Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Seòmar agus comataidhean

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Thursday, January 9, 2025


Contents


Migration System

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Annabelle Ewing)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-16034, in the name of Kaukab Stewart, on building a migration system that supports Scotland’s economy, public services and communities. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons. I call Tom Arthur to speak to and move the motion, for up to 12 minutes.

15:00  

The Minister for Employment and Investment (Tom Arthur)

I am pleased to open this important debate on migration. Parliament has debated migration previously, and although there have been disagreements, we have also been able to come together to recognise the benefits of migration to our economy, our public services and our communities.

Historically, Scotland was a nation of emigration, with people leaving to build a future elsewhere. Since 2001, Scotland has been a nation of net in-migration. We should celebrate the fact that Scotland is now a country that attracts people—people who want to come here to build their future and to make a positive contribution to this nation by working in our public services, helping to build our economy and becoming valued members of our communities.

People choose to come to Scotland from across the world and from across the United Kingdom. The latest data shows that 13,900 more people chose to come to Scotland from the rest of the UK than chose to leave Scotland.

Like many nations across the world, Scotland’s population is ageing. National Records of Scotland data shows that just over 20 per cent of the population is aged 65 and over. Over the past two decades, the number of people aged 65 and above has grown by 36 per cent, while the number of those under 16 has fallen by 5 per cent. The number of people aged 65 and over is projected to grow by nearly a third by mid-2045, while the number of children is projected to fall by nearly a fifth.

Our population is growing, but it is growing solely as a result of migration. Jon Wroth-Smith, director of census statistics at the National Records of Scotland, has stated:

“Without migration Scotland’s population would have decreased, and we would have fewer people in younger age groups.”

It is clear that we need to continue to attract people to Scotland to grow our economy and sustain our public services. Therefore, the Government will help employers to navigate the UK immigration system, enabling them to bring in the skilled workers that they need to grow our economy; argue for change to ensure that the immigration system is fit for purpose; and make the case for tailored migration routes to reflect the needs of Scotland’s economy, public services and communities.

Our first priority is to ensure that employers and individuals are able to recruit the skilled international workers that they need to grow their businesses. In November, the Minister for Equalities visited a technology business, iGii in Stirling, to launch the expanded Scotland’s Migration Service. The service is being provided by the Scottish Government through a partnership with Citizens Advice Scotland and Seraphus, an immigration law firm that is providing free advice to help Scottish employers and inward investors to navigate the UK immigration system. Through the partnership with Citizens Advice Scotland, Scotland’s Migration Service is supporting international students, people who have recently moved to Scotland and prospective movers who have a confirmed job offer or are moving to join a close family member.

The Government is investing in support for employers to help them to navigate the existing system, but we are also hearing the very clear message that the current immigration system is not fit for purpose. It is expensive, it is bureaucratic and difficult to navigate, and it is too focused on salary thresholds rather than on the skills and expertise that our economy needs. It is deeply regrettable that, for too long, too much of the discourse on migration has focused entirely on reducing numbers rather than on having an honest public discussion about the needs of our economy, our public services and our communities. We need an immigration system that meets Scotland’s needs.

Our second priority, therefore, is to engage with employers, stakeholders, local authorities and partners to identify the changes that are needed to the UK immigration system and to make the case for those changes to the UK Government. In March, the previous UK Government changed the immigration system to prevent overseas care workers from bringing dependants to the UK. Home Office data shows that, over the six months since that change—from April to November—there was an 84 per cent fall from the number of health and care visas issued in the previous year.

Last year, the previous UK Government also introduced changes to the study route that meant that most international students are unable to bring dependants with them to the UK. Those changes, together with the significant increase in the salary threshold for the skilled worker visa, make it much harder for our universities to attract international students and for the Scottish economy to retain skilled international students.

We cannot view migration in isolation, focusing on whether numbers go up or down. It needs to be one strand in a wider strategy that brings together the needs of our economy, our public services, training and skills.

It is welcome that the UK Government has set out its intention to bring together migration, skills and industrial strategy. The Scottish Government will engage constructively in that process. However, we need to ensure that the process considers the needs of different communities. The current immigration system recognises that we need migration solutions that are tailored to the needs of different sectors, but we also need to recognise that there may be cases in which we need different routes based on geography.

Let us be clear that establishing different migration routes based on the needs of geography is not a novel concept. The current UK immigration system is already comprised of a series of different—or tailored—visa routes. The establishment of the Scottish Parliament was designed to allow distinct solutions to be developed to respond to distinct challenges, and one of the first distinct solutions that the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament developed was a tailored migration route for Scotland. The fresh talent working in Scotland scheme was launched in June 2005 as part of the wider fresh talent initiative, which aimed to encourage people to settle in Scotland. It was a tailored visa route for international students attending Scottish universities that enabled them to stay in Scotland for up to two years after completion of their studies.

In 2005, the UK Government of the day recognised that Scotland had distinct demographic needs and supported the establishment of a tailored migration route to address those needs. Our ambition is for the current UK Government to work with us once again to deliver a tailored approach to migration that meets the needs of Scotland.

Craig Hoy (South Scotland) (Con)

One of those distinct needs is to get skilled workers into rural areas. What does the minister say to the fact that the £25 million key workers fund for rural areas has managed to find only 17 homes in two years? That is clearly not the kind of action that is required to ensure that we get the right skills in the right places, particularly our rural areas.

Tom Arthur

Craig Hoy will recognise that a number of initiatives are being taken and that certain schemes will be demand led. However, the Government has a demonstrable commitment to address some of those challenges using the powers of devolution. I invite members to guard against any single-action bias and the presumption that one intervention is the answer. We need a multifaceted approach to ensure that all parts of Scotland are capable of attracting and sustaining populations. That is the spirit in which the debate has been brought to the Parliament.

There is clear evidence of the need for a tailored migration route for Scotland. The current immigration system does not meet the needs of communities across Scotland, particularly our rural communities. That is not only the Scottish Government’s assessment but that of the UK Government’s Migration Advisory Committee, which accepted that

“the current migration system is not very effective in dealing with the particular problems remote communities experience.”

The solution that the Migration Advisory Committee proposed, which the then Home Secretary accepted, was a pilot scheme to facilitate migration to rural areas. We have developed detailed deliverable proposals for tailored migration routes: a Scottish visa and a rural visa pilot. The Migration Advisory Committee reviewed our proposal for a rural visa pilot and described it as

“sensible and clear in both scale and deliverability”,

calling on the UK Government to

“consider what action would be required to take a pilot from proposal stage to implementation.”

There is no reason not to move ahead with that pilot.

Migration to Scotland supports economic growth and the delivery of public services. It helps to address the serious issue of long-term demographic change and enhances and sustains our communities. All—I emphasise “all”—our future population growth is projected to come from migration, so any reduction in migration, whether from the rest of the UK or internationally, will impact on the size of our working-age population. A UK immigration system that does not meet the needs of Scotland is not fit for purpose. Through the establishment of Scotland’s migration service, this Government is supporting employers to navigate the immigration system, and we will continue to argue for changes to the immigration system to meet Scotland’s needs.

The Scottish Parliament has previously supported motions that argued for an immigration system that focuses on the needs of Scotland’s economy, public services and communities. This is yet another opportunity for this Parliament to set out our priorities and our asks of the UK Government.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the social, economic and cultural contribution made to Scotland by those who have chosen to live here; notes the establishment of Scotland’s Migration Service at a cost of up to £1.5 million in the draft Budget 2025-26 to help employers, investors and individuals navigate the UK immigration system; further notes that the Parliament has previously endorsed a motion calling for the development of a differentiated, more flexible migration policy tailored to meet Scotland’s specific needs, and calls on the UK Government to accept the Rural Visa Pilot proposal and to work directly and constructively with the Scottish Government to ensure that the needs of Scotland’s employers, communities and public services are fully reflected within the immigration system.

15:10  

Jeremy Balfour (Lothian) (Con)

The project of devolution is built on the idea that devolved Parliaments can carry out certain functions of government effectively at a more local level. Over the past 25 years of our history, the Scottish Parliament has been entrusted with many responsibilities—healthcare, education, transport and social security, to mention a few.

However, that model works only if the Scottish Government is actually focused on those issues. The system fails when we ignore our core responsibilities and, instead, spend time on functions that are reserved to Westminster. This debate is the latest example of the Scottish Government not being interested in making devolution work for the people of Scotland.

Will the member give way?

Will Mr Balfour take an intervention?

Ladies first, if that is okay.

Shirley-Anne Somerville

How very gallant of the member.

I am already gravely concerned by the tone that the member is taking. As my colleague Mr Arthur pointed out, this debate is about how to improve the economy and our public services and about how to have surviving and thriving communities. I am deeply disappointed that, once again, the Conservatives do not see the importance of migration to the economy, our communities and our public services—all of which are devolved responsibilities.

Jeremy Balfour

With respect to the cabinet secretary, I think that she has slightly jumped the gun. She might want to reflect on what I will say in the next few minutes.

Instead of focusing on providing high-quality public services, the Scottish Government would rather grandstand on reserved policy areas and deflect attention elsewhere. The consequences of that are plain to see: a suffering national health service, an ever-growing housing crisis, the social care sector on its knees, and the wider third sector looking for life support.

