Labour party regularly is to his party.

Let me quote Scottish Labour’s deputy leader. Jackie Baillie said:

“I would expect governments to work together, to talk to each other, to respond to each other’s needs…At the moment there are no plans for one”—

this was said pre-election—

“but I think if you have governments taking common-sense approaches that an incoming Labour government would do, then dialogue will continue.”

The Secretary of State will have the opportunity to talk about this today, and I very much look forward to an update on where he is on the talks. The Bill gives precious time to him, and to the offices of other Secretary of States, and gives the rest of us time to meet the needs of the Scottish sector.

I am glad to see the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) in his place; I welcome him. As he has rightly said, when it comes to immigration policy, one size does not fit all. It should not be beyond us to devise ways to attract more people to work and settle here. He has talked effectively about the challenges for the rural and island communities that he represents, and I was glad to hear his productive intervention on that. I hope that he is able to have conversations with his hon. Friends about that.

Let me quote from the Scottish Labour manifesto:

“we will work with the Scottish Government when designing workforce plans for different sectors. This will ensure our migration and skills policies work for every part of the UK.”

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I am struck by the hon. Gentleman’s interest in making sure that young people get the opportunities that they deserve, because in East Thanet—far away from Scotland—we are deeply concerned that one in 10 young people is out of education, employment or training. I wonder what he has to say about the SNP’s record on this issue, given that one in six young people is out of education, employment or training in Scotland.

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Lady makes a good point—how can we provide opportunities for young people? She will also know that right now, we are providing fewer opportunities for young people. Scotland is working very effectively on having positive destinations, including through the great work of Skills Development Scotland. That speaks to the migration debate we have had in recent years. Migration has driven our policies and our economic growth for centuries, yet Labour is leaning into the Reform agenda—it is very disappointing that Reform Members are not in their place—which is so poisonous to our political rhetoric. Migration and refugees are two entirely separate issues. The hon. Lady will also be aware of the tragic small boats issue, which we talk about at length, although we do not talk about migration as a whole. I want us to have a more sensible debate on migration.

[Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Gethins]

I will not take the hon. Lady’s intervention just now. I very much look forward to the contribution of the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington). I know Kent well, and I think there will be a valuable contribution to be made from that part of the United Kingdom, including on the impact that Brexit—I know that she talks about this issue—has had on young people in her area.

The Liberal Democrats have traditionally talked about greater decentralisation of government. That is a point that they stand on, having a federal party. I would have loved to have taken an intervention from a Liberal Democrat Member today, but of course, they are not here. Alex Cole-Hamilton, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, accepts that immigration is essential for maintaining growth, but also for the sustainability of services—I will talk about that in a moment. He has also talked about how we need

“both of Scotland’s Governments to work together”

on migration

“to ensure that rules are sensitive to the skills that are needed in every corner of these islands and in every sector of our economy.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 9 January 2025; c. 69.]

We can pick that up in Committee, if we can work together. I note talk at the Liberal Democrat conference about a special visa for those fleeing Donald Trump. I am not sure what representations the Liberal Democrats have made to the Government on that—maybe the Secretary of State can tell us—but there are always opportunities to be had.

I move on to a point of common ground. I concede that we are not all on the same page. There are differences on this issue, but that is the whole point of Parliament. We come together to debate and see whether we can find solutions. Sometimes, the majoritarian nature of this place does not help. I conceded that Labour and Scottish Labour won the election, and I congratulated them and the Prime Minister on that. We have seen what has happened to their poll numbers since, but they won the election. However, they did so based on a small percentage of votes. Unfortunately, that is the system we have. I ask Labour Members to not make the same mistakes that the Conservatives did, particularly Boris Johnson’s Conservatives, and to appreciate that 34% or 35% of the vote is not a majority. It might give Labour a majority of seats, but the party needs to listen to other parties, other bits of the country and all sectors. That is crucial.

We can debate and discuss, and I can quote bits from Scottish Labour manifestos, from the SNP, from the Scottish Liberal Democrats and—yes—even the Conservatives, but we all have a responsibility to try to listen to the sectors that are doing such valuable work. We all try to do so in our different ways, including in our constituencies, which is important. For example, this week, I went to East Scryne farm in Angus, just outside Carnoustie, and spoke to a local farmer about the value of migration to the berry industry—I know other Members will have done similar. A number of us will have enjoyed berries from Angus over our breakfast this morning.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

And Perthshire.

[Stephen Gethins]

We will also have enjoyed berries from Perthshire—and even Aberdeenshire. All of that depends on migration. I know that, in order to improve their work here, Members will try, whenever possible, to engage with and listen to constituents. I am not asking us all to come to the same conclusion, but it is in that engagement that we all seek to do our work better.

The hospitality and tourism industry is vital for rural and remote communities, for every sector in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. Leon Thompson, the executive director of UKHospitality Scotland, says:

“The hospitality and tourism industry across Scotland has been calling for a Scotland visa for some time. We believe it really is one of the ways in which we can help address the skills and workforce shortage that we have in the industry.”

The Scottish Tourism Alliance says:

“Failure to find a tailored solution risks having a further detrimental impact on the economy and opportunities for economic growth”

as staff shortages are leading to tourism and hospitality businesses closing for longer outside the summer visit season, reducing opening hours and shutting down certain services, such as food offers in hotels.

Regardless of our own thoughts, we can see straightaway the impact that has on growth and the sustainability of our services. The Scottish Tourism Alliance also says:

“Introducing a Scottish specific visa scheme not only would match immigration to the demand for certain skills”—

as it has done for centuries—

“but also encourage more people coming to live and work in Scotland, particularly in rural and island communities that are experiencing a drain in people of working age and families.”

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for bringing forward this debate, which is interesting if nothing else. How does the SNP suggest we encourage people to live in Scotland, and particularly rural Scotland, given that anyone in Scotland earning over £28,500 pays more income tax; local government has a £760 billion-odd shortfall, which affects rural communities more, given how money is spent over a larger area; and Scotland has a housing crisis? How do those things attract people?

