Immigration and Scotland Contents

6Increasing Scottish influence on immigration policy

93.In this Chapter, we consider options for increasing Scotland’s influence on migration policy. Whilst immigration policy is a reserved matter, we have heard throughout our inquiry that there are several ways in which immigration policy, and the way it is formulated, could better reflect Scotland’s interests. Both Scottish and UK Government Ministers expressed a desire to find mechanisms which would give Scotland more influence within the UK system, rather than developing a separate Scottish immigration system. Dr Allan said that the Scottish Government’s position was that it “would like to see these things fixed at the UK level”.155 David Mundell agreed that there was a need to deal with issues such as depopulation, an ageing population and a shortage of seasonal workers, but said that these issues also affected other parts of the UK and “therefore the solutions that can be found to those issues are best found on a United Kingdom-wide basis”.156

Greater influence within the existing UK immigration system

94.The Scottish Government has expressed its support for some of the options presented in Dr Eve Hepburn’s report for the Scottish Parliament’s Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee on options for differentiating the UK’s immigration system, following the UK’s exit from the EU.157 In terms of changes which would increase Scotland’s influence within UK-policy making, Dr Hepburn suggested revising and expanding the shortage occupation list for Scotland in consultation with Scottish industry stakeholders, to take account of Scotland’s skills shortages; Scottish representation on the Migration Advisory Committee, either through a representative on the Committee or by creating a sub-committee representing the UK’s nations and regions; and establishing a JMC sub-committee on immigration.

Shortage occupation list for Scotland and Scottish representation on MAC

95.The Scottish Government pointed out that currently it has no formal role in determining which occupations are on the shortage occupation list for Scotland and that Scottish Ministers cannot commission the MAC to consider changes to the list. Instead the Scottish Government contributes to calls for evidence in the same way as any other stakeholder. It supports the proposal in Dr Hepburn’s report that the UK Government should give it a formal role in commissioning and determining what occupations are in shortage in Scotland, but has also expressed reservations about whether the shortage occupation list is a helpful measure in the longer term.158 Dr Allan told us that:

We feel that Scottish Ministers could not unreasonably have some role in the say on what the Scottish shortage occupation list is. At the moment, we can be consulted in the same way as a trade union or a business interest can be consulted, but Scotland is a bit more than that and we feel that we should have more of a role.159

96.When asked whether Scottish Ministers should have a formal input to the Migration Advisory Committee and the process of determining the Scottish list, Professor Manning said that he would view that as a political issue on which he could not express a view. From an operational perspective, he said “it could conceivably work”, but that it would be important to have some sort of overarching structure so that the labour market in Scotland did not end up very different from the rest of the UK. He added that “it is not something that I think is completely impossible, but neither is it something that I think sounds like a great idea”.160 The Minister for Immigration said that decisions on the shortage occupation list were made by the expert economists on the Migration Advisory Committee and not by Ministers.161 She added that whilst there was a Home Office official on the Committee, it would not be appropriate to have a Scottish Government official because immigration was a reserved matter.162

Joint Ministerial Committee on immigration

97.The Institute for Government report on Devolution after Brexit highlighted the importance of strong and effective mechanisms for inter-governmental working between the UK Government and the devolved administrations, saying that “Brexit will require the UK and the devolved nations to co-operate actively in a way that has not always been necessary within the EU structures” and that “The four nations should seize this chance to strengthen their relationship”.163 David Mundell told us that whilst he wanted the UK and Scottish Governments to work well together, “we need to continue to evolve the mechanisms that allow us to do that most effectively”.164 He added that he was not “signing up to a Joint Ministerial Committee on Immigration” because that was too narrow a discussion, and said that there were “a number of existing arrangements that could be enhanced” such as the joint group in relation to the economy.165

98.The UK and Scottish Governments both recognise the importance of reflecting Scottish interests in immigration policy, but it appears that current mechanisms do not adequately enable this to happen. We recommend that the UK Government reviews how the Scotland specific shortage occupation list is agreed, including considering having a Scottish representative involved in the decision-making process. We also recommend that the UK Government reviews how it engages with the devolved administrations on areas of policy—such as immigration—which are reserved but of clear importance to the devolved administrations.

