Holyrood immigration power could help with ‘offsetting' Brexit damage, claims MP
Devolving immigration powers to Holyrood is 'a way of offsetting some of the damage that's been done by a hostile environment, by Brexit', an SNP MP has claimed.
Introducing his Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill, Stephen Gethins told the Commons that migration had 'driven our policies and our economic growth for centuries'.
According to business insights and conditions survey results published by the Scottish Government, an estimated 22.6% of businesses were experiencing a shortage of workers in February this year.
Firms in the health and social work sector were thought to be the worst hit, with 42.9% of businesses reporting shortages.
Mr Gethins told MPs: 'For how long do we have to put up with damaging Westminster policies?
'This Bill today is a way of offsetting some of the damage that's been done by a hostile environment, by Brexit – which I'm astonished daily that the Scottish Labour Party continue to endorse – and let me talk about the Scottish care system, the current UK immigration system.
'All of us will benefit from the care system at some point – all of us. And we'll all have loved ones to have benefited, so I think their voice is a particularly pertinent one.
'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 in delivery of the care services.'
Social care workers are not normally allowed to bring their dependants, for example, their partners and children, into the UK using their health and social care visa, after changes made last year.
Migrants arriving on a skilled worker visa should be able to meet a £38,700 salary threshold – up from £26,200 – to qualify.
Josh Fenton-Glynn, the Labour MP for Calder Valley in West Yorkshire, intervened in Mr Gethins' speech and said: 'The problem with care is not that we're not getting cheap labour from elsewhere, it's that we're not paying care workers enough.'
Mr Gethins, the Arbroath and Broughty Ferry MP, had earlier said: 'Migration has driven our policies and our economic growth for centuries.
'Yet we lean in, or Labour leans in, to this Reform agenda – it's very disappointing that they're not in their place – that is so poisonous to our political rhetoric, when we talk about migration and refugees – two entirely separate issues.'
The private member's Bill would remove immigration from schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, which lists 'reserved matters' still under the control of legislators in Westminster.
'His Bill is a simple, one-line Bill that says to devolve the entire immigration system to Scotland,' Scottish Secretary Ian Murray told the Commons.
Mr Gethins replied that 'this is not ideal' and said he was 'very open to this being amended'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
We should all hope Rachel Reeves delivers growth - or our taxes are going up: SIMON LAMBERT
Rachel Reeves faced a big challenge in her spending review. This is the event where she sets down a marker for what Labour plans to do under Sir Keir Starmer and herself as Chancellor. Funds are pledged to projects and government departments that fit with Labour's priorities – future Budgets should align with a plan to make this happen. Reeves faced a double challenge though, as she also needed to convince the country Labour can deliver growth and improve Britain, while balancing the books in a way that convinces markets the UK's finances are under control. The first element involves a commitment to spend, the second requires spending less or raising taxes. Clearly, this is a difficult balancing act to pull off at the best of times. But if you've promised not to raise taxes and many in your party are vehemently opposed to spending cuts to already threadbare public services, it's even harder. Add in the backdrop of a screeching U-turn on winter fuel payments, a rise in job losses blamed on the Autumn Budget 's employer national insurance rise, and a Spring Statement that regained a wafer-thin £9.9billion fiscal rule buffer only for this to be wiped out soon after by Donald Trump's tariff ructions, and you don't envy Reeves at all. As the old asking for directions joke punchline goes: 'Well, I wouldn't start from here'. There was more money for defence, schools and the NHS and less money for other public services deemed less important, or able to be brushed under the carpet for now. Ultimately though, the economic story remains the same as it was with Reeves' Tory predecessors: meet your targets by outlining plans that involve growth picking up, productivity improving and cutting spending in the future. Since Rishi Sunak there's also been some fiscal drag from frozen tax thresholds chucked in for good measure. Based on the OBR's five-year outlooks, this allows Chancellors to meet their fiscal rules. The fact that these forecasts inevitably turn out to be wrong, productivity doesn't improve, and things don't end up balancing is conveniently ignored. Yet, still we continue with the farce of policy by spreadsheet. As I've written before this fairytale economics is a terrible way to make decisions. Fortunately, the Chancellor had one card up her sleeve, the change to borrowing rules that allowed extra infrastructure investment. It freed her up to announce £113billion of plans to knock Britain into shape. These ranged from £39billion for affordable