[Stephen Gethins]

I will maybe leave aside some of the hon. Lady’s sums—I am not sure whether she has been reading Labour briefings—but she does make a valuable point about rural areas, and I acknowledge her commitment to her constituency and her rural background. I commend her for the way she conducts herself in this place. There are a number of points here.

We know that bringing workers to rural areas, and the very high threshold to bring people into the country, is a challenge—that is not new—which is why so many rural industries have been calling out for a Scottish visa system to plug that gap. What is Scottish Government policy? Well, we have talked with our Labour colleagues —although not, I would expect, the Conservative party, for ideological reasons—about having a more progressive taxation system in which those who earn less pay less, and those who earn more pay more. I will not criticise the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), who stood for election on a Conservative manifesto and won, but I am always surprised that the Labour party does not take the opportunity to endorse such a system more strongly.

Some 70% of the Scottish Government’s budget still comes in the form of a block grant from Westminster—that is a huge amount. For all the talk we have heard of decentralisation, empowerment and so on, why do we not have a more sensible approach to that?

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)]

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentions the block grant. If, as he says—not entirely correctly—the block grant is the largest part of the Scottish budget, why did he vote against the Budget in which the block grant gave the Scottish Government £4.9 billion extra?

[Stephen Gethins]

What I find striking is that the Scottish Government have not only had to receive their block grant, rather than making these decisions for ourselves, which those of us on the SNP Benches would like to do, but have spent years with Tory austerity and are staring down the barrel of cuts elsewhere. The Secretary of State might quote figures in terms of the cash, but after years and years of Tory government that are not being helped by the Labour party, by the cuts that have come about as a result of Brexit, which they now endorse, by the cut to the winter fuel allowance that Labour brought in, which the Scottish Government brought in measures to offset—

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

The bedroom tax.

[Stephen Gethins]

And the bedroom tax. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is chuntering from a sedentary position—I have always wanted to say that in this place—but in all these areas the Scottish Government are offsetting the damage that Westminster policies have caused. For how long do we have to put up with damaging Westminster policies? This Bill is a way of offsetting some of the damage that has been done by a hostile environment and by Brexit, which I am astonished day and daily that the Scottish Labour party continues to endorse.

Let me talk about the Scottish care system. All of us will benefit from the care system at some point—all of us—and we will all have loved ones who benefit, so the voice of that sector is particularly pertinent. Scottish Care has said:

“The current UK immigration system is failing the social care sector in Scotland. The recent rule changes, particularly the ban on dependents”—

which has had a big impact on other sectors as well—

“and the incompatible increase in the minimum salary threshold, exacerbate existing recruitment challenges and pose significant risks to the sustainability and delivery of essential care services.”

I talked about one bit of my constituency in Angus, and now let me talk about another bit. The Secretary of State and I had an exchange about this. We know that the ban on dependants has also had a significant impact on the higher education sector. I am glad to see the convenor of the all-party parliamentary university group, the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), in his place. Those of us with higher education institutions in our constituencies—I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—will know of the damage that has been done by the ban on bringing dependants to this country.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Care is an issue that matters deeply to me, but the problem with care is not that we are not getting cheap labour from elsewhere; it is that we are not paying care workers enough. That is one of the things that a national care service would seek to solve. Why did the SNP waste so much money—£28 million—on its failed national care service, rather than working across the House in good faith to deliver the care that people need?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I remind all Members that the Bill is about why Scotland should have devolved powers over immigration.

[Stephen Gethins]

I am glad if we can get back to the Bill. I am struck that Labour Members never seem to be that keen to talk about the areas for which they have responsibility. They talk about the Scottish Government an awful lot but not the areas for which they have responsibility. This Bill speaks to a specific Scottish solution that could be brought in to meet particular Scottish needs, and it is one that, to be fair, Scottish Labour has talked about.

Let me move on to talk about think-tanks and other organisations. The Law Society of Scotland—

[Ian Murray]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins]

I will give way to the Secretary of State one more time, and then I will move on to these other organisations.

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way when it suited him to do so. All the things he is talking about are not included in the Bill. It is a simple, one-line Bill that would devolve the entire immigration system to Scotland. For Members who might not know how the Scotland Act 1998 operates, let me explain that if a matter is contained in schedule 5 to that Act, it is reserved, and if it is not, it is deemed to be devolved. This Bill is just devolving the entire immigration system, so the individual issues relating to visas that he is talking about are irrelevant to this debate.

[Stephen Gethins]

I thank the Secretary of State, because that was a valuable intervention and he raises a good point—[Interruption.] I am glad that he is paying attention now. I raised that point at the start of the debate, when I said that this is not ideal. It is a short Bill that was proposed some time ago and, as I have said, I am very open to it being amended. I hope we will vote on this today and I ask the Secretary of State to meet me so that he and I can sit down with his officials, and Home Office officials if they will listen to him, and bring them in. I am looking to the Secretary of State and hope that he will today give that commitment to meet me so that we get something that works for his party, can work for others and can hopefully work for the sector as well. [Interruption.] I will take that as a yes, so I am very glad and thank him for being so constructive.

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman has to be clear with the House about the purpose of the Bill, because we will have to vote on it today if the Division bells ring. If the Bill passes, it will merely remove immigration from schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, which would devolve immigration to the Scottish Government—yes or no?

[Stephen Gethins]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stephen Gethins]

I will answer the Secretary of State’s point first and then give way. The Secretary of State has been here for longer than me.

[Pete Wishart]

I have been here longer than the Secretary of State.

[Stephen Gethins]

My hon. Friend says he has been here longer than the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State knows that this is a Second Reading debate. I have been keen to say that from the start. I have been saying it to the media this morning, and I said it in my letter to Anas Sarwar, which I copied to the Secretary of State. I wanted to do that and to make sure that my letter went to Scottish leaders—I am not sure how often they talk, but I wanted to ensure that the Secretary of State had seen the letter as well. The letter talked about us coming together and talking to each other. On that point, I will give way to a very experienced Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart).

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman, before I call the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) to continue, that interventions should be on the Member who is speaking.