Should we be surprised that Scotland is struggling to attract migrants? If the Scottish National Party is not willing to put in the work to make Scotland an attractive prospect, why should migrants be willing to move here? Scotland is home to 8.4 per cent of the UK population, but we receive only 6 per cent of net UK migration. Regardless of the SNP’s attempts to deflect from that, the blame lies squarely at its feet.

Ben Macpherson

Does Jeremy Balfour acknowledge the fact that inward migration from the rest of the UK has been positive—in that more people have come from the rest of the UK to Scotland than have gone elsewhere in the UK—and that the overall levels of migration to Scotland are pretty similar to those in the north of England? I am not sure that the argument is as clear as he has made out.

Jeremy Balfour

I do not accept the member’s second point because, if we look at the numbers, we see that they are lower than they are for any other part of the UK. We have been brought to this point by the SNP’s failed leadership on countless matters—not least on taxation.

Jackson Carlaw (Eastwood) (Con)

I wish to reflect on Mr Macpherson’s point about inward migration from the rest of the UK. I do not think that we have a profile of the age demographic for that migration. Is Mr Macpherson able to demonstrate that the inward migration is of people of working age who are here to contribute to the economy? If that is not the case, his point is rather less effective than he imagines.

Jeremy Balfour

I will come back to the point that Mr Carlaw made, if time allows.

The Scottish Government likes to make a big song and dance about its progressive tax policy, but the truth is that medium earners in Scotland pay more tax than their counterparts pay south of the border. A Scottish resident on £50,000 a year will pay an extra £1,527.80 in the next tax year, compared with someone with the same job in England.

Last year, the Deputy First Minister said:

“I have often heard it said that the negative rhetoric about tax is more off-putting than the tax itself.”—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 9 October 2024; c 25.]

She clearly believes that, if only Opposition parties would say nice things about SNP policies, we could trick people into moving to Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives would love to say positive things about Scottish tax policy, but, unfortunately, the SNP insists on raising taxes for hard-working families, with nothing to show for it.

Will Jeremy Balfour take an intervention?

Jeremy Balfour

I have probably taken enough interventions.

The Scottish Conservatives believe that, by allowing people to keep more of their hard-earned wages, we can promote the economic growth that Scotland so desperately needs and establish ourselves as a top destination for skilled migrants in the UK and on the world stage. Too often, people come here not to work but to retire and be with family.

Although, as a party, we fundamentally disagree with high taxes, that would be slightly more acceptable if the standard of public services that we received was high. Unfortunately, after almost 18 years of SNP mismanagement, the people of Scotland are not getting anything like value for money. Our NHS is being stretched to breaking point. According to some estimates, more than 2,000 people died last year in Scotland due to a long wait in an accident and emergency department. Waiting lists for surgeries remain far too long, and more and more people are having to pay for private care on top of their taxes. However, once again, the SNP is more interested in spending parliamentary time talking about reserved matters over which it has no jurisdiction, instead of tackling the crisis that we have created in our health service.

The Government motion mentions that we need to increase migration to our rural communities in Scotland, but the Government does not understand that its actions are contributing to the problem. Its failure to follow through on its promises to dual the A9, for instance, has done nothing to make small communities in the north of Scotland more connected. Its failure to provide a high standard of healthcare in rural areas forces residents to travel great distances for routine appointments. Why would anyone want to move to such areas?

A report by the Scottish Human Rights Commission found that, in the Highlands and Islands, the Government is not meeting its minimum core obligations on food and housing, while it is only partially meeting its obligations on health. The Scottish Government should be dealing with those factors rather than debating today’s topic. As the development manager for the Federation of Small Businesses in the Highlands and Islands, David Richardson, has said,

“Reversing population trends will require moving heaven and earth to retain more young people and attract younger people and families to move in by focusing on making rural Highland the best possible place to ... work”.

The Parliament was established to work for the people of Scotland on a number of matters. It was not established to grandstand on issues that we have no jurisdiction over, while failing to provide the basic functions of government. The irony is that, if the SNP focused on competent government and following through on promises, Scotland would be a much more attractive destination for migration. As with all debates of this nature, addressing those issues would be a much better use of parliamentary time. Unfortunately, the SNP does not seem to be interested in that.

I move amendment S6M-16034.4, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert:

“understands that Scotland receives 6% of net migration to the UK, which is lower than its 8.4% population share; notes that the Scottish Government has made Scotland an unattractive destination to move to through a combination of higher taxes on skilled professionals, a lack of investment in rural economies, a failure to provide adequate transport routes, an inability to provide enough homes in key areas, and a neglect of public services; further notes that the Scottish Government’s failures have led to depopulation from some of Scotland’s more rural parts, and asserts that immigration is a matter reserved to the UK Parliament and not in the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament.”

Rhoda Grant joins us remotely to speak to and move amendment S6M-16034.3.

15:19  

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

We recognise the valuable contribution that is made by those who migrate to Scotland. In every walk of life, new Scots provide new knowledge and experience. However, that is not unique to Scotland. Indeed, Scots have travelled extensively around the globe and made their mark, and that still happens today.

We know that a large proportion of those we train as doctors go abroad to seek better conditions and training opportunities. That has happened for years, but we have not addressed that loss of talent. Instead, we continue to do the same in attracting doctors, medical staff and carers to move to Scotland to fill our vacancies. Many of them have trained in countries that are less wealthy than Scotland, and that has a social and financial cost to those countries, as well.

The fresh talent initiative, which was launched by Jack McConnell’s Administration in 204, demonstrated that Scottish Labour is not against inward migration. The success of that initiative, which was also known as the working in Scotland scheme, was down to the collaboration between the Scottish and UK Governments at that time. By working together rather than separately, policies can be developed to serve Scotland well, and I was really pleased to hear that the minister committed to working with the UK Government on that issue.

In relation to workers and graduates, we should be training our own staff and taking steps to ensure that we retain them in our own workforce. Workforce planning should never be dependent on inward migration. The problems are more acute in rural Scotland, as populations are declining. The fundamental issue with attracting more workers to rural Scotland is not the mechanism by which we attract them but the ability for those people to stay, live and work in rural Scotland. There is a lack of housing, there is poor access to services and there is very little infrastructure. That situation is a result of Scottish Government policy. Such neglect forces people to leave. Therefore, even if we could attract inward migration, the very issues that force local people out will prevent incomers from settling.

That reality was highlighted by the Scottish Human Rights Commission’s report. The SHRC said that, across all the rights that it examined, no human right was delivered in a way that met all the conditions of adequacy under international law. Although that report focused on the Highlands and Islands, much of rural Scotland faces similar challenges, and, because of that, it faces depopulation.

While the Scottish Government seeks to import skilled workers, it does nothing to skill our own people. Colleges are no longer able to reskill the workforce, as the part-time courses that used to enable them to do so have been totally decimated.

I will give an example. The University of the Highlands and Islands used to run a midwife conversion course that allowed trained nurses in the region to retrain as midwives. That course, which was run locally, worked well for nurses who had already settled in communities in the Highland and Islands and who could not move to access training in the central belt. However, that course was discontinued in the Highlands and moved south.

That pattern is all too familiar to those of us who live and work in rural Scotland. Local education and training are virtually non-existent, which means that young people are forced to move away to gain skills and qualifications at a time in their lives when they are more likely to put down roots and meet their life partner. When that happens, they seldom move back. Even if there was a career available for them, there might not be one available for their partner, and that stops them coming back, which fractures our communities.

The reports that have been published on the decline of the Gaelic language highlight those issues. Young people in particular are being forced out of their communities, taking their language skills with them. That explains the decline in the number of native Gaelic speakers. Scottish Labour understands that, if we are to support, sustain and grow the Gaelic language, we must support and sustain Gaelic communities, which means putting economic prosperity front and centre.

Lack of basic infrastructure also causes problems. Even now, there are digital not-spots throughout Scotland. That is especially the case in rural Scotland. That prevents people from working from home, setting up businesses and accessing services, all of which makes it more difficult for them to live and remain in a community.

An ageing ferry fleet makes travel uncertain. When people are unable to confidently plan travel that is necessary for business, health or social reasons, that makes life much more difficult, and we end up in a position in which only the very determined remain in such communities.

Therefore, my question is: how on earth can we deal with that through inward migration? Migrants need homes, access to services and jobs for their partners, and—even more than locals—they must be able to travel to stay in touch with family and friends.

Let us be honest: this debate is the usual SNP Government tactic of creating a diversion and passing the buck when it fails. It can provide the skills, housing and infrastructure that would allow our communities to thrive, retain our workforce and make Scotland—and, more importantly, rural Scotland—a confident and growing community.

Scottish Labour would do just that. We would invest in skills, homes and infrastructure to ensure thriving communities that can retain their own as well as welcome new talent.