homes over a decade, to £30billion on nuclear power, £15billion on transport schemes. Among the beneficiaries will be rail and bus links in the North, the Oxford to Cambridge Arc, and the Sizewell C nuclear plant. Will these things deliver growth? Over time, they should do, but we will have to wait for that to arrive. In the meantime, we face a summer of speculation over tax rises in an Autumn Budget – and with the three big earners of income tax, national insurance and VAT off the table due to Labour's pre-election promise, that would mean more tinkering around the edges. The target of tax rises is likely to be wealth, and hitting the wealthy means potentially going after pensions, savings and investments – the OECD even called for a council tax hike on big homes last week. What if things can only get better? But there is an alternative scenario. Through a combination of bad luck and her own mistakes, such as the mystifying '£22billion black hole' gloomfest, Reeves has been caught out in her time as Chancellor. Government borrowing costs have risen, borrowing itself has come in higher than forecast, and growth has disappointed. Meanwhile, the second iteration of President Trump has proved even more erratic than the first. If things move in the opposite direction though, the UK's finances could improve, and Reeves would catch a lucky break and not have to raise taxes in autumn. This is not an entirely far-fetched scenario, GDP growth in early 2025 was better than expected, a calmer period could see government borrowing costs fall, and a pick-up in the economy would deliver extra tax revenue. Its doubtful that much benefit will be seen from the infrastructure splurge for a while, but the government's pledge to build homes and its threats against reluctant councils are already seeing more approved. I'm reading increasing reports of councils waving through schemes they would previously have said no to. Most likely as they are worried about appeals if they turn developers down and get over-ruled. This may come at a cost to the environment and local communities, while developers cash in, but if enough spades go in the ground, it will boost growth. Meanwhile, companies seem to have front-loaded job cuts, the UK stock market is on the up, and I feel that we may be past the moment of peak consumer gloom. All this could bring that much hoped for improvement in growth. I know this would mess with many of our readers' desire for schadenfreude over Labour, but to my mind, greater prosperity is definitely a better outcome. Otherwise, taxes will surely be going up again soon. How far would you go to avoid your personal tax raid? Tax is an increasingly taxing subject for many people who feel hard done by as Britain's complicated system catches them out. And, it's getting worse. So how far would you go to avoid your personal tax raid? And is it changing people's behaviour? On this podcast, Georgie Frost, Lee Boyce and Simon Lambert dive into how the British tax tail is wagging the dog - and what you can do to avoid infuriating tax traps.
Metro
an hour ago
- Metro
Does money seem to be the hardest word? Here's how to handle talking about it
When it comes to personal conversations, money is still one of the hardest topics to discuss with friends, partners and family. A new study from savings app Plum puts financial questions such as 'What is your salary?' and 'How much do you have in savings?' at the top of a list of most awkward questions to ask, while money topics such as debt and credit ratings take up four of the top 10 spots in 'conversation topics to avoid' – along with President Trump and Brexit. But while most of us steer clear of chatting about our finances, research from the Money and Pensions Service shows that those who can broach the subject end up better off. Money talkers make less risky decisions and feel less stressed, the study shows. 'Building money conversations into our everyday lives helps us to build financial confidence and resilience,' says Becky O'Connor, director of public affairs at PensionBee. So how can we have these money conversations profitably and securely? We asked the money experts for their top tips for various scenarios. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video We've all been there. A lovely meal out with friends can leave a nasty taste in the mouth when it comes to sharing the bill. Sometimes the most difficult conversations about money can be the smallest ones, says financial adviser Rebecca Penny, who runs Planit Financial. That includes conversations over splitting the bill over dinner if you have only had the starter and everyone else has splashed out on steak and lobster. Many of us stay silent as the bill arrives. The solution: tackle it one-on-one, says Rebecca, who believes a 'quiet word in the ear of the person organising the meal in advance can work wonders. If you really feel you can't have the conversation, she also suggests a non-talking strategy – just slipping to the bathroom close to the end of the meal and settling your part of the bill directly with the restaurant staff on the way back. Financial situations can make or break a relationship, whether at an early stage or later on, before you move in together. But sitting down to discuss salary, existing debts and your attitude towards spending and saving can seem excruciating, not to mention a bit of a passion killer. Money coach Lesley Thomas, who runs the Money Confidence Academy, says that it is natural to feel awkward about having this conversation. 