Differentiation within the existing UK immigration system

99.Professor Boswell told us that there was a range of relatively minor adjustments which could be made within the existing Tier 2 system to cater for Scotland’s needs. She pointed to the Fresh Talent scheme and the shortage occupation list for Scotland as precedents for this sort of differentiation, and said that other possible adjustments could include a differentiated salary or skills threshold for Tier 2 immigration and an improved methodology for identifying the occupations on the shortage occupation list for Scotland.166 In her research report, she outlined the main features of how an employer-led scheme might operate with differentiated criteria for Scotland:

Employers with sponsor status may recruit foreign nationals to fill vacancies where a number of conditions are met, including specified salary and skills thresholds and a resident labour market test. A differentiated scheme could build on the current Tier 2 scheme, but Scottish employers would be subject to a lower skills threshold/salary than other parts of the UK, and certain elements of the labour market test could be waived. It would involve setting a quota for Scotland, agreed with the Home Office and following consultation with key stakeholders, and the MAC (or a ‘MAC Scotland’).167

100.The Welsh Government has also proposed an approach of allocating a quota of Tier 2 visas to specific nations. It has called for longer term reforms to UK immigration policy so that it recognises the distinct needs of Wales and other nations and regions within the UK, which cannot be met through “the blunt and resource-intensive UK-wide approach currently in place”. It seeks a differentiated approach, where the Welsh Government would have a stronger role in determining how future migration to Wales would be managed. It suggests that one way of ensuring a future system better met the needs of Wales would be to allocate a specific number of Tier 2 visas to Wales, which could then be managed to respond to labour and skills shortages within the Welsh economy.168

Regional visas

101.One option presented in the Scottish Government’s migration discussion paper is a proposal that the Scottish Government, working in partnership with the UK Government and its agencies, would have the powers to issue regional, ‘Scotland-only’ visas. These regional visas would be in addition to, not instead of, the existing UK-wide visas, and the intention would be that they target Scotland’s specific needs. Scotland would not be included in the net migration target; it would not be allocated a quota under the UK system, or a cap on the number of regional visas it could issue; and Scottish Ministers would control policy to enable migrants to bring their family members to live with them in Scotland. The Scottish Government acknowledges concerns that “the rest of the UK might expect [Scotland-only visa] migrants to stay in Scotland” and says that:

… a central feature of Scottish migration policy would be to restrict migrants to living in Scotland as a condition of entry for the duration of the time they are under immigration control. How a residence restriction is defined and enforced would need to be agreed with the UK Government, but there are existing frameworks (for example, the arrangements that govern eligibility for higher education support) that could prove instructive and demonstrate the feasibility of such an approach.169

Arguments for and against differentiation

102.The evidence we heard from academics was that differentiated immigration systems had been successfully implemented in other countries, and that there was no practical reason why they could not be implemented in the UK. Dr Hepburn told us that the UK was currently “one of the few multi-level states in the world that does not take regional and sub-state interests and needs into account”,170 and that sub-state visa sponsorship schemes had been implemented in Canada and Australia.171

103.In its analysis of the arguments for and against some form of regionalisation, the Migration Observatory concluded that such systems were feasible and noted that “the argument that they would be unenforceable is not well founded”.172 Chris Murray, IPPR, said that, given the changes being planned for the immigration system “it seems to be sensible to try to address the concerns of those communities and the concerns of other parts of the country that may be facing skills gaps, and population decline” and that “it is possible to allow for small amounts of variation on a regional basis that could take us in that direction”.173

104.In its interim report on the integration of immigrants, the APPG on Social Integration called on the government to seriously consider offering a degree of control over immigration policy powers to the constituent nations and regions of the UK so as to boost levels of integration.174 It noted that the UK’s points-based immigration system was “generally unresponsive to demographic, economic, and cultural differences between our constituent nations and regions” and recommended that the Government appoint an independent commission to explore how a regionally-led immigration system might work. In particular, it suggested that consideration be given to the introduction of region specific visas, and for the quotas for these visas to be agreed by devolved administrations, city regions, and other democratic forums. The City of London has also proposed the introduction of a regional visa scheme as a post-Brexit solution to labour shortages. Its report, ‘Regional Visas—A unique immigration solution?’ looked at how a flexible regional visa system could help businesses address their local skills shortages and potentially better integrate migrants into the community.175

105.The IPPR’s discussion paper on the UK’s future immigration strategy set out six guiding principles for a new system, one of which was that future immigration strategy should actively address geographical imbalances in the economy. It suggested that geographical flexibility could allow the immigration system to better reflect local and regional economic and demographic needs, rather than central targets. It concluded that a sub-state policy would present a new set of logistical challenges for the Home Office, but that these challenges were surmountable and a system with geographical flexibility could be both administratively manageable and enforceable.176 While discussing this Report during his appearance before the Committee, Chris Murray of the IPPR said:

I definitely think it would be very hard not to have quite strong and strict levels of cohesion across the UK. The question is whether it needs to be completely rigid or whether there is scope for some variation in specific sectors. The proposals that we made would only be for skilled labour migration or post-study work, for example. If you wanted wholesale changes, that would create difficulties if there was strong divergence.177

106.Witnesses agreed that whilst differentiation was feasible, there were other factors to consider. Madeleine Sumption explained that it was “fundamentally a political decision that involved weighing up pros and cons”. Factors such as the economic costs of a more complex system would have to be considered against increased local accountability and control over migration.178 Indications are that public opinion does not support a regional approach to immigration. A recent survey by NatCen found that 63% of people polled in Scotland would like Scotland to keep the same rules on immigration as the rest of the UK.179 Madeleine Sumption pointed out that there was also evidence that the vast majority of employers, including in Scotland, did not favour regional variation, primarily because of the compliance costs and the burden on employers of “keeping track of where people are, making sure they are complying and then being visited or audited”.180

107.Business representatives expressed their concerns about Scotland taking a different approach to immigration from the rest of the UK. FSB Scotland said that small businesses did not have the capabilities to process right to work checks and that “significant Government intervention would be required, particularly on the HR side, to enable small businesses to function in that environment”.181 Willie Macleod, Executive Director for Scotland, British Hospitality Association, said that the possible restriction on the flexibility of movement of people would be a problem for cross-border industries which needed to move people around the UK.182 CBI Scotland told us that “businesses would be best served by a single, UK-wide immigration system, provided it is flexible enough to meet Scotland’s needs” and that “many firms in Scotland who hire overseas workers have concerns that separate immigration rules and procedures would create additional burdens and make Scotland a less attractive place to do business”.183

108.David Mundell told us that he was not convinced that the benefits of having a regional immigration system would outweigh the dis-benefits,184 saying that:

I remain to be convinced that there is a rationale for the additional bureaucracy that would be created by having a regional immigration system that is separate to Scotland or Wales.185

109.Greater differentiation within the UK system might provide a way to better match immigration policy with local needs. During our inquiry we heard evidence on sub-national schemes. More work is needed to determine the advantages and disadvantages of greater differentiation within the UK. We recommend that the Government commission a review of all options for increased regional differentiation, particularly for Scotland, in the UK immigration system which sets out the impacts this would have on businesses, local employment and communities.

155 Q479

156 Q623

157 Dr Eve Hepburn, Options for Differentiating the UK’s Immigration System, 2017

158 Dr Eve Hepburn, Options for Differentiating the UK’s Immigration System, 2017, para 72

163 Institute for Government, Devolution after Brexit, (accessed 4 July 2018)

164 Q677

165 Q679

166 Q21 Q51