I move amendment S6M-16034.3, to leave out from “thanks” to end and insert:

“that there have previously been successful models of differentiated migration schemes, tailored to Scotland’s specific needs, such as Fresh Talent; recognises the impact of rural depopulation on Scotland’s communities and their sustainability, including the survival of the Gaelic language; calls on the Scottish Government to use its existing powers to encourage population retention and internal migration where it would benefit Scotland’s communities and economy; understands that the conditions in Scotland’s rural and island communities are challenging due to the centralisation of services and the degradation of infrastructure, and that migration alone will not fix these systemic problems, and calls on the Scottish Government to build homes, provide high quality public services, provide local education and ensure sustainable transport links in rural and island communities in order to ensure that populations are sustainable in the long term.”

15:25  

Maggie Chapman (North East Scotland) (Green)

As an immigrant into Scotland, I am proud to make the opening speech on behalf of the Scottish Greens in the debate, and to speak to our amendment.

Much will rightly be said this afternoon about how migrants benefit Scotland’s economy, especially in agriculture; in tourism and hospitality; in our health and social care; in our education, from rural primary schools to university research departments; in our communities; and in our creative lives. The inventive, imaginative, passionate and compassionate Scotland that we know and love relies on people who were born here and on people who have come from across the world, having recognised something special about this place, or having come to love it and having made it their home.

As well as Scotland’s needs and benefits, we should consider our responsibilities and how we should act as compassionate human beings. We must ask ourselves what we can and should do to open our borders to those who need a place to call home, whether that is on a temporary basis or a permanent basis.

I came here as a student and from a position of relative privilege. I was fortunate enough to have some choice of where to pursue my studies and had support from my family to do so. Also, of course, my skin colour and mother tongue meant that I was not obviously an incomer. I will always recognise those facts and remember the warm welcome that I received.

People are increasingly on the move across the world not out of choice, but because they have to move. They are forced from their homes by conflict, scarcity, loss and disaster. They come not for adventure and exploration, but for survival, and not so much in search of a better life as in perhaps diminishing hope of a life that is liveable at all.

We, and the Governments that represent us, have three layers of responsibility for migration. The first is that we abide by international law—in particular, our solemn commitment under the Geneva convention to grant asylum to those who are fleeing persecution. That would scarcely have needed a mention a few years ago. I hope with all my heart that we can return to that consensus, that we can undo the terrible damage that has been caused by the previous Westminster Government’s legislation and that we can dismantle the lies of the far right. I hope that we can replace with the dialogue of solidarity the rhetoric of hate that has, thanks to Conservative, Reform and even some Labour politicians, become mainstream.

Our second responsibility is that we acknowledge the particular role of the United Kingdom in creating many of the conditions from which people now flee. That role is historical, but it is also contemporary, and Scotland cannot evade its share of collective shame. I again implore both Governments to recognise what has been done in Palestine and beyond, and to recognise that there are no pathways to safety for the children of Gaza.

Children are also dying from climate injustice and its brutal blows on homes, crops, water sources, lives and livelihoods. We remembered that in Glasgow three years ago, but nothing has grown better since then. More and more people are being displaced by the climate crisis, and the fault is not their own. There is an opportunity now for the Scottish and UK Governments to work, together and with others, to build robust and fair responses, not only through mitigation and adaptation measures, but in compassionate and welcoming approaches.

Finally, our Governments must show decency, humanity and justice to all who come here from elsewhere. Human rights are for all humans—not only for those with citizenship or with deep pockets. The cruel and vindictive condition of having no recourse to public funds has been a disastrous experiment.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

Maggie Chapman’s amendment is very well pitched, as are her remarks about the conditions that are placed on asylum seekers—people who are seeking safe harbour in our country. Does she agree with the Liberal Democrats that we should change the conditions to allow, in particular, asylum seekers who have been here and waiting for more than three months to begin working? Many would do so with great enthusiasm, and would seek to repay the generosity that they have been shown.

Maggie Chapman

Absolutely. Several parties in this Parliament have been begging the UK Government to reconsider that policy. It is cruel, it is vindictive and, like the no recourse to public funds policy that I am speaking of, it has no place in a compassionate society.

The NRPF policy leaves people, especially children, destitute and desperate. It encourages exploitation and abuse, and it does not even succeed in its purported aim of saving public money. No Government that cares about reducing child poverty, violence against women, child exploitation or organised crime could justify the continuation of that scandalous measure. For a Government that is led by a former human rights lawyer, the position is utterly untenable. I therefore ask the Scottish Government to make urgent representations to its Westminster counterpart, and I implore Labour members in this Parliament to use whatever influence they have to make that vital change happen.

Towards the end of last year, Scottish Greens held a debate about free bus travel for people who are seeking asylum. I was encouraged by the substantial consensus that supported our position and by the thoughtful and compassionate contributions of many members, but I was bitterly disappointed by the shameful response of some who sought to pretend that the needs and rights of people who are seeking asylum are somehow in opposition to those of elderly people who are facing the bleakness of winter. That is not true. In a world of deepening conflict and climate chaos, vulnerable and marginalised people stand in the same storm. We must cling to one another to survive, we must scan the horizon with wisdom and we must welcome our neighbours—new and old.

We must not see migrants either as cogs in the economic machine or as burdens on the public purse. Rather, we should strive together to ensure that all people in Scotland, regardless of their place of birth, have all their rights fulfilled, because human rights do not stop at our borders or on our beaches.

I move amendment S6M-16034.1, to insert at end:

“; remains committed to ensuring that all migrants in Scotland have all of their rights fulfilled; recognises the pervasive and increasingly hostile anti-migrant rhetoric from some politicians and media sources; believes that further action is required by both the UK and Scottish governments to support people displaced due to the climate crisis, and calls on the UK Government to remove the No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) conditions that limit the support and services available to many, especially those seeking asylum.”

15:32  

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

I am grateful to the Government for bringing the debate to the chamber.

I begin with a reflection on my interests, as Maggie Chapman did. I am a proud product of immigration—not from Africa, as she is, but from the Pacific north-west of Canada. I am very grateful for the life that my mother has made in this country and I know that she is still grateful for the welcome that she has been given.

Liberal Democrats believe fundamentally that immigration makes our country stronger and more prosperous. Rather than demonising those who want to come here, we need to encourage immigration to Scotland. In fact, we need targeted measures to make that a reality, not only because of the positive contribution that immigrants make, but because all our demographic projections—we have already heard about some of them in the debate—suggest that Scotland’s population is in fundamental decline. We will see more deaths than births every year for the next 25 years. It is projected that there will be as many as 10,000 more by 2041. That is astonishing.

Population growth is therefore essential, because it underpins future economic growth and the sustainability of our public services. Immigration is essential for maintaining that growth, but it is also essential for sustainability of services. We need people to move here to plug the gaps in the Scottish workforce and to contribute to the tax base. Indeed, research consistently shows that those who come here for economic reasons pay more in tax than they receive in benefits—and by a country mile. Immigration and the economy are fundamentally connected.

A consequence of the hard Brexit that was imposed on us by the Conservative Government was the cutting off a source of labour for our farms, our care homes, our NHS, and our tourism and hospitality industry. Liberal Democrats are pragmatic and remorseless about building bridges and re-establishing our broken connections with our European friends and neighbours.

Alex Cole-Hamilton mentioned reconnecting with Europe, but what about rejoining the European Union? What do you think the pathway is for Scotland to rejoin the European Union?

Speak through the chair.

Alex Cole-Hamilton

I am always grateful for an opportunity to lay out the Liberal Democrats’ pathway to reintegration with the European Union. That starts, unashamedly, with rejoining the single market and re-establishing connections through research, education and the free movement of goods, people, capital and services. Fundamentally, at the heart of every Liberal Democrat is that the country rejoin the European Union. My goodness—our approach to that is pragmatic, but it is remorseless.

To that end, we want the introduction of a UK-EU youth mobility scheme to boost the economy and allow young people to work here more freely. We also want the Scottish Government to provide a replacement for the Erasmus scheme—as has been done in Wales—so that students can benefit from that life-changing educational experience. For years, the Scottish Government has failed to do that.

We also need both of Scotland’s Governments to work together on immigration to ensure that rules are sensitive to the skills that are needed in every corner of these islands and in every sector of our economy. For example, there is a need to lower the barriers to people coming here so that we can fill the gaps in geographically sensitive areas, including rural parts of Scotland, remote places and islands. There are things that the Scottish Government can do in a wider sense to make those areas more attractive to live in and work in. I am talking about ferries that work, long-overdue broadband provision and safe roads.

Tess White (North East Scotland) (Con)

If my memory serves me correctly, Alex Cole-Hamilton talked a year or so ago about how a Ukrainian daughter had to go to Ukraine to have dental treatment because the dental services in this country were so poor. Would the member like to comment on that?

Alex Cole-Hamilton

That is absolutely true. I raised that case at First Minister’s question time. We need to make Scotland attractive, and that means improving our public services. However, the Conservative Government cut the NHS off at the knees with the hardest of Brexits, which has meant that many people in the dental profession and in the wider healthcare force now have to relocate back to Europe because they can no longer live here.

It is not only Scotland that has its own specific needs—the same can be said for the other devolved nations and the regions of England. To that end, the Lib Dems want the UK Government to extend the participation of all devolved Administrations and the development of the evidence base for a UK-wide policy on work permits and student visas.