'It can feel invasive or trigger shame or comparison,' she says. She adds that it's not a conversation to have on the first date, but also cautions those in new relationships not to wait too long. 'Timing matters,' she says. 'Wait until trust is being built, but don't wait too long, especially if the relationship is getting serious.' The solution: Get the tone right and use curiosity as a tool, says Lesley. 'Don't treat it like a test, treat it like shared data. You're not just asking, you're aligning values. Use curiosity, not interrogation.' Lesley also advises sharing your own situation first. 'I've got a student loan and a credit card I'm paying off slowly. How about you?' might be a fair opening gambit, she believes. If one of you is in financial difficulty, or times are tight, it can be hard to broach the subject even if you've been together for years. It's easy for it to lead to recriminations or regret and can make the problem worse, not better, if not well-tackled. 'You have every right to be upset but try not to let it derail your efforts to find a solution together,' says Sarah Coles, personal finance expert at DIY investment group Hargreaves Lansdown. 'There's nothing to be gained from a shouting match.' The solution: Find the right time. 'You can't rush some of these sensitive conversations, so find a time that works for you both,' says Sarah. She also suggests that running through the conversation in your head first can help with preparation. 'Consider how to introduce the subject thoughtfully and think about how they might feel and respond. Don't let this be an excuse for putting it off, but it can help to have plotted a way through the more difficult aspects of the conversation.' Above all, though, tell the whole truth, so that you don't have to have the conversation again with more resentment on both sides later. 'This is not the time to fudge the truth or hold things back,' she says. 'If it all emerges over time, they'll feel you weren't being honest, and it makes it much harder to help if they only have half the truth. It's not going to be pleasant but rip that plaster off.' Being on the same page with a potential flatmate is important early on, otherwise you'll be in for an awkward time with unpaid bills, empty fridges and a potentially trashed credit score. But if you're dealing with an acquaintance or someone you barely know, sorting out the ground rules can feel like a minefield. The solution: Polly Arrowsmith, accountant and cost of living specialist, suggests having this conversation when you sign the lease agreement, rather than waiting until it all goes wrong. 'While it may seem overkill, it is helpful to write down your agreements and sign and date them. 'Do this when everyone feels good about the flat share, and refer back to it if a disagreement happens,' she says. If someone is not paying their share, she suggests addressing it calmly. 'Talk with heart, and not anger. Listen to them,' she says. Conversations about money with ageing parents can also be a flashpoint, as there's not only care costs and inheritance to consider, but also who will manage their money if they cannot. Conversations at these ages might cover things like setting up a lasting power of attorney (LPA), both for finances and healthcare, to cover incapacity, as well as tricky discussions around wills, legacies and tax. Alex Gaita, financial planning director at Schroders Personal Wealth, says getting financial affairs in order in this way is 'something many of us put off'. 'It can be quite a difficult topic,' he says. More Trending The Solution: Shift to the positive. Focusing on the money negatives as families get older makes conversations hard to have. Alex says that when he shifts the conversation to differences that older people can make with their money in the future years, the talk lightens and families can get excited. 'When I speak to clients about how their money could help the next generation – from their children, even to their great-grandchildren's future – the conversation shifts. 'They start to think not just about what they've built, but about the legacy they want to leave.' View More » MORE: OCD left me convinced condoms didn't work — sex was terrifying MORE: 'Everyone asks what fragrance I'm wearing – it's this little-known niche perfume' MORE: Readers defend the government's U-turn on winter fuel payments Your free newsletter guide to the best London has on offer, from drinks deals to restaurant reviews.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Winter fuel payment u-turn exposes flaws in SNP's universalism
Reeves maintained that circumstances have changed so much that the u-turn now represents a model of safe fiscal navigation. She was bound to claim that and I don't really care, so long as it allows a costly political mistake to be neutralised. In fact, Reeves' statement indicated quite a few 'u-turns' which have headed the government in more recognisable Labour directions. Thank goodness for that too, I say. People voted for change and it needs to be more visible. In the run-up to last week's by-election, lots of voters were still angry about Reeves' initial action on Winter Fuel Payments but not enough, as it proved, to change the outcome. Labour has had the sense to listen and respond with more positive messages. The Chancellor was not just redistributionist in her commitments to health, education, housing and so on, which apply directly to England. She also spread serious investment around the nations and regions, on top of the record £52 billion to the Scottish Government. Read more from Brian Wilson: Her England-only funding will lead to lots of 'Barnett consequentials' for Scotland. Normally, these are taken with one ungrateful hand and recycled with the other as Scottish Government largesse, without a backward reference to where the money came from. Anas Sarwar will need to keep reminding them and this time more attention must be paid to whether the extra billions are used for priorities which generated them. For example, every penny of 'consequentials' which flow from extra NHS spending in England should be spent on the NHS in Scotland, which has not always happened in the past. There should be complete transparency around this and how other Barnett money, on top of the £52 billion, is spent, and the value we get. However convoluted the route to get here, Winter Fuel Payments now offer a perfect example of why 'universalism' is one pillar of nationalist rule which is long overdue for a 'u-turn', preferably under a new Holyrood administration which has the courage to take the argument on. Under Reeves' plans, pensioners with income under £35,000 a year will get the Winter Fuel Payment of two or three hundred pounds. Those above that amount will not. The vast majority of people will regard that compromise as somewhere between fair and generous. I haven't heard anyone plead the case for restoring universalism. Except, of course, in Scotland where the nationalists committed themselves to paying every pensioner £100, whether they need it or not. It was a political gimmick to demonstrate generosity, humanity etc in comparison to Whitehall, to be funded entirely from the Scottish budget (at the expense of something else). Now the money will come from the Treasury and it will be up to Edinburgh to divvy it up. If they persist in giving £100 to pensioners above the £35,000 threshold, it will either be at the expense of the less well-off or an entirely pointless use of scarce resources, other than to justify 'universalism'. Maybe that example could open the door to an overdue wider debate in Scotland around 'universalism' which opposition politicians tend to steer clear of because the assumption has developed that 'free things are popular' even if their effect is to widen wealth and attainment gaps, rather than narrow them. In a world of unlimited resources, universalism may be a desirable concept, to be recouped through correspondingly high taxation. In the world we inhabit, on the other hand, it is a lofty-sounding device for transferring scarce resources from those who have least to others who are much better off. That is a deception which the SNP have deployed to great advantage. Anyone who challenges it is accused of wanting to reintroduce 'means-testing' which carries the stigma of 1930s oppressors keeping money from the poor. In the 2020s, however, the case for 'means-testing' is to stop giving money to those who don't need it. Another obvious example of this con-trick involves 'free tuition' which now plays a large part in bringing Scotland's universities to the point of penury, forcing large-scale redundancies, excluding Scottish students from hundreds of desirable courses and making our great seats of learning more dependent on decisions taken in Beijing and Seoul than Edinburgh. 'Universalism is one pillar of nationalist rule which is long overdue for a 'u-turn', preferably under a new Holyrood administration' (Image: Radmat) At some point, politicians must have the courage to call out this deception for what it is. The guiding principle that nobody should be prohibited by economic circumstances from going to university does not equate to 'universalism'. Quite the opposite is true. Universalism actually works against those who need far more support if the dial on educational attainment is ever going to move, which it hasn't done in Scotland under present policies and posturing. If public money is to be better spent in Scotland to attack poverty and disadvantage while creating a thriving economy, then shibboleths will have to be challenged. The Scottish Government has never been short of money and certainly won't be now. The question of how it is spent and wasted should be the battlefield of political debate. Another satisfactory 'u-turn' confirmed yesterday was recognition that nuclear power will be an essential component in the transition to a clean energy future. I wish the same obvious conclusion had been reached 20 years ago, when I was arguing for it within government, or could be recognised even now by the student politicians in Edinburgh. With renewables and nuclear, Scotland really could have been a world leader on net zero. Without nuclear, it will still need fossil fuels for baseload for the foreseeable future with imports, rather oddly, regarded by some as morally superior to those extracted from the North Sea. Bring on another u-turn! Brian Wilson is a former Labour Party politician. He was MP for Cunninghame North from 1987 until 2005 and served as a Minister of State from 1997 to 2003.
