During a campaign, it is not unusual to hear politicians seeking to build support for a particular position or party by floating eye-catching ideas to appeal to the wider public – that is the stuff of politics and campaigns should be about ideas. What is perhaps more unusual is when the same idea is floated by politicians from different political parties.
Just before the EU Referendum in 2016, Michael Gove suggested that Scotland should decide its immigration policy if the Leave campaign was successful. This was seen by Brexiteers, though never acted on, as being a way of blunting the devastating impact of leaving the EU on the Scottish sectors that had relied on our freedom of movement as well as the wider implications of losing that freedom.
Similarly, just before this year’s General Election and eight years on from Mr Gove’s commitment, it was the Labour Deputy Leader Jackie Baillie who said that her party was open to talks with the Scottish Government about a Scottish visa.
It is easy to see why. Leading industries such as the food and drink tourism sectors and our incredibly international higher education institutions, among others, relied on freedom of movement to bring in much-needed labour. This also ensured that Scotland, and the UK for that matter, was a more attractive place in which to live and work for migrants and their families.
In response to the issue being discussed in Parliament recently, Leon Thompson, the Executive Director of UK Hospitality Scotland, told the Herald:
“The hospitality and tourism industry across Scotland have 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.”
Our society is struggling with the impact of Brexit, the Home Office’s hostile environment, a demographic challenge and the twin issues of emigration and immigration. In an international and inter-connected world, we cannot be blind to these challenges.
That is why two weeks ago I indicated to the Speakers Office that I would like to bring forward private members legislation to allow greater devolution of immigration.
I was initially pleased last week when I heard Labour MPs make positive noises about such a move. In response to an intervention I made on a Scottish visa, Glasgow MP John Grady said:
“Scottish Labour and the Labour party are in favour of bringing talented people into Scotland, and the Scottish Government are welcome to work with us as we seek to ensure that that takes place. As I understand it, the Home Secretary is determined to ensure that it does, and I also understand that the Migration Advisory Committee is looking at the issue carefully.”
In addition to that, Western Isles MP Torcuil Crichton, who has spoken out on the demographic challenges facing his own rural constituency, stated:
“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.”
But we did not have to wait too long for the Home Office to quash this bout of independent thinking from Labour MPs. The Home Office told the Times that such a visa “is not government policy and not something the Home Secretary is considering”.
That is a great pity. Torcuil Crichton and I may be in different parties, but he was right. It should not be beyond us to find a solution to how we can find ways to give Scotland more of a say on migration. Devolution always meant that there was a recognition that there is no one-size-fits-all solution across the UK. This is the case for a migration system that applies a common policy for Scotland and the south-east of England – two parts of the UK with quite distinctive needs.
There are a variety of ways this could work. Earlier this year, Reform Scotland published Working Better, Together, setting out ideas whereby the Scottish and UK governments could work together more effectively. One of these areas was having a “Scottish immigration policy”, recognising that while Scotland faced demographic challenges the policies of Labour and the Conservatives meant that “Scotland’s needs may be overlooked”. Suggestions included removing Scotland from the immigration cap, allowing people to work in Scotland but not elsewhere in the UK, or Scotland-specific schemes such as Fresh Talent.
This would not be unique: other devolved administrations, even those with asymmetrical devolution, illustrate that decentralised migration policy can work. Both Canada and Australia have systems with decentralised migration policies that are prescriptive about where migrants can settle. This is included in a Canada-Quebec accord, for instance.
I am not suggesting for one moment that we simply cut and paste the system from another jurisdiction. However, by bringing together both the Scottish and UK Government, MPs and MSPs from across the political spectrum as well as key stakeholders, including Reform Scotland, we must be able to make some progress.
Part of that must be a more sensible approach to how we debate and discuss migration. There needs to be a recognition that migration is hugely influential in our society. No-one in Scotland, no matter how recently we or our forebears arrived in this north-eastern part of Europe, can say that migration has never affected them. It remains a contributor to our society’s development.
We owe it to our world-leading industries to have a better discussion and debate. Working in the Higher Education sector I saw at first hand how migration is one of the key components that makes the sector a global leader, in the process enriching the learning experience for Scottish students.
Other sectors such as care and the NHS also rely heavily on immigrants. Both are struggling with the double whammy of Brexit and a broken UK immigration system.
The Home Office’s remarks were disappointing, but all is not lost. My private members bill has been introduced in the very broadest terms. What is more, it does not have a second reading until April next year (unless of course the Government grants it time before then).
The terms of that legislation means there is scope for compromise and innovative solutions to be introduced. No one in Parliament has a monopoly of wisdom, and people also expect us to find common ground and seek to work together where possible.
Leaving the EU has been disastrous for our industries and services. I want to see Scotland re-join the EU as an Independent Member State. In the interim, and regardless of one’s views on that issue, I think we all have a responsibility to make things better. This is an idea that has cross-party and cross-sector approach in Scotland and would be a great first step in demonstrating that parties, stakeholders and both governments can come together and reach agreement on even the thorniest issues. That would be something for us all to celebrate.
Stephen Gethins is the MP for Arbroath & Broughty Ferry and Professor of International Relations at the University of St Andrews