I feel duty bound to turn to some of the events of recent days. It has become increasingly clear that immigration is a new fault line in our political discourse and, increasingly, in our society. It is once again being used as a wedge by the far right to demonise large groups of people, many of whom have called the UK home for decades. That tactic is straight out of an old playbook, in which the actions of a tiny minority are used to stigmatise an entire group of people and inspire fear. Doing that has been on the rise in our politics for years, and now it feels dangerously normal, but we must never lose sight of how damaging it can be, and we must never be frightened to call it out. In fact, it is incumbent on all of us to call it out, wherever we see it.

I was so disheartened—but not surprised—to see in recent days that senior members of the Conservative Party, including the leader of the Opposition in London, have utterly failed to do so. Indeed, Robert Jenrick’s attempt to use the appalling actions of Rotherham grooming gangs for his own political gain, and referring to, in his words, immigrants from “alien cultures” was particularly shameful.

We have also become accustomed to the steady drumbeat of toxicity that is being fed to us via social media. All that is having a corrosive effect on our society and on how welcome or otherwise our migrants are made to feel. Not only is that type of politics disgusting, it is inaccurate, because this country is made up of different cultures that have come together during centuries and made this country the great place it is to live.

We now move to the open debate. I call Bill Kidd, to be followed by Craig Hoy.

15:39  

Bill Kidd (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. This is my first contribution of the year, so I also welcome the opportunity to wish everyone, not only in Parliament but across Scotland, a very happy new year.

Today’s debate is apt, because at new year, Scotland is renowned across the world for our celebrations and the warm welcome with open arms that we find. As I am sure many members do, I have fond memories of first footing the folk on our street—always finding an open door with that welcome and those open arms.

For centuries, Scotland has welcomed those who have migrated to these shores and those who, contrary to what some may say, find Scotland an attractive place to put down family roots. Those roots have grown and blossomed, enriching our society in the process. Migration is a powerful force that not only enriches culture but strengthens economies and fosters more resilient, dynamic societies. Over time, migrant communities in Scotland have contributed to our cultural richness through new languages, cuisines, art and music, enhancing our multicultural fabric. Additionally, migration plays a crucial role in addressing Scotland’s ageing population by injecting a younger workforce that supports essential services such as healthcare and social care—critical components for sustaining a thriving society.

Historically, people have been arriving in Scotland for more than 12,000 years, including—much more recently, towards the end of the 19th century—many Irish and Italian migrants who came to Scotland to escape dire poverty and famine in their countries of origin. They brought, among other things, Guinness, legendary ice cream parlours such as Luca’s in Edinburgh and Nardini’s in Largs, and world-renowned musicians such as Lewis Capaldi and Paolo Nutini, who are Scottish through and through. Communities from across the world continue to come to Scotland and make it their home. After Indian independence in 1947, many south Asians came to the UK, with a large number settling in Scotland and working at the mills in Dundee and on the buses and trains in Glasgow. They include the late Bashir Ahmad, whom I am sure we all remember fondly. Bashir founded Scots Asians for Independence in 1995 and went on to sit in this Parliament, becoming the first non-white and first Muslim MSP. He said at the time:

“It isn’t important where you come from, what matters is where we are going together as a nation.”

Those are words that I echo here today.

In his time in the Parliament, Bashir led the bill to make forced marriage a criminal offence in Scotland and participated in the humanitarian campaign for Scottish hospitals to treat the most serious casualties of Israel’s attacks on the Gaza strip—how history, sadly, repeats itself.

More recently, we have seen an increase in people fleeing persecution and wars, such as the war in Ukraine, and we have welcomed them here with understanding and compassion. Scots have proudly stood up for those people’s rights in the face of an immigration system that, sadly, has all too often let them down. We all remember the seven young women from Glasgow who, while attending Drumchapel high school in my constituency, formed the Glasgow girls in response to the Home Office detention of one of their friends. They became unlikely heroes in the fight for justice and equality for asylum seekers, and went on to win the Scottish campaign of the year award at the annual Scottish politician of the year ceremony in 2005. The Glasgow girls ultimately succeeded in halting the deportation of their friend, and their victory sparked a broader movement for immigration reform, which led to changes in the Scottish legal system. Their story shows us that, sometimes, the system needs to be changed and, sometimes, we can change it.

As we look to our future, the past shows us the invaluable contributions that migrants have made in shaping the Scotland that we live in now—a vibrant, diverse Scotland that is laced together through shared values of inclusiveness, empathy and understanding. It also shows us the present need for change. Scotland needs the opportunity to develop a migration system that reflects not only those values but needs and challenges specific to ensuring that we can all continue to flourish together. Today, we can come together to ensure that that happens. I urge members to do just that, and to support the motion to build a migration system that supports Scotland’s economy, public services and communities.

15:43  

Craig Hoy (South Scotland) (Con)

This debate is another opportunity for the Scottish Government to concede what is now abundantly clear—that it has repeatedly failed Scottish businesses and hard-working people up and down the country, and that it has failed to make Scotland a globally recognised destination to attract inbound global talent. The SNP repeatedly spends vast amounts of money on pet projects, on pointless Government documents that nobody reads and on ferries that do not sail—certainly not with paying customers or toilets that flush.

It is important for the Government to remember that that does not all happen under the radar. People notice its recklessness and financial incompetence. They notice, too, that our education system, NHS, housing, public spaces, policing and infrastructure have all got worse under the SNP Government. They notice that our economy lacks dynamism and that the country does not feel as though it is on the up, because one of the few things that is presently on the up here is tax. That is a bitter pill to swallow for people who already live in Scotland; it is also a difficult combination to sell to those who might choose to live and work here. The SNP’s financial recklessness and its poor management of public services, combined with the highest tax burden anywhere in the UK, make Scotland an unattractive place for global talent, which can move anywhere, and often does so rapidly.

Lorna Slater

I speak as what we might call a person of global talent, who chose to move to Scotland. I have a master’s degree in electromechanical engineering and worked here, as part of an engineering team, with people from Spain, China and France as well as Scotland, to deliver the world’s largest tidal turbine. People come to this country from all over the world to work in our exciting, growing industries. I do not recognise Mr Hoy’s comments at all. He cannot have been out in our growing and thriving industries—which are exciting places to be—or spoken to anyone who is part of the pool of global talent coming here.

Mr Hoy, I can give you time back.

Craig Hoy

I welcome the coming of such talent both to the chamber and to Scotland. However, I point out that, on net migration, Scotland is lagging behind the rest of the UK. There are reasons for that, to which I will come in the course of my speech.

Yesterday, I spoke to a representative of the hospitality industry in Scotland. For six months, she has been seeking to recruit a senior food and beverage manager for her group. The salary for that post is £100,000 per year. She said that she could not attract the right talent here in Scotland, so she extended her search overseas. She flew to London, where she met a prospective candidate—an American—at Heathrow airport. She liked what she saw and she offered him the job, but he declined and took a similarly paid job in London. Scotland simply could not compete, she said, because tax was an issue. Why is that? It is because, this year, someone earning £100,000 will pay more than £3,300 more in tax than their equivalent south of the border. They will also pay significantly more in land and buildings transaction tax if they choose to buy a mid-market home when they move to Scotland.

Immigration and visa policies are set by the UK—and rightly so, I believe—but that does not mean that those systems should not be responsive to the needs of the whole of the UK. That is why we have seen certain schemes emerge, such as the seasonal agricultural workers scheme that addressed specific needs here in Scotland. However, the Scottish Government must learn to understand that if Scotland is to thrive it will require talented, hard-working migrants to want to come to this country and live and work here. The grain of public policy in Scotland is presently working against that.

For the record, and as I said earlier, we have record net migration into the UK. It is true that more people are coming to Scotland, but not at the same levels in percentage terms. As Jackson Carlaw identified, data shows that people on the highest incomes are simply not coming in the same numbers. In many respects, those who are moving here are often retired or working part time and looking towards retirement. The Government will play down the significance of that, but if high earners choose to work elsewhere, there is the potential for a significant skills gap to emerge in key sectors in Scotland—most notably in our national health service, where we are battling for global talent that often goes to the rest of the UK before it comes here.

Businesses are also struggling in the high-tax environment that the SNP has inflicted on them. Scottish Financial Enterprise found that 80 per cent of financial services firms believe that tax divergence in Scotland is adversely affecting recruitment and retention, which, in turn, affects their ability to operate. We need to bear in mind that financial services is one of Scotland’s key sectors, employing approximately 9 per cent of our national workforce. Coupled with Labour’s disastrous decision to hammer businesses with crippling national insurance hikes, that tax divergence has made running a business in Scotland, whether it be large or small, increasingly difficult. Is it any real surprise, therefore, that talented entrepreneurs or members of the skilled workforce, for whom we compete on a regional, country-wide and global scale, are thinking twice about moving to Scotland? Surely that must make the SNP Government uneasy. The negative impact of having a high-tax, poorly performing, low-efficiency, central belt-biased Government cannot now be underestimated.

This year, my party submitted budget proposals that the SNP Government has chosen to ignore but which would have given individuals and struggling businesses a well-deserved tax break while promoting economic growth. We would put more money into people’s pockets and pass on the 40 per cent rates relief for pubs and restaurants, which would give them more money to invest in targeting talent, including from overseas.

