THE Labour Party were forced into an embarrassing and “pathetic” climbdown last night after a plan to abstain on the Tories’ draconian Immigration Bill spectacularly backfired.
Corbyn’s party was forced to vote against the bill – which sets out the Tories’ plans for the UK immigration system post-Brexit – after its members and its own MPs reacted with fury to the plan to abstain and wave it through.
They did, however, only impose a one-line whip on the vote – meaning MPs did not have to show up.
“Labour have gone from abstaining on the Immigration Bill to a one-line whip to vote against, which means their MPs should vote against it if they can be bothered staying for the vote at 10pm,” tweeted the SNP’s Stewart McDonald.
“Pathetic and insulting. SNP MPs are on a three-line whip to vote against – rightly so.”
The bill passed after 297 MPs voted in favour and 234 voted against on its second reading. It will now undergo further scrutiny at the next stage.
Speaking in the debate, the SNP's immigration spokesperson Stuart McDonald warned the bill would devastate Scotland’s economy.
He told the Commons he was in agreement that a post-Brexit Immigration Bill was required and that he welcomed the “one solitary clause in relation to Irish nationals”.
He added that this was where the consensus ended, saying: “The SNP opposes a second reading of this bill”.
“There is so much wrong with the UK immigration system that needs fixed, but this Immigration Bill will not fix anything, in fact it will make things very much worse.
“The UK immigration system is built on flawed twin pillars of a ludicrous net-migration target and an obnoxious hostile environment policy, exposed for all its nastiness by the Windrush scandal,” he said.
He added that the bill would not end either of those, but would “instead see more people ensnared by both”.
During the debate shadow home secretary Diane Abbott confirmed that the party’s MPs had been instructed to abstain, much to the anger of several backbenchers.
Abbott referenced Labour’s 2017 election manifesto, which promised that the UK would leave the EU single market and therefore end freedom of movement too.
She said she was a “slavish devotee of that magnificent document”, adding: “So on that basis the front bench of the Labour Party will not be opposing this bill this evening.”
The MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington repeatedly refused to take interventions from members of her own party during the speech, eventually allowing one from Ken Clarke.
The former Chancellor said the decision to abstain by Labour’s frontbench had rendered the debate “absurd”.
Earlier in the day, Nicola Sturgeon tweeted Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard asking if he was happy with what was about to unfold in Parliament.
“Labour abstaining on the Immigration Bill? Seriously? Surely you can’t be happy with this @LabourRichard given the implications of Tory immigration policy for Scotland?” she said.
Leonard failed to respond to the First Minister.
In a statement ahead of the Commons debate, Labour said it would instead seek to “amend this bill substantially at committee stage”.
“Labour does not support the intentions contained in this bill and will therefore be seeking to amend this bill substantially at committee stage,” it read. “Our immigration system must be ready post-Brexit, and for that reason we need an immigration bill.”
“But Labour totally opposes the Tories’ disgraceful hostile environment policy, their terrible treatment of EU and UK citizens, their persistent anti-migrant campaign and their shameful labelling of workers earning less than £30,000 as low-skilled.”
However, Scottish Labour MPs Ian Murray and Martin Whitfield were among those who said they would vote against the bill whatever happened.
Tory Home Secretary Sajid Javid had earlier faced pressure from senior Tories to guarantee a “civilised” post-Brexit immigration policy in the UK Government’s bid to end free movement.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel