Opposition Day — Migration and Scotland — 11 Feb 2020 at 18:49
That this House condemns the UK Government’s response to the Scottish Government’s publication of 27 January 2020, Migration: Helping Scotland Prosper, setting out proposals for a Scottish visa scheme within a UK-wide system; welcomes support for the Scottish Government’s proposals from the business and rural communities in Scotland as well as the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Federation of Small Businesses Scotland and Scottish Council for Development and Industry; notes Scotland’s unique demographics in that all population growth for the next 25 years is projected to come from migration; recalls comments from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in June 2016 that Scotland would decide immigration numbers if the UK were to exit the EU; and calls on the Home Secretary to engage positively with the Scottish Government in relation to these proposals before introducing the Immigration Bill and to devolve powers to the Scottish Parliament to enable a tailored migration policy for Scotland.
“It would be for Scotland to decide because under the proposals that we have put forward we believe that a points based immigration policy…would be the right approach.”
“can have a greater degree of control over immigration policy”
“Business will want to see the Scottish and UK Government working seriously and closely together on these and future recommendations, ensuring appropriate policies are devised and implemented that work for businesses and our economy”.
“Scottish Labour supports exploring a degree of flexibility within an overarching UK immigration system”.
“We’re willing to look at any proposal which helps Scotland prosper in this new era.”
“We acknowledge the desire of the Scottish Government for immigration to become a devolved rather than a reserved matter, a question on which the MAC takes no position seeing it as a political rather than an economic question.”
“we do not consider that there is sufficient evidence to make such a differentiation on economic grounds.”
“In previous reports the MAC has recommended against introducing more regional variation for a number of reasons. We have considered it desirable to keep the system as simple as possible and the salary thresholds have been set based on national pay distributions and not by the demands of higher wage regions. Similar arguments have been used against regional variation in setting the national minimum wage.”
“We have considered regional salary thresholds and can see the arguments on both sides and on balance, we have concluded that the relevant salary thresholds should apply across the UK. This is in line with previous MAC recommendations but also in line with other bodies such as the Low Pay Commission that has always recommended a UK-wide minimum wage. Although there are some economic arguments for regional variation these are not large enough to justify the added complexity of regional variation in salary thresholds.”
“a political rather than an economic question.”
“We also don’t want to institutionalise some parts of the UK as ‘lower wage’; regional inequalities should be addressed through equalising wages.”
“Migrants reported that the most significant factor affecting retention in the province of nomination”-
“was economic: onward movement was most likely to occur where they considered that better or more job opportunities were available outside of their original province. This points to the importance of linking provincial migration with labour market opportunities.”
“We have little idea whether the current system works well because we have not been able to obtain relevant data. We recommend a pause in the proposed increases in the settlement income threshold. We also recommend that there should be a review of the criteria for settlement, though that can only be done if there is better data available”.
“The current UK immigration system is complex and consists of a number of different routes and visas for work and study in an unclear system of tiers alongside a restrictive approach to family migration.”
“is no place to be sending her back to. She has no family there and her pension was frozen around seven years ago with no prospect of her ever having access to it. Valentyna is our family, she has brought up our children and has been part of this community for almost a decade. Sending her back will be an absolute breach of her human rights and devastating for all of us.”
“engage positively with the Scottish Government…before introducing the Immigration Bill”.
“there is nothing to worry about.”
“Even with the reduced earnings threshold of £25,600, that will be a constraint to try to employ production workers. We perceive that fewer people will be coming here.”
“Scotland has different productivity needs, one of which relates to our attitude towards immigration. I would argue that we need more immigration, of the right type.”-[Official Report, 28 February 2017; Vol. 622, c. 199.]
“Whether we have lived here for generations or are new Scots, from Europe, India, Pakistan, Africa and countries across the globe, we are all of this, and more. We are so much stronger for the diversity that shapes us. We are one Scotland and we are simply home to all those who choose to live here.”
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||316 (+2 tell)||0||0||87.1%|
|PC||0||2 (+2 tell)||0||100.0%|