[Stephen Gethins]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Now that we have clarified that point of reference, I look forward to the vote today that the Secretary of State is committed to, and I look forward to meeting him so that we can work together, because that is the right thing to do, and we will have to make concessions. Of course we want to see the devolution of immigration—we want to see independence. We differ from other Members in this Chamber; we accept that we have differences and that we were voted in on different manifestos. But it is not beyond the wit of man—to be fair, this is something that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar has already referenced—to try and find a bit of common ground.

Now let me talk about some of the think-tanks and other organisations and what they have said, because I am keen to let other Members have the opportunity to speak.

[Pete Wishart]

Hear, hear.

[Stephen Gethins]

That is the most effective heckle I have heard all day, though that was not where I expected it to come from.

The Law Society of Scotland said:

“Bespoke visa schemes for Scotland, combined with expanding international outreach activities in relation to immigration to advertise these new arrangements, would be an effective way of ensuring that immigration policy meets Scotland’s needs.”

Prosper, formerly the SCDI, says:

“SCDI supports greater flexibilities on immigration for Scotland to respond to its distinct demographic and employment needs... Other countries”—

this is something my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross-shire has worked on very hard—

“successfully operate regional migration schemes which target the specific needs of their economies and SCDI believes that there are workable options for more differentiation in the UK’s system.”

I agree with that.

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Gethins]

No, I want to continue with this.

Alison Evison, a former Labour councillor and former president of COSLA, says:

“There is a strong unified voice across all sectors in Scotland in favour of a flexible immigration system that can meet our particular economic, workforce and population needs. For many years, COSLA has been calling for an immigration system that can be responsive to local as well as national needs and that recognises and addresses the challenges that we face.”

Finally, Reform Scotland has done a huge amount of work on this—I commend its paper to all Members of the House as we seek to inform ourselves when we go through to Committee, and however we work together to populate that. It has said:

“There is no reason why Westminster cannot create an immigration system which takes Scotland’s different situation into account. It is important to remember that this has been done before, through the Fresh Talent Initiative”,

which, in fairness, Lord McConnell on the Labour Scottish Executive worked with the UK Government to do.

It would not be unique—there are other decentralised approaches elsewhere in the world. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, whose work on the Scottish Affairs Committee, along with other hon. Members, was very effective. The Committee looked into the matter, and I know he will want to talk about that. A decentralised approach has been taken in Canada, Australia, Belgium and elsewhere, so it is not unique. This is the Government of devolution—they talk about devolution. As Donald Dewar told us, devolution was “a process” not a final destination. This strikes me as being the next process, and it has happened elsewhere.

Finally, I want to go into the different conversations about migration.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Stephen Gethins]

I see a number of Members want to intervene. I am glad to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) because she wanted to come in earlier and I did not take her intervention then.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making an important case about Scotland’s unique needs and the way that our democracy differs. To go back to the economic point, the founding mission of this Labour Government is about growing the economy, so will my hon. Friend explain the impact of increasing migration? What is the impact on the economy of bringing more people in to do more jobs in the economy?

[Stephen Gethins]

I am not an economist, but any economist would say that the impact of that is growth—it is positive. In the aftermath of leaving the EU, we saw a surge in migration under Boris Johnson’s Government. Members have talked about that and criticised the Conservative Government, as I have done. However, what struck me about that migration to date was that at the same time as we saw a surge in migration to grow the economy—I am not saying anything against that—we saw a reduction in the rights that we ourselves enjoyed as UK citizens and a devaluation of the British passport. I may no longer wish to hold a British passport—that might not be something that I want—but its devaluation has impacted each and every one of us because of the loss of those rights.

Before I finish, I will take one more point from the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), who I know has been trying to intervene.

[Kevin McKenna]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. I was interested to hear what he said about the various experts talking about regional migration policies. Unfortunately, my constituency suffered from a regional migration policy in living memory as the Isle of Sheppey was separated from mainland migration during both wars in the previous century. That has left a lasting impact of deep, profound socioeconomic damage to Sheppey because people could not get on or off the island, and we could not get the workers we needed. That has left a deep legacy of distrust between the island and the rest of Great Britain. We do not want to replicate that across the whole of the United Kingdom and that is why I oppose the Bill.

[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.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that it is that strength of cross-sector agreement in Scotland that leaves so many people disappointed? Their expectations and hopes were raised that a change of Government in this place would lead to a change in migration policy, so does that not make it essential that Scotland’s interests in relation to this issue are served by powers resting in Holyrood, rather than the Government here?

[Stephen Gethins]

My right hon. Friend is right. I want to see these powers rest in Holyrood—that will surprise nobody—and he and I absolutely agree on that. I have also opened up this matter by saying, “You can amend. You can change.” I do not want my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross-shire to have to school the Secretary of State again on process, but that is something that we can do. I say in the spirit of collegiality that I look forward to working with the Secretary of State on this issue, because I think we can find common ground.

[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]

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.

[Stephen Gethins]

On the point about symbolism over substance, does the hon. Member agree that we should have a vote on the Bill today and dig into it in Committee, as one would with any other Bill? I could not agree with him more.

[Mr Quigley]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman —not on the vote, but we have not finished the debate, so let us see how today plays out.

Let us focus on what truly matters: fix the systems we already have, strengthen the powers that are already devolved, and deliver on the promises already made. People are not asking for grand gestures; they are asking for real change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

If the hon. Member is aware of the ETA situation we have in the Home Office, he will know that people have to have applied online to be able to travel into the north. Many concerns are being raised with me that that is a real issue. [Interruption.] Well, it is true—tourism in Northern Ireland is struggling, because people will not go there because of the additional paperwork that there is. It is a real issue. Because I am so generous, I will send some of my correspondence and the concerns that have been raised with me to the hon. Gentleman. He may like to cast his eye over them, just to put the record straight.

An argument I have heard in favour of the Bill is that it would help with growing the hospitality sector in Scotland, which is fantastic. I enjoy visiting Scotland, particularly for rugby; the rugby games may be unsuccessful, but I enjoy it. There is tourism from Wales to Scotland, and I would hate for there to be any hindrance in that regard. Members will know my passion for rugby, and I make regular visits.

[Stephen Gethins]

Welsh tourists are always welcome in Scotland—I have had many great times. I have a practical point relating to the Bill. The hon. Lady has criticised it, which is fine, but I have been very clear that I want to open this issue up. Which parts of the Scottish Labour proposals does she find attractive?

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Which part of the Scottish Labour proposals do I find attractive? Well, this is your Bill, mate. I do not have any comment to make there.

I am the chair of the APPG on beer, which I mentioned, so I have many thoughts on hospitality. The hospitality sector has struggled across the board, particularly in recovering post covid. Growing the sector cannot simply be resolved by changing immigration rules: this is a multifaceted issue. In fact, so many of the areas of change that could help the sector to grow, such as business rates, apprenticeships, tourism and tax, are already devolved to the Scottish Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I must thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for introducing it. It is a shame that only six Scottish Labour MPs have seen fit to turn up to the debate, given their majority in representing Scottish constituencies, but I will move on to the Scottish Labour position on the Bill in due course. Some 40% of Scottish Conservative MPs have turned up to this today, in comparison with only 16% of Scottish Labour MPs, which I would say is a roaring success.

I must start from first principles. Devolution of immigration and asylum is a non-starter. It is, frankly, an absurd and unworkable idea, and the Conservative party is resolutely opposed to it. If we were in government, we would have the courage of our convictions and vote against the Bill, but the weak approach of the Labour party to this Bill, in avoiding a vote and trying to talk it out, should shame the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Government and the Scottish Labour party. Whatever our view of the proposal, on this Bill Members should have a vote—Members should be forced to say what their position actually is. We all know why there is not going to be a vote today: it is because the branch office in Edinburgh might like certain elements of the Bill, but London Labour says no—’twas always thus.

I am proud to say that the Conservative party opposes the Bill, but the Labour party—the Scottish Labour party—is scared to do anything that might damage its SNP-lite approach to politics and Scotland. It is supine in opposition in Holyrood and absent from the field in government. Labour should have the courage of its convictions to vote against the Bill today, despite how uncomfortable it might make certain Government Members.

Turning to the Bill, the idea that immigration and asylum matters should be devolved to Scotland simply should not be countenanced.

[Stephen Gethins]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

It is always a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Stephen Gethins]

I will start on a positive note: I think we should take the Bill to a vote. I take the shadow Secretary of State’s point, but why does he think that Michael Gove backed this Bill? When Labour sticks him in the Lords, Lord Gove could take this Bill through the Lords. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree?

[Andrew Bowie]

Michael Gove, soon to be Lord Gove of Torry, is answerable for his own opinions on whether immigration powers should be devolved to Scotland. I would not be in any way surprised if his views on that issue have changed, as indeed have his views on certain other issues over the years.

First, we should not enable regional immigration policies within the United Kingdom. Secondly, there is absolutely no case for a special immigration policy for Scotland outwith the United Kingdom’s legislative framework. Thirdly, the Scottish Government under the SNP over the past 18 years have demonstrated an unparalleled and unprecedented level of incompetence, which ought to preclude consideration of granting greater powers over, frankly, anything. We all know that there is such a thing as Scottish exceptionalism. The only exceptionalism that the Scottish Government have demonstrated is an exceptional reverse Midas touch to almost every single area over which they have responsibility, whether it is education, health or transport infrastructure. I could go on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

As I often used to say when I was on the Government Benches, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with my answer—I am sure there is one. The idea that immigrants to a country as compact as ours would not seek job opportunities in other areas of the UK, should they so wish, is for the birds. Are we talking about border posts at Berwick, or papers being checked on the Caledonian sleeper? We are talking about a party founded over 90 years ago with the sole aim of achieving Scotland’s separation from the rest of the UK—but it still cannot tell us what currency should be used in that separate Scotland. The idea that SNP Members could design an intuitive scheme so foolproof and clever that nobody could take advantage of the situation is absolutely absurd, and nobody takes that seriously.

Turning back to the Government, it is a real shame that the Labour Government are choosing to talk out this private Member’s Bill rather than be forced to take a stance, but that is unsurprising, because we are well used to Labour Members demonstrating the utterly supine nature of the Scottish Labour party on Scottish issues. When faced with the madness of the SNP’s gender recognition Bill—this was raised this morning—Labour whipped their MSPs to vote to allow male offenders into women’s prisons. When the Labour leader in Scotland pays lip service to the plight facing oil and gas workers in the north-east of Scotland as a direct result of the Government’s damaging policies, Labour MPs stay silent. They refuse to stand up for women in Scotland; they refuse to stand up for working people in Scotland. Time and again, they refuse to do the right thing. Devolving immigration policy to the Scottish Government is clearly not the right thing, and Labour should have the courage of its convictions and say so.

As set out this morning, there is no case for the devolution of immigration. This is an invented exceptionalism. Scotland is no more dependent on immigration than the rest of the United Kingdom, and the purported crises—funding for universities, the rural workforce and the declining birth rate—are not solvable by this supposed silver bullet. This is a lazy solution to a series of complex issues that the SNP in Holyrood have neglected to resolve with the power already in their hands.

[Stephen Gethins]

I was careful to outline the views of the Scottish hospitality sector, care sector, tourism sector and Reform Scotland, and I could have gone on. Does the hon. Member think that they are wrong? We all think Michael Gove is wrong on a number of things; the hon. Gentleman clearly thinks that Mr Gove is wrong on this. Does the hon. Member think that all those sectoral organisations are wrong?

[Andrew Bowie]

I represent a part of the country that relies on tourism for its economic prosperity, and when I speak to the Scottish hospitality sector, it is not immigration that it raises as its biggest concern, but the failure of the Scottish National party—the Scottish Government—to pass on the rates relief for hospitality businesses across the United Kingdom. That is the biggest issue facing hospitality and tourism in Scotland right now, and the hon. Member would do well to raise point that with his colleagues in the Parliament north of the border who have power over that rate of tax. Parcelling out reserve powers to the SNP Government will solve none of the problems raised in this debate, and as I said, the Labour party should have the backbone to say so.

A month ago, I was on a Statutory Instrument Committee on the devolution of the operation of some Social Security Scotland competences in order to avoid duplication with the Department for Work and Pensions. I said that in devolving these powers to the Scottish Government

“We have created additional barriers, burdens and borders where there were none before, and we have added no benefit whatsoever for those receiving…payments either north or south of the border.”—[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 5.]

By the way, it has cost more than £650 million so far to establish Social Security Scotland, so lessons should be learned by the Labour Government. Just as many Labour Members believed in 1997 that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead, too many UK politicians of all parties, mine included, believe that giving ever more power to the Scottish Government will appease the Scottish National party’s desire for independence. It will not; that is the reason the SNP was founded, and it is a perfectly rational and respectable position to hold, but the desire to break Scotland away from United Kingdom will not be diminished by devolving ever more powers to Holyrood. Far too often, far too little thought is given to the impact of devolution on the policies or functions on which people rely. Is the complex, expensive, duplicative and bureaucratic quagmire brought about by Social Security Scotland working with the DWP in Scotland really to the benefit of those in receipt of benefits?

We must ensure that we do not have devolution for devolution’s sake. We must decide whether the devolution of a certain power to the Scottish Parliament will have a beneficial impact on people and businesses in Scotland. If the answer is no, the answer to devolving the power must be no, and the Government should have the courage of their convictions and say so. The Government could have demonstrated that they understood that. They could have forced a Division and voted down this flawed and fanciful Bill.

There is no case whatsoever for the devolution of immigration and asylum policy to Scotland, but even if there were, it would not be practicable to do that. It is not viable. Instead of those in the SNP coming up with madcap schemes to sow more division and create more difference across our one nation, they ought to spend more time and money on proposals for investing in Scotland’s underfunded universities, tackling violence in the classrooms, bringing down the length of NHS waiting lists, reducing drug deaths, building desperately needed new roads and bridges, improving community policing and making our neighbourhoods safer; but we see where their priorities lie. It is not just that the plans in the Bill are unviable, would be grossly inefficient and are completely unnecessary; devolving power over immigration to the SNP-run Scottish Government would be to the detriment of Scots and the United Kingdom.

We could spend countless hours in this place on statutory instruments designed to realign Scotland with the rest of the UK where needless duplication has already occurred—for example, across the justice system, and across welfare and benefit payments. We do not need more needless duplication to be created by thoughtless legislation. I have set out His Majesty’s official Opposition’s opposition to this motion on the basis of its economic and political impacts, but this is also a matter of principle. It is about whether we ought to be introducing sub-national visa and immigration systems, creating a more powerful sub-national or devolved Government in Scotland. The record of the SNP Government is damning, and we cannot in good conscience allow yet further vandalism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I stand corrected, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was an even longer contribution, at 50 minutes, and the hon. Member was still not honest about what the Bill does. The Bill before us today devolves the entirety of the immigration system to Scotland.

[Stephen Gethins]

I am going to try to be productive with the Secretary of State, even though he has accused me of not being honest—I wanted to take as many interventions from his colleagues as I could, and I did. I have been open enough to say that the Bill is short so that we can try to work together, and I would love to hear Scottish Labour’s proposals.

[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.

[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?

[Stephen Gethins]

I am grateful for the constructive way the Secretary of State is approaching the debate. I am not sure he can blame us for Tory migration policy. Does he think we should be driving down migration, because that is not what we are hearing? Does he think—we are talking about the health of the economy—that the Brexit he and I stood up against has been a net benefit for the economy?

[Ian Murray]

I have said already that net migration has to come down. That is the view of the Prime Minister and this Government, because it is too high. The reason it has to come down—this goes right to the heart of some of the big issues in Scotland that the SNP Scottish Government do not want to talk about—is that nearly one in six young people in Scotland are not in education, employment or training. We have shipyards in Scotland that build the very best ships in the world, employing Filipino and South African welders who look from the top of those ships into some of the poorest communities in Scotland and the United Kingdom, where a huge number of young people are not in employment, education or training. We need to do something about that. That is why net migration has to come down.

Workforce and skills planning is a much more important way to tackle skills shortages. We have been leaving businesses unable to find the skills they need in the UK reliant on workers from abroad. That is the record of the previous Conservative Government.

Let me say it again: net migration is too high, and the interaction between migration and skills in the labour market is fundamentally broken. All those organisations read out by the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry in support of his proposal also say the very same thing. Skills in the labour market is broken, and the link between migration and skills in the labour market is fundamentally broken. That is why we need confidence in the whole system, and that whole system needs to be fundamentally rebuilt.

That is the UK Government’s focus. We will face these challenges head-on by delivering on our missions in Scotland by kick-starting economic growth, which has been a disaster under the Scottish Government. If Scotland had grown at the same level as even Manchester, the Scottish economy would be tens of billions of pounds larger. If the city and region of Glasgow had grown at the same level as Manchester, its economy would be £7 billion larger. Kick-starting economic growth is therefore a key driver for this Government, as well as making Britain a clean energy superpower, in which Scotland will play a key part, and of course tackling poverty. I set out my Department’s priorities in Scotland during a recent speech at the University of Edinburgh. Given the relevance of that to the debate’s subject matter, let me draw on some of the points I made then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

Indeed, we are; perhaps the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) should try doing his bit a bit more. [Interruption.] There is no need to confess now, Pete. But my hon. Friend is right; the biggest consideration for many families is childcare. Government Ministers are highly paid, and my wife works as well, but getting access to proper childcare that is flexible enough to ensure people can stay in work is a real challenge. Again, that is something the Scottish Government do not want to talk about.

We have talked about the economy, public services, housing and childcare. The First Minister made a growth speech a few weeks ago, and his only conclusion on growth in Scotland was that we need access to visas. There was nothing else. There was no ambition. There were no solutions to how we get planning sorted in Scotland. There was nothing about making sure we win the global race to green power. His one recommendation was getting something that has no control over, so that he does not have to take responsibility for the things he does have control over.