Shirley-Anne Somerville

I am grateful to Craig Hoy for giving way. His party proposes tax cuts, which obviously mean cuts to public expenditure. Could he suggest how public services would be improved with more than £1 billion-worth of tax cuts, set against the free prescriptions, the free tuition and the other parts of the social contract that the Scottish Government provides?

Craig Hoy

The minister better be careful about what is coming, because her Government is looking at the issue of Government efficiency and Government waste, as we are. For example, we could save £110 million by taking 5 per cent out of the corporate back-office functions of departments that do not involve the NHS or touch the front line. I suspect that her Government, in order to pay for the welfare choices that it is making, will have to make significant savings in its back-office functions, otherwise it will bankrupt its budget in the foreseeable future.

The Government also has to recognise that it has misused devolved powers to make Scotland a relatively unattractive place to come to and live in. That does not have to be the case, because Scotland is a friendly, welcoming and exciting place to live and work in. However, sadly, depopulation is another problem that too many of our local authorities suffer, and I hope that the debate will touch on that issue. It is a particular problem in our rural and remote areas, which for too long have been neglected by the central belt-biased SNP. In my region, Dumfries and Galloway has suffered the largest net outward migration of young people anywhere in Scotland. It is a serious issue for areas such as the south of Scotland and the Highlands and Islands. I hope that the Government will work with local authorities and enterprise agencies such as South of Scotland Enterprise to tackle the problem, which undoubtedly affects inward migration.

The SNP Government should use its powers to make Scotland a place that people want to live in and invest in and where people want to be part of driving economic growth. The Government should let hard-working people keep more of their hard-earned pounds, removing red tape, delivering quality public services and providing real support for business.

Will the member take an intervention?

The member is just concluding.

Craig Hoy

I do not have time, I am afraid.

Sadly, I suspect that the Government will not rise to the challenge, because it continues to make the same mistakes and operate in the same manner, which leaves us at a competitive disadvantage not just with the rest of the UK but with the rest of Europe and the rest of the world. That is why I suspect that we will struggle to grow our economy and attract the right talent to this country.

15:52  

Ben Macpherson (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)

Our population—its make-up, health, diversity and distribution—is arguably the most important aspect of all our considerations in the different policy areas that we contend with. Of course, migration is a significant part of that; it has been historically, is today and will be going forward. That is why it is important and right that we debate these issues today.

My constituency has often symbolised and been at the forefront of Scotland’s migration story. I was reminded of that on Christmas morning when I joined Street Soccer Scotland’s annual football game, with people from across the world who did not necessarily have other things to do that day coming together, playing in friendship and doing something that everyone can enjoy.

Leith, with its docks, often tells the story of Scotland’s migration journey, whether it is of the Italians who first started selling ice cream in the port of Leith, the proud Indian heritage that we have with our Sikh community, the Pakistani community, the Chinese community or the eastern Europeans who have made Edinburgh Northern and Leith and the city more widely their home from the 1950s onwards. That story also includes the recent Syrian community, the Lebanese community, various aspects of the African story of migration to Scotland, the historical story of Irish migration and, most recently, our growing Ukrainian Scot community.

All those new Scots, as well as people who have come from the rest of the UK, such as my mother, who worked for more than 30 years in our NHS, are part of the make-up of our society. Whether it is in Edinburgh Northern and Leith or across Scotland more widely, the story of migration is enriching, not just for our culture and our inclusive Scottish identity, which I will say more about in a minute, but factually, because migration makes a positive contribution to our economy and our public services.

Scotland is not perfect by any means: racism exists, and our challenges with sectarianism go back to challenges with migration in decades and centuries past. Generally, in Scotland—although, again I am not in any way saying that it is perfect—inclusion has been reasonably successful. BEMIS describes it as our intangible cultural heritage and our inclusive identity; new Scots become proud Scots very quickly. We do not just have multiculturalism but interculturalism. My constituent Paul Singh’s organisation, Building Bridges, does great work. I refer members to his contribution to time for reflection on 22 February 2022.

The story has been a good one and we have a good place from which to build, because, as has been said by members on the front benches and many others, our demographic challenges are real. I do not think that migration is a panacea for our demographic challenges; no one in the debate has argued that. However, migration is part of how we respond to that challenge, not just in Scotland but in most western economies and democracies. The need to attract more people and to bring more people to Scotland is an essential part of how we orchestrate our public policy going forward. It has been good to hear the different perspectives from members of all parties in the chamber about how we do that. I am interested in solutions on how we move forward.

I refer colleagues to the fact that, as is noted in the Government’s motion,

“the Parliament has previously endorsed a motion calling for the development of differentiated, more flexible migration policy , tailored to meet Scotland’s specific needs”.

The 2020 paper, “Migration: Helping Scotland Prosper” was the culmination of a lot of work that was done cross-party and cross-sector to propose solutions that could be achieved with creativity and with a new constitutional position on immigration policy. It was about maintaining aspects such as border control as reserved issues but enabling the Parliament to take responsibility for and show innovation in how we attract more people to Scotland.

Craig Hoy referred to the example of an American migrant. One of the problems that potential American migrants face is that the cost of the visas allowing them to come to the country is extortionate. If Scotland could approach that differently, would that not have an impact? There are practical, creative solutions that we could come up with if we had the flexibility to do so. As a result of the constitutional changes with the Scotland Act 2016, we have the advantage of having a tax code; we have a way to build a more tailored migration system around something that is already in place.

Canada and Australia have much more decentralised immigration systems. The UK is not necessarily normal in the way that it handles migration so centrally and with such homogeny. We could have a better way of doing things. I am glad that there is more constructive engagement with the UK Government and that there is an openness to think about these issues. Whether from Adam Tomkins in the previous session of the Parliament or from Labour MSPs, there has been good constructive discussion across political parties about how we could better approach migration in Scotland with tailored solutions under devolved power.

The migration service that the Government has introduced will absolutely help to support people when they arrive in Scotland, which is important. I also encourage the Government to continue to support organisations such as Multi-Cultural Family Base in my constituency and others in the third sector that do such important work to support people when they arrive in Scotland. There is a sense that Scotland is a place that is growing its population well through migration and that it is inclusive and allows integration. There is a sense that everyone is proud to be Scottish, alongside their heritage from the different places that they have come from. We have something special in that and we have a good opportunity to build on it.

I commend the Government’s motion. The debate is important for us all, because migration is one of the issues of our time. We should all come to this debate with solutions and with a sense of how we can work together to improve things.

15:59  

Richard Leonard (Central Scotland) (Lab)

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the publication of “Ganz Unten”—“at the very bottom”—by the radical campaigning journalist Günter Wallraff. It was translated into many languages, including into English as “Lowest of the Low”. In it, Wallraff goes undercover as an immigrant Turkish worker. The only jobs that he can get are filthy, back-breaking, dangerous, exhausting, badly paid and temporary. He wrote:

“Today, in the middle of West Germany, I experienced conditions which are usually only described in history books about the nineteenth century. The work was dirty, crushing and drained one’s last reserves; but worse, was the humiliation that I had to bear and the contempt in which I was held.”

Four decades later, for West Germany then, read Scotland now, because that is a perfect description of the imperfect experience of migrant workers in Scotland today. These are not just the conditions faced by Turkish workers in Germany, found in a book written 40 years ago; they are the conditions described to me over the past 12 months by migrant workers from Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan who are living and working on farms right across Scotland now.

So it is all very well for ministers to talk of a “human rights-based”, “person centred” approach to migration, of “dignity, fairness and respect”, of a

“humane, principled approach to migration”

and of

“Scotland as a welcoming and safe place”

when, right under the Government’s nose, nine out of 10 migrant workers on seasonal workers visas are tethered in accommodation tied to their employer. As one migrant worker told me, they are

“away from home, working in a field, sleeping in a field”

in metal containers or in a caravan last repaired 20 years ago. Their accommodation is not subject to any standards whatsoever—none. There are no national laws and no local by-laws applied to plug that gap in protection.

For the privilege of staying there, straight from their wages is deducted the maximum rent that is allowed by the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board of £300 a month each, and they have to pay their energy bills on top of that. The accommodation is all too often overcrowded and insanitary, with inhumane conditions, and they are not treated with dignity, fairness or respect. All of which begs the question, what happens to the money that is raised through that rent? Where does it go? It is not being reinvested in accommodation.

I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has met me about the scandal and that, following the raising of these issues during the passage of the Agricultural and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, a working party has now been set up, which includes the outstanding Worker Support Centre. However, I have been told that it is “a scoping exercise”, that we are at “an early stage” of the process and that we have to be “wary of unintended consequences”. What about the intended consequences of alienation, exploitation and degradation?

Bob Doris (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)

Mr Leonard makes a powerful case, and I cannot claim to share the expertise that he has on this issue. However, I would say that the issue may very well be a complicated one with unintended consequences, and that it might impinge on UK employment law and UK immigration law. Should those aspects also be brought to the table so that no stone is left unturned to deal with the situation of those workers, who, rightly do not want to be exploited by employers and the state?

Richard Leonard, I can give you the time back.

Richard Leonard

I have got a letter back in just this week, because I have been lobbying Seema Malhotra, the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, about these very issues, so I do care about it and I am making representations about it.

For those grumbling at the back, I will come on to some of the devolved issues that we need to tackle here.

Will the member take an intervention from a grumbler?

Richard Leonard

No.

I have heard it said that the Scottish Government’s aim is to support migrant workers in a timely fashion, but where is the urgency? What about the people who will be arriving in a couple of months’ time to work in horticulture? Do they not deserve a “humane and principled approach”? What about the women among them? Do they not deserve support in a timely fashion? Our debate on migration in this Parliament cannot simply be about

“the needs of Scotland’s employers”

as expressed in the Government’s motion. It has got to be about human rights, because it is about human beings.

Neither can the changes that we demand be deferred. Housing is devolved. The Government should use the powers that it has got now to act to protect these workers, to improve their quality of life and to close this loophole.

Finally, the edition of the Wallraff translation on my bookshelf has an introduction by the intellectual giant, A Sivanandan, who back then was the director of the Institute of Race Relations and the editor of its journal Race & Class. It was Siva who famously challenged those who questioned immigration with the great aphorism:

“We’re here because you were there”.

That serves as a timely reminder that we have to keep challenging not just Nigel Farage and his groundless claims that British culture is directly under threat from immigration, but those others as well who peddle the idea that migration is a negative, that it should be reduced and that it is a problem.

I have always been struck that those same people who oppose the freedom of movement of labour always seem to support the freedom of movement of capital. So we have to keep taking on the argument. That means defending, resisting, speaking out and standing up for the rights of migrant workers on our farms, in our service economy, in the factories and across our public services.

That is what I will continue to do. That is what this Parliament must do. That is the test. That is the measure of the kind of society we are—whether we are hostile or welcoming, racist or anti-racist, striving for equality and for social justice or callously turning our back. That is the choice before us, and I know which side of that choice I am on.

16:07  

Audrey Nicoll (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

How to follow Mr Leonard?

Some years ago, the languages tree in my son’s primary school had 46 leaves, to represent the 46 languages that were spoken in his school and the mix of nationalities that had settled in the north-east. Children were learning about one another’s cultures, traditions and values. They lived in families who worked in the energy industry, health services, education and business, and made a significant contribution to the local economy, their communities and the social and cultural ecosystems in the north-east.

Scotland is a welcoming nation, which embraces those who come to live, study and work, and those who flee persecution and conflict. That is a far cry from the previous UK Government’s unwelcoming approach of reducing migration through its immigration and asylum systems. I sincerely hope that the current UK Government commits to shifting the dial on that harmful approach. Scotland has distinct demographic and economic needs, and I will highlight two interconnected issues that are highly relevant to the north-east.

First, I thank Universities Scotland and Robert Gordon University for their helpful briefings on higher education. In our higher education space, international students have contributed between £4 billion and £6 billion to Scotland’s economy since 2019, and attracting global talent, such as Lorna Slater, to Scottish higher education has brought huge social, cultural and soft benefits.

In 2021-22, in Aberdeen alone, the contribution of international students had a net impact of more than £350 million. However, numbers have recently fallen dramatically due to the previous UK Government’s decision to end dependant visas. In 2023-24, Robert Gordon University in my constituency saw international on-campus postgraduate student enrolment decline by 34 per cent, and applications from female students declined by a staggering 57 per cent—they were clearly disproportionately affected by that decision.

Importantly, some postgraduate courses are viable only due to the presence of international students. Those courses provide the higher-order skills that are required by our workforce in Scotland at a time of significant skills shortages across a range of sectors. The UK Government must reverse the decision that prevents international students from bringing dependants to the UK, and maintain the graduate-route visa to ensure that Scotland remains an attractive destination for our international students.

That brings me on to the energy industry—specifically offshore wind. I am grateful to Scottish Renewables for highlighting a recent white paper that was submitted by numerous energy industry bodies, which outlines the detrimental impact of amendments to the Immigration Act 1971 and changes to visa rules for offshore wind workers that mean that almost all non-UK offshore workers require a visa to work in UK territorial waters.

The offshore wind sector is dependent on specialist vessels and crew that operate around the world, and the strict UK visa requirements are presenting a significant barrier to the deployment of vital Scottish offshore wind projects, which adds complexity and costs to working in the UK amid an increasingly competitive global offshore wind market. To illustrate—I ask members to stick with me—the average construction of a 1GW offshore wind farm in the UK can require close to 100 vessels. Industry has calculated that in that scenario, the cost of obtaining visas for a full complement of crew could be in excess of £45 million. The point about such costs was also made by my colleague Ben Macpherson.

To achieve clean power by 2030 and to capture the economic benefits for Scotland of our offshore wind potential, we need a visa system that enables those specialist vessels and crews to work in UK waters. Importantly, that would then allow projects to be successfully deployed and allow the long-term, high-value jobs that they create to be secured for our workforce here in Scotland.

To put it simply, visa requirements do not align with the needs of our economy, and they are creating an untenable situation for a key industry to Scotland. Scottish Renewables and industry partners are highlighting the issue with the UK Government, but traction with the Home Office has been limited. The Scottish Government has limited powers in that space, so I hope that there is scope for some collaboration between the Governments, working with industry, to find a resolution, given the importance of our ScotWind and innovation and targeted oil and gas projects.

I commend the action taken by the Scottish Government to establish Scotland’s Migration Service, which is an excellent support for employers, investors and individuals who are navigating the UK immigration system once they have arrived here. However, given the challenges faced by Scotland’s higher education and energy industries, and others that have been referred to by colleagues this afternoon, I fully support the Scottish Government’s calls for a differentiated, more flexible migration policy that is tailored to meet Scotland’s specific needs, including a policy that derives from a geographical context.

I urge members to support the Government motion this afternoon.

16:14  

Jackson Carlaw (Eastwood) (Con)

It is always a pleasure to participate in a debate with Richard Leonard. It reminds me of happier times, when, as leaders of our parties, if nothing else, we probably forced members in the chamber to stay awake during our speeches.

I had a look back and noted that I last made a substantive contribution to a debate on the subject in 2018. I was able to say in my remarks then that, as deputy leader of the Conservative Party, I spoke on behalf of my party, as led by Ruth Davidson.

This afternoon, as I repeat some of what I said then, perhaps I speak more for myself than I do for my party. I will quote some of what I said then:

“Almost 60 years ago, I was born in my Eastwood constituency. Eastwood, where I have lived for the vast majority of the years since, is a community that has been home for many who have migrated to Scotland from the rest of the UK and from the rest of the world, including Europe.”

Incidentally, despite what some speakers said, inward net migration from the European Union continues to hit record levels.

“Let me tackle directly some of the myths that are often repeated to me as an MSP—myths founded on concerns that migration alone is responsible for the pressures on our infrastructure and public services, which is simply not true.

Yes, we have a housing shortage, but that is not because of migration. We have seen radical shifts in the way that we choose to live, with far more single home occupancy and longer life expectancy. Homes that might have been expected to appear on the open market two decades ago are now still happily occupied.

Yes, we have busy hospitals and general practitioner surgeries, but that is not because of migration. We have a population that is living longer but is not always well. Even in the lifetime of this Parliament, we have seen new issues that were not envisaged when we first met, such as dementia and diabetes arising from obesity, present enormous strategic and budgetary challenges to the national health service.

Yes, we have busy schools, colleges and universities, but that is not because of migration. Far more of our young people stay longer at school and proceed into further education of whatever kind.

The suggestion that migration is at the heart of the stresses in our public life and services is a fantasy, and a malicious and self-deceiving one at that. Let me be absolutely clear ... that migration and immigration from wherever are good, necessary and desirable. There is a strong, powerful and unarguable case for migration to Scotland and”

I am

“on its side.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2018; c 60-1.]

This may be the 19th year that I have been in the Parliament but, throughout those 19 years, we have talked about the ageing demographic in Scotland. In the report that the Scottish Government published in 2018, we noted that, over the next 25 years, the number of people aged 75 and over would increase by 79 per cent. Way back in my first session of Parliament, that situation was described to me as a pyramid that was about to be inverted. Therefore, to underpin our public services and to make ourselves economically attractive, we need to bring people into Scotland who will be able to contribute to the welfare of all of us who are here in the future.

All that is taking place at the same time as we are leaving an industrial revolution and embedding and embracing the digital technical revolution. All of that represents changes over the next 30 years that will probably be as great as any over the past 200 years. We need to have an entrepreneurial, younger and aspirational workforce that is attracted to come to Scotland.

We need to have a mature discussion. I still do not think that we properly answer the question as to why Scotland has been less successful than other parts of the United Kingdom at attracting a proportionate share of those who come to the United Kingdom to work here. Yes, we can point to free university tuition and free personal care, other mitigations and free prescriptions, but if you are a young person of working age, none of those things is terribly relevant to you. You do not yet have children going to university. You think that you are invincible and that you will not need free personal care for decades. Nor do you think that you will need free prescriptions. You are looking to other things. At the moment, we are not attracting the sort of economic opportunities into Scotland that make it desirable for those younger people to come and settle here. We need to ask ourselves why and to do everything that we can to try to bring that change about.