[Stephen Gethins]

I think I have already congratulated the Minister on his personal contribution to population growth—that is happy news we can all get behind—but I want him to answer the question I posed earlier. He talks about the First Minister and growth. The biggest impediment to growth is our hard Brexit and our relationship with the EU. Does he think that has been good or bad for growth?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend says it all, and I could not agree more. The Bill would add extra complexity to an already extremely complex system. Adding devolved powers would increase that level of complexity even further. For example, the previous Fresh Talent: Working in Scotland scheme, which we have talked about, allowed international students graduating from Scottish universities two years in which they could work without needing a sponsoring employer. The route saw many participants relocate to other parts of the UK as soon as they could. The current graduate visa route offers all the same benefits of the old Fresh Talent route, but applies to graduates of all UK universities, not just those in Scotland.

[Stephen Gethins]

I am not going to comment on the common travel area—perhaps the Secretary of State can cover that—but I want to make a more productive point. Will his Government continue to be committed to that Scottish graduate route, which is so important to higher education? That is one area where I think we can agree. I wanted to bring in a point of consensus.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I know SNP Members do not like us speaking about the Scottish Government, but the Migration Advisory Committee that they have talked about a lot in this Chamber already is addressing these issues. They challenged me to tell them what this Government were doing in relation to this Bill and migration in the Scottish context, and I am telling them what the Migration Advisory Committee is saying in response to this Bill. [Interruption.] SNP Members do not want to talk about it, but I will continue to talk about it until health in this country improves, and I have to say that when one in seven of my constituents are on NHS waiting lists, I will continue talking about it until these lights go out.

Non-migrant populations would have the same problems as the rest of us in terms of inadequate health services, the declared housing emergency, a broader lack of investment in skills and training, and economic opportunities for young people.

The one element in common among all these proposals is they are designed to provide a means to avoid or lower the salary requirements that apply to skilled worker visas. The Migration Advisory Committee has repeatedly advised against salary variations as they could create frictions for workers moving around the UK and could risk institutionalising areas as being low wage. This could have the effect of entrenching low pay in some areas for the resident populations as well as migrant workers, which would do nothing to resolve the long-term causes of depopulation. I am very proud, as is everyone on the Government Benches, of our Make Work Pay commitment and our new deal for working people.

Having different salary thresholds for different parts of the UK would also add complexity to an already complicated immigration system and would create difficulties for employers who operate across multiple regions of the UK, potentially requiring them to monitor the physical location of their employees and report that information to the Home Office to ensure compliance.

Of course we are aware of the demographic and labour market challenges faced by certain areas, sectors and industries, but we have seen record-high net migration levels in recent years while depopulation has remained an issue for Scotland, suggesting that immigration is not a solution to those challenges, especially given that we cannot practically compel people to stay in a particular area indefinitely. Instead, we are taking action through a joined-up approach across Government, in the UK’s immigration, labour market and skills system, to train up our own home-grown workforce, end the over-reliance on international recruitment and boost economic growth in every single part of the UK.

At the same time, the Government have confirmed that the changes made to key visa routes earlier last year will remain in place to drive levels down further. Additionally, as we announced last November, shameless and bad employers that flout UK employment laws will be banned from sponsoring overseas visas, as part of tough new action to clamp down on visa abuse and prevent the exploitation of overseas workers. I hope that the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry and his colleagues will give us their support in Scotland to ensure that workers are not exploited by rogue employers.

Let me turn to skills and migration. The Government recognise and value the important contribution that overseas workers make to our economy and public services throughout the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, remote parts of Scotland face depopulation, and skills shortages remain at their highest levels across Scotland. However, those issues have not been solved by the increase in net migration in recent years. Indeed, many of the actions needed to fix Scotland’s skills shortages are already devolved matters under the control of the Scottish Government, so his SNP colleagues in Holyrood already have the levers they need to address those challenges. They may wish to try pulling some of those levers—perhaps he can do so himself, because he wants to be a Member of the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, I think a high proportion of his colleagues think the same. Maybe that is why the leader of the SNP in this House, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), has already disappeared to go back to Scotland and make the case for his selection.

Let me just run through some of the levers that the Scottish Government could pull. They include powers relating to business rates, social security and tax; the record settlement of £47.7 billion, which is £4.9 billion more than before; and, of course, responsibility for education, health, housing, and employability and skills. They do not want to talk about any of those things. Businesses and unions consistently tell us that they worry about the skills gaps in Scotland. I am surprised that SNP Members do not care about this stuff. This is not just about skills and jobs; it is about opportunities for young people. Perhaps they do want to talk about it, because they all want to go to the Scottish Parliament and to refocus on what they are delivering.

The UK Government are focused on delivering outcomes and securing the future through our plan for change. Simply put, young people in Scotland—whether in work or seeking work—are not being supported with the skills and training that they need to succeed. Scotland’s rate of economic inactivity remains above that of the rest of the UK. I am not shy about repeating this: nearly one in six young people in Scotland are not in education, employment or training. Some 1,351 young people in Scotland left high school last year with absolutely no qualifications—an entire high school-worth of young people written off with no future because the Scottish Government refused to do something about it.

I am very proud that this UK Labour Government have relentlessly focused on getting people into work and developing their skills by increasing the national living wage and legislating to make work pay; strengthening workers’ rights and protections; providing £240 million for the Get Britain Working plan, which will overhaul jobcentres with a focus on skills and careers; and delivering a proper industrial strategy, developed in partnership with businesses and trade unions, to ensure that we get the economy, and the people in it, working. However, the Scottish Government also have a huge role to play, and they must use the levers that they have. As I have said before, I want co-operation between Governments to drive our economic growth, and skills are central to that.

I hope that the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, his party and his colleagues in Holyrood will engage with all that work and replicate its focus in their programme for government next month, which I think is their fourth or fifth in four years—every other programme for government so far has been an abject failure. I would be particularly interested to see further work on skills and education, building on the work of the Withers review, because right now the SNP Government are failing on skills.

[Stephen Gethins]

Why?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman asks why and I will tell him. The number of college places is at its lowest level in a decade, with more cuts on the way; the attainment gap between the richest and poorest continues to grow; and, disgracefully, thousands of pupils left school last year with absolutely no qualifications, as I have said. That cannot be allowed to continue.