At one point, I heard Rhoda Grant say “back in 204”—I think that she meant 2004; I am sure that that was a slip of the tongue—which was when the Emperor Elagabalus was ruling over England. Maggie Chapman might be interested to know that Elagabalus was the first transgender emperor, who started as a male and transitioned to a female. Colleagues, nothing is new under the sun.

Notwithstanding that, Tony Blair dismantled the consensus around some of the fears about immigration. We all know that, when, to my dismay, this country voted to leave the European Union, migration was the issue at the heart of that. Over the new year, papers were released under the 20-year rule that showed that the Home Secretary and various other ministers queried whether Tony Blair was doing the right thing in dismantling the entire immigration application apparatus. In a narrowly defined ultimate contest, did he not potentially stoke the very fears that, to my dismay, subsequently led to people voting for us to leave the European Union?

We must have a migration system. Professor Sir John Curtice produced a report, that we debated in 2018, which showed that 63 per cent of people in Scotland did not want those matters to be devolved to Scotland. As I have said to Maggie Chapman and some others, one reason that people are concerned about the devolution of those issues is that some parties have never supported the deportation of any illegal migrant, in any circumstances whatsoever. The concern of many people, and of much of the public, is that that is not a system; that is just an open-door policy. What they want is a migration system that will work—that is humane and compassionate, but with a principle that people can unite behind.

That is what we have got to do. I do not see that we have any other alternatives—

Will the member give way?

Will Mr Carlaw take an intervention?

Yes, I will.

From whom, Mr Carlaw?

I think it was Mr Macpherson—but I heard another voice that sounded female. Was Ms Grahame trying to come in as well? I will take the intervention from Mr Macpherson.

It was me.

Oh! I am sorry.

Ben Macpherson

I thank Jackson Carlaw for taking the intervention. I agree with the points that he has made. The devolution of migration policy would also give us the opportunity to take further responsibility, given the seriousness of all aspects of migration policy. That could also help us.

Jackson Carlaw

That is the bit that I am not yet persuaded about—but I could be.

I heard Mr Arthur talk about the carefully defined scheme that he has been progressing in relation to migration. I am sorry that I do not have the detail of it. He said that the scheme was articulated to the Home Office in a detailed proposal. Is that detail in the public domain? I would be glad to receive it—if it can be forwarded, that would be helpful.

Clearly, there is an opportunity, particularly through digital technology, to overcome some people’s fear that if you bring people into Scotland, they will be on the first train back down to London. If we can overcome that fear, perhaps there is a case, and perhaps there is an opportunity in the future.

However, the Scottish Government must address the points that I made at the start of my speech. We must make the infrastructure investments that enable us to attract people into Scotland, so that we have sound public services to which they can add support.

16:22  

Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)

Both Labour and Tory Governments have made the word “migration”, or, perhaps more accurately, the word “migrant”, something of a dirty word—a headline-grabbing problem and a blight on the UK. I immediately dissociate Jackson Carlaw from those remarks. He made a very interesting and thoughtful speech.

Focusing on stopping the boats—those fragile dinghies packed with desperate people, mainly the young, who are in hardship, traversing continents and paying vast sums, with the real risk of drowning at sea, all for a chance of a better future—is not appropriate. In fact, the vast majority of migrants are here legally. Targeting the boats distorts the debate, but it is a very easy target. Yes, we need to regulate migration, but it must be done in a way that is just, humane, compassionate, balanced and tempered to the requirements of the country. I also fully support allowing asylum seekers to earn after a period and to contribute to society as their applications are processed.

What is apparent is that the current revised UK immigration system does not fit the needs of Scotland and that that fact, combined with Brexit and an increasing proportion of older people—I declare an interest as part of that demographic—have exacerbated the problems of workforce availability, particularly in areas such as health, social care, hospitality and some parts of the rural economy. Recent news reports about the issues of an ageing population in the Western Isles and Orkney testify to that. In rural areas, younger people tend to migrate to urban areas, while older people stay put. The demographic balance changes even more as others seek to retire to rural locations such as the Borders, which I understand.

In 2023, non-EU nationals accounted for 91 per cent of work-related migration to the UK, with the main countries being India and Nigeria. We can contrast that with migration from the EU, which has been negative since Covid, and following Brexit, which was pursued by Boris Johnson notwithstanding the pandemic, as at June 2024, EU net migration was down by 95,000. The year before, only 5 per cent of visas were issued to EU nationals and the enrolment of new EU students fell by 53 per cent, which had, as we know, a substantial impact on the funding of further and higher education institutions.

However, we do not need statistics to know that there are shortages in health, social care and hospitality in some rural areas, all directly as a result of Brexit. Even in this Parliament, I know of staff—hospitality staff, in particular—who left during Covid to return to Europe, and who, with the loss of free movement because of Brexit, have not returned. They were young people, some of whom had families.

There are particular difficulties for the Scottish economy as a direct consequence of UK migration policies and Brexit, which, of course, we opposed—62 per cent overall—in every area from Shetland to the Scottish Borders, without exception.

I will focus on health and social care. The 2022 Scotland census recorded more than 1 million people who are aged 65 and over, which is more than a quarter of a million higher than the number of people who are under 15. By mid-2045, the number of people aged 65 and over is projected to grow by nearly a third to 25.4 per cent of the population, while the number of children is projected to fall to 13.3 per cent of the population. That matters because, as a result, Scotland’s dependency ratio is projected to increase from 60 per 100 to 68 per 100 by 2033. We need young people and families, and migration provides that. That is obvious in rural areas, which I have referred to, where 21 per cent of the population is aged over 60 compared with 17 per cent across the whole country.

We need a tailored migration system to help to grow our economy in key sectors such as tourism and agriculture—but not to exploit people, Richard Leonard. If you had taken my intervention, I would have asked you whether you would agree with employment legislation being devolved to this Parliament—but, no, you want to stick with the union and all the problems that it has.

Please speak through the chair.

Christine Grahame

Richard Leonard wishes to stick to the union on his soapbox—no matter what.

We could once again have international students, with opportunities for them to live and work here after studying. With independence and a return to being a member state of the EU, new visas would be introduced to support people to live and work here, including a live-in-Scotland visa, which would allow people to live and work here without employer sponsorship if they met certain criteria. A Scottish connections visa would give certain people immediate rights to live and work here if they had been in residence for five years and met other criteria. A work-in-Scotland visa would be a visa through employer sponsorship, with simplified rules to allow more employers to recruit from abroad. A family visa could remove the minimum income requirement that is currently in place for a UK family visa, making it easier for families to choose Scotland as a place to live; it would also help to reunite families who have been separated.

All in all, with what lies ahead, it is not good for our public services and our economy unless we have control of these matters. Migration is natural. It is in our DNA, and, broadly, it is a good thing. We Scots should know that. The Scottish diaspora worldwide is estimated to be between 28 million and 40 million people. Two years ago, one of my sons and his family became migrants, moving to a welcoming Canada—another family lost to Scotland. It is time for our country to do the same: let us regulate migration to Scotland, bring employment law here and welcome families and young people who will contribute so much to our economy and our services.

16:28  

Lorna Slater (Lothian) (Green)

As members know, I am a new Scot, and this debate has allowed me to reflect on my position as such. Even although I am, as Maggie Chapman said about herself, a white, English-speaking person with a couple of degrees, which makes me a very privileged migrant, I have found Scotland to be not only an exciting place to live, with massive opportunities for those in both my chosen fields—engineering and politics—but one with an exciting future. It is one of the reasons why I support independence for Scotland. The idea of creating something new, creating constitutional change and reimagining the kind of country that you want to live in is exciting.

As I said earlier during one of my interventions, when I worked at Orbital Marine Power, we built the world’s largest floating tidal turbine. Most of the build happened in 2020; I do not really recommend doing that during a pandemic, but it can be done. Along with Scottish engineers, it was me and colleagues from Spain, France and China, all of whom had moved to Scotland, who did the design, build, integration and commissioning of the system.

I say that to illustrate the fact that we do attract people to Scotland in those exciting industries, but I think that we all know, including from the debate today, that we need to attract more. We need to get more labour in those industries, both through encouraging young Scottish people to pick up the skills that are needed in those growing and exciting fields—mathematics, engineering, physics and so on—and through allowing more people to come to Scotland.

Towards the end of that build, we had to get the turbine back into Scotland urgently. We loaded it on to a crane on 12 December because the Brexit curtain was going to come down on 30 December and I had to get the machine back into the UK before then because we did not know how we would be able to move it across the border from that point on. So, we ended up bringing the turbine into the country unfinished, and we finished it up here in Scotland.

As that Brexit curtain came down, it not only harmed our ability to finish the turbine in an efficient way but harmed labour markets, particularly in industries such as hospitality and agriculture, whose businesses suffered so acutely. Those businesses are still suffering and still reporting a shortage of workers, and so are our rural businesses, which depended on those workers. That brought massive damage to our economy, because one of the brilliant things about the EU was that it allowed free movement of people. It allowed people to take up opportunities where they could from across the EU.

We are now in a period of relatively high employment, and we still have sectors that need to grow and that need labour. We need people, especially in areas such as renewable energy and construction. I know that all members are familiar with the housing emergencies that exist in Scotland.