This is nothing new. Was it not the current First Minister who lobbied for tax breaks for private schools, whereas this Labour Government ended tax breaks for private schools?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Stephen Gethins]

I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s characteristically kind words about me. I am happy to take guidance, and to engage with civil servants and the MOD. Either vote the Bill out or do not, but let us engage with it. This is the most that the Secretary of State for Scotland has spoken in any debate since he was elected, so why will he not use the debate positively?

[Ian Murray]

I think I have used the debate positively. I have spent a long time talking about our skills agenda, our plan to make work pay, GB Energy, the national wealth fund, economic growth and Brand Scotland. All those things are very positive and have been delivered in the first few months of this Labour Government. If the Scottish Government had the same focus on delivering for the people of Scotland as we have down here, they would be in a much better place.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Lady’s question is slightly contradictory. On the one hand, she does not like the national insurance contribution increase, which has given the Scottish Government a £4.9 billion boost—the highest settlement in the history of devolution. That money should be going to the frontline of higher education, but it is not. On the other hand, she talks about a more generous funding settlement for universities. She cannot have it both ways. The funding model must change, and the Scotland Office is in touch with all our universities’ principals to see how we can work through this issue. This is a problem with the funding of higher education as a result of SNP policies and the Scottish Government.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I associate myself with the comments about the devastating loss of Pope Francis and the compassion that he showed to the most vulnerable in our society. On a happier note, I wish all friends and family a very happy St George’s day. I also note my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to higher education.

The Secretary of State will know that the biggest financial impacts on higher education in Scotland have been Westminster policies, which is why the sector in the UK faces some challenges. We have the national insurance increase, Brexit, which I know he passionately opposed—or used to, anyway—and the hostile environment. Labour found common ground with Michael Gove on sticking him into the House of Lords, but it also found common ground with him on his commitment to decentralising migration. That has had a particular impact on the higher education sector, not least in Dundee, which has had the biggest financial hit. Will the Secretary of State let us know what progress he has made on that commitment by Scottish Labour?

[Ian Murray]

May I give the hon. Gentleman and all his SNP colleagues our deepest condolences on the loss of Christina McKelvie? I think this is the first time that we have had Scottish questions since then.

I say again that the hon. Gentleman and his SNP colleagues voted against the Budget, which delivered an extra £4.9 billion for public services in Scotland. Some of that should have gone to frontline services, including to ensuring that our higher education sector was funded properly in the Scottish context. The SNP is very good at blaming everybody else for powers that do not belong to it, but what it should actually do is get a mirror. In the last seven days, the only increase it has made in using the budget given to it is £20,000 on the salaries of Scottish Government Ministers, who have all singularly failed.

[Stephen Gethins]

I thank the Secretary of State for his kind remarks about the sad loss of Christina McKelvie. I also note the kind remarks made by the Prime Minister; the whole party is grateful for them.

Since the Labour Government do not want to talk about their commitments, let me help them out a little. We have time this Friday to discuss Scotland’s migration needs, with a Bill backed by the care, hospitality and tourism sectors. Internationalisation in education and research is crucial, so in a spirit of collegiality, instead of pandering to Reform as Scottish Labour too often does on migration and our relationship with the EU, will the Secretary of State work with us ahead of the Bill on Friday so that we can find some common cause to help the higher education sector?

[Ian Murray]

There is complete denial about the problems in the higher education sector, which is devolved to the Scottish Government. We have made it clear that the immigration system we inherited from the previous Government is not working, that net migration is too high and that the interaction between migration and skills in the labour market is broken, so confidence in the whole system needs to be rebuilt.

Work is under way in government to link the work of Skills England and its equivalents, the Migration Advisory Committee, the Industrial Strategy Council and the Department for Work and Pensions to form a new framework to identify sectors that either do or do not have the adequate workforce, as well as skills strategies for the future workforce. There has been an overreliance on international recruitment. Lots of young people in Scotland—nearly one in six—are not in education, employment or training. That is a shambles. It should be Scotland’s shame, and we need to do something about it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

Mr Speaker, you will not be surprised to hear that I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] Absolutely shocked! The Government inherited not just a fiscal crisis from the previous Government, but an industrial one too. We need more high-quality jobs in Scotland. Between our industrial strategy, our plan to get Scotland working and the employment rights legislation, we will help to deliver that. Do not forget that the SNP Government said that zero-hours contracts were a “positive destination” for work. Our plans to make work pay will have a bigger positive benefit in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. That is the difference in having Scottish Labour MPs on the Government Benches.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I join the Secretary of State for Scotland in welcoming the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland to his place. I congratulate him on his appointment. It does make it difficult sometimes to tell the two of them apart, that being said, especially on days like today. Today, the Scottish Government will continue to protect the most vulnerable in society from the excesses of Westminster cuts. Instead of Tory cuts, it will be Labour cuts to winter fuel payments. Does the Secretary of State agree with the cut to the winter fuel allowance?

[Ian Murray]

Mr Speaker, I am sorry for such a short response to the hon. Gentleman, but there are 4.9 billion reasons why that question is rubbish.

[Stephen Gethins]

I have to say I am not surprised. There is huge confusion in the Labour party about the winter fuel allowance. The Scottish Government are doing something about it; the UK Government are not. The Secretary of State did not even know the number of pensioners who would be affected by the winter fuel cut. Labour is now distancing itself from Labour. Vote Labour to stop Labour—is that the message his party is sending out, or should voters just vote for the party that is actually doing something about it?

[Ian Murray]

I think what the hon. Gentleman is tending to forget is that the winter fuel payment in Scotland is devolved. It was the SNP Scottish Government who decided to means-test it as well. If it was not for the £4.9 billion extra delivered by our Labour Chancellor at this Dispatch Box to end austerity, which the Scottish Government will spend today, they would not be able to make any decisions whatsoever.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Martin McCluskey]

We will take absolutely no lessons on employment rights from the Conservative party, which left us with a £22 billion black hole in the public finances that we are having to pick up. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will address that in a moment.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I join the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) in congratulating the hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) on the birth of his daughter. On the demographic challenge, just before the election the Scottish Labour deputy leader said

“there is something we can do to incentivise”

more people to come to Scotland. In terms of employment in Scotland, have the Secretary of State and colleagues sat down with the Home Office to discuss encouraging more migration?