However, I am encouraged by the consensus across the chamber that migration into Scotland is desirable. That is so nice to hear when, across the world, we hear that migration is undesirable. That is a nice change, and it is part of why I am proud to make Scotland my home.

Before I go through members’ contributions to the debate, I want to follow up on the point about Scotland being different than elsewhere. Today’s debate has felt so different from conversations elsewhere, such as those in England, where the hostile environment was a stated Government policy. We are the Scotland of Kenmure Street, where the people of Glasgow protected their neighbours from Home Office depredations.

An issue that my colleague Maggie Chapman touched on that all of us need to keep in our focus is that of the global challenge of climate migration. We are only at the start of that. It will be—pardon the pun—the hot topic of the next 100 years, as more and more parts of planet earth become uninhabitable to humanity, sea levels rise, coastal cities become flooded and crops fail. As parts of the world become simply too hot for humans to safely live in, humanity will be on the move. Even if we managed to stop our emissions today, global temperatures would continue to rise because of our historical emissions. However, as we all know, emissions have not stopped—they continue. Global temperature rises are approaching terrifying levels, and they are already costing lives and causing people to move.

How will we deal with that? Even if we reach the goal of net zero, that will still be the problem. We are only at the start of the process. We should all keep in mind the fact that the next 100 years will be about humanity managing migration as people flow around the world. Are we ready for that? Are we ready for what that future looks like?

I very much welcomed Alex Cole-Hamilton’s contribution, in which he recognised the importance of the European Union. I look forward to the Liberal Democrats campaigning loudly and enthusiastically for the UK to return to the EU.

I felt that Jeremy Balfour’s characterisation of us as being in a situation in which Scotland has nothing to show for higher taxes was totally disingenuous. There is nothing to show except, of course, free prescriptions, free university tuition, bus travel for under-22s, better provision of free school meals, the Scottish child payment, free eye tests and a better performing NHS. The list goes on and on.

I welcomed Richard Leonard’s highlighting of the plight of agricultural workers. We can all agree that their situation is not remotely acceptable and that we need to work to tackle it.

I close by saying that the positive and welcoming tone about migration, even from Conservatives who want to make Scotland an attractive alternative market, is welcome. However, the truth is that the laws in this space—including those about the treatment of asylum seekers or the visas for other types of migrant—sit with the UK Government. Until Scotland becomes independent, these decisions will not be made by the people of Scotland or with our needs and vision in mind.

16:35  

Foysol Choudhury (Lothian) (Lab)

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. We recognise the benefit of immigration for our economy. Edinburgh sees people coming to study and work in our information technology, finance and tourism sectors, and they can even become MSPs if they are lucky.

Following the racist riots of last summer, it must be said that Scotland welcomes immigrants and asylum seekers and deplores all forms of racism and prejudice. Regardless of how someone came here, our immigration system must be fair and based on respect.

It is necessary to support businesses and individuals to hire from outside Scotland, but our responsibilities do not end with visas. New Scots face the same issues that many others face already. Richard Leonard raised the poor conditions faced by agricultural workers. I have heard of cases of new Scots or asylum seekers being stuck in temporary accommodation with no running water for months on end and of instances of a room being shared between three people. Tackling issues such as the housing emergency and ensuring that our councils have the resources to support new Scots must be part of any immigration strategy.

We have heard today about the importance of using immigration to fill skills gaps in our economy, but I note that those exact issues were discussed in Parliament in 2018. It seems to me to be an admission of failure on the SNP’s part that some professions have been on the shortage occupation list for more than a decade. Some of that can be addressed through immigration, but the power to fill those gaps exists today.

That brings me to the proposed rural visa pilot. Members have outlined the many issues caused by rural depopulation and the resulting inequalities between regions. Having a specific immigration strategy could be a useful way of increasing the number of people moving to island and rural areas. That has been done before: my colleague Rhoda Grant said that Scotland previously had immigration schemes such as the fresh talent initiative when Scottish Labour was in Government.

The major issue that remains is that people want to live in rural and island areas but are forced to move, or are put off from coming, by the lack of economic opportunity, lack of housing and high cost of living that the Scottish Government has allowed to take hold. That is recognised in Labour’s economic plan for the Gaelic language. If the Scottish Government wants to attract and retain people in rural areas, tackling those issues must take priority. A temporary increase in population is not a long-term solution for the depopulation crisis.

In closing, I will discuss Scotland’s ageing population. Members have said that Scotland’s working-age population is predicted to decline in the next 20 years. That creates the need for greater immigration, but we cannot rely solely on the rest of the world to provide us with a workforce. Scotland’s fertility rate has fallen and, although the attitude towards having children has changed in recent years, we must consider the outside factors that may be driving that, including childcare, the cost of living and a housing emergency that leaves people paying high rents later and later in life. Scottish Government research shows that finance and childcare remain the largest barriers to people having children.

Will the member take an intervention?

Foysol Choudhury

I will not, as I have a lot to get through.

Immigration must not be used as a sticking plaster for a society where starting a family is out of reach for too many.

Scottish Labour believes that immigration has a key role to play in Scotland’s economic future. The immigration system should reflect the needs of the Scottish economy. However, immigration must not be used as a substitute for skills development or tackling the root causes of rural and island depopulation.

16:40  

Tess White (North East Scotland) (Con)

Before I begin, I would just like to say thank you to Jackson Carlaw, Richard Leonard and Christine Grahame for their interesting and engaging speeches.

The migration system is important to a thriving economy. I think that we are all in agreement on that. I echo the positive words that we have heard in this debate about the contributions of those who have made Scotland their home. Ben Macpherson used the word “enriching”, and I definitely agree with him. As a human resources leader in the international energy and renewables sector for three decades, I understand the importance of positive migration and, like Jackson Carlaw, I am on the side of having a migration system. It is absolutely fundamental to who we are.

However, as my colleague Foysol Choudhury said, the migration system is not a cure-all for Scotland’s economy. It will not fix the demographic challenges that we face. I find it really disappointing that the SNP’s motion does not address the drivers of depopulation. My colleague Craig Hoy spent quite some time in his speech raising the importance of that. The motion fails to acknowledge Scotland’s rising levels of economic inactivity due to ill health and it fails to address how we can harness the existing potential labour force in Scotland. It ignores the housing shortages, the income tax burden, our creaking NHS, our crumbling transport infrastructure, our failing education system and the sky-high cost of childcare, which is pushing too many women out of work.

As my colleague Liz Smith emphasised earlier this week, the SNP keeps trying to address serious policy issues by using short-term fixes. When it comes to Scotland’s demography, sticking plasters are not the solution, as we have heard today.

Maggie Chapman

Tess White has just talked about the need to think about education, transport and all those other issues as well as, in her words, the failing healthcare system. Does she agree with her colleague Craig Hoy, who called a few moments ago for a cut to every budget apart from the health budget? Does she agree that we cannot deal with all the issues that she claims we need to deal with if we cut every budget apart from the NHS budget?

Tess White

My understanding of what Craig Hoy said is that he was talking about £140 million of efficiency savings. I do not think that there is anything wrong with efficiency savings. If the SNP Government would focus on that, maybe we would have money to fund other important infrastructure projects.

Rhoda Grant rightly said that workforce planning should never be dependent on inward migration, and Christine Grahame talked about workforce availability. The two things are quite different. Workforce planning is very, very important. As we know from the NHS system, there is a lack of proper workforce planning in the Scottish Government, particularly in relation to the NHS. Scotland is the only nation in the UK where both the overall population and the working-age population are forecast to decline.

Will the member take an intervention?

Presiding Officer, will I get the time back?

Yes.

Thank you.

Christine Grahame

Is the member prepared to concede that Brexit has impacted on our workforce? Does she agree that people’s lack of ability to move around Europe has impacted particularly on the NHS and the care sector, and that Brexit has a lot to answer for?

Tess White

Christine Grahame is harping back to Brexit, but that ship is gone. When you were making your speech, I started to think that you were making some interesting points, but you dashed it all when you talked about grabbing employment law. If the Scottish Government could control and manage the things that it had the levers to manage, maybe the Scottish population would trust the Scottish Government and the SNP to deliver.

Always speak through the chair, please.

Tess White

The SNP has spent years agitating for independence, but as Scotland is part of the UK, the Scottish Government’s budget is protected from population decline. That point was not made by me; it was made by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It is no surprise that, instead of using existing levers to tackle the population challenges that Scotland faces, the SNP reverts to form and calls for more powers. That is the same SNP that took years to set up the Scottish social security system, following the passing of the Scotland Act 2016. It is the same SNP that still has not floated new ferries for our island communities, prompting a grovelling apology from the First Minister this week.

As a north-east MSP, I represent areas of remote and rural Scotland, and I know the unique population challenges that communities in those areas face, and I have raised them with Scottish ministers. However, when it comes to solutions, we should look first at the causes of depopulation. Almost half of council wards in the Borders and in the Highlands have experienced population decline—as my colleagues highlighted.

Richard Leonard will be pleased to know that human rights are very important to me. The Scottish Human Rights Commission published alarming findings that show that food and housing in the Highlands do not meet minimum core human rights obligations, whereas health only partially meets obligations.