[Martin McCluskey]

The Government will work closely with the Migration Advisory Committee. We welcome the contribution that migrants make to the economy, but we will take no lessons from a party that has consistently said that the positive destination for people in Scotland is a zero-hours contract, and whose Members sat on their hands last night when we dealt with the Great British Energy Bill.

[Stephen Gethins]

Let me try to challenge the hon. Member. In a spirit of collegiality, the UK Government have committed to working with the Scottish Government. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), who is in his place, has said:

“When it comes to immigration policy one size does not fit all. It shouldn’t be beyond us to devise ways to attract more people to work and settle here.”

Will the Minister confirm that the Scottish and UK Governments should work together, and will he commit to a meeting between the Governments so that we can take forward the idea of more migration to Scotland, which the Labour party committed to and we committed to, and business is crying out for?

[Martin McCluskey]

We have committed to Scottish representation on the Migration Advisory Committee, which would go a long way to dealing with these issues, but it is for the Scottish Government to do things like build houses in areas where we need more migration in order to encourage people to come to live in Scotland.

Points of Order

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Further to those points of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing this time to pay tribute to Alex Salmond; he absolutely deserves it and it is great that we are doing it.

The leader of the SNP, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), spoke very well and very movingly about Alex’s contribution to life, which I think is very generous. The SNP clearly treats its former leaders with great respect, and I think that is a good idea. [Laughter.] I also thank the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (Sir David Davis) for what he said. Alex did go through the most appalling stress and personal pressure, and no doubt he had moments of self-doubt and real concern about the whole thing. The fact that the right hon. Member spoke so well about that really is a testament to what Alex was made of.

During his time here, Alex was a good friend to lots of us. He always opposed wars, and he always stood up for civil liberties and justice. His strength of character, in Scotland and in the wider world, made the SNP the party it is and the formidable force it became. He made the arguments for Scottish independence cogent, realistic and understandable.

We should remember that Alex Salmond lived life to the full and spoke to the full. He was totally involved in absolutely everything he did, and was an amazing and very friendly force around this place. I, for one, will miss him. I send my condolences to Moira, his wider family, and all his colleagues in both Alba and the SNP in Scotland.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Further to those points of order, Mr Speaker. “Consequential” and “impactful” are words that we have heard about Alec over the past few days, from across the political spectrum and beyond. Which of us would not want such an epitaph, regardless of our politics?

Alec was also impactful on so many of us on an individual basis. I got dragged back into politics on more than one occasion, having unwisely tried to pursue a career elsewhere. Obviously, his desire for independence and to remove, as he would see it, this unnecessary layer of government was at the heart of his politics, but he was a profoundly impactful MP in this place. He knew the Standing Orders inside out, which could make it tricky for Ministers, opponents and Speakers from time to time. That hard work meant that he was—frustratingly, from my experience—always one step ahead. It was impossible to spend time with Alec and not learn something—absolutely impossible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) was right to talk about Moira Salmond as being formidable. She was also wonderful. I can remember on more than one occasion being passed to Moira for a chat after a very robust exchange with Alec. She was always there so we could figure things out and smooth things over.

Finally, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned Parnell. Alec mentioned Parnell as well. Parnell was somebody who laid the groundwork for independence and for whom—to paraphrase Alec, when it came to independence—“the dream shall never die.”

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Further to those points of order, Mr Speaker. Alex Salmond was a great friend at university and also in this House. Despite political differences, I speak from personal experience when I say that he was a man capable of very great kindness. I shall certainly miss him, and Moira certainly has my condolences.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

There seems to be no recognition or apology from the shadow Secretary of State for the legacy his party has left this Government to try to clear up. We knew about the massive overspend in public services by the previous Government, and the audit the Chancellor did in her first weekend in office revealed the £22 billion black hole. These things have to be fixed. We did not expect or want to make such tough decisions, but we have had to make them to fix the foundations of our economy.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

May I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State? I know it has not always been easy and sometimes it has been a lonely path, so I offer my personal congratulations to him on his appointment and to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill) on taking her place.

I will take the Secretary of State at face value on improving the relationship between the Scottish and UK Governments, but he will be aware of the devastating consequences of the cuts in the winter fuel payment for pensioners in both our constituencies and across Scotland. In order to work better with the Scottish Government, will he do better than giving them just 90 minutes’ notice next time?

[Ian Murray]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his place, having won the election for the new constituency of Arbroath and Broughty Ferry. He should look at what the Finance Secretary said in the Scottish Parliament yesterday: she announced half a billion pounds of cuts, including £120 million in health services and £20 million in mental health services, and she has sold the family inheritance by using the ScotWind money to plug the additional funding gaps in the budget. Audit Scotland and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have been clear that this is a problem of the Scottish Government’s own making, so if they want to reset the relationship, they can start by taking responsibility for their own actions.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

6. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on steps to help promote economic growth in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)]

I am committed to working with the Scottish Government and have already met the Deputy First Minister four times in eight weeks. Resetting the relationship between Scotland’s two Governments is crucial to driving economic growth. Just last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in Glasgow and met the First Minister. The Prime Minister has made resetting the relationship a key part of his new way of working in government. He has met with the First Minister to have those discussions and with members of the business community to discuss growing the Scottish economy. It is the choice of all of us to grow the Scottish economy and something we all need to do together.

[Stephen Gethins]

The Secretary of State will be aware that macroeconomic policy sits here in Westminster and that decisions taken here have a huge impact. We have worked on this issue before, so does he agree with the SNP that being outside the customs union and the single market is bad for growth in the Scottish economy, or does he agree with the Conservatives and their Reform party colleagues that it has been good for the Scottish economy?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is taking no responsibility for the decisions that his party makes in the Scottish Government. We saw that yesterday with them plugging the hole in their own public finances. The IFS has been clear that the decisions the Scottish Government have made have taken the tax take down in Scotland, despite being it being the highest taxed part of the country. If we are to reset this relationship, they have to start off by taking accountability and responsibility for their own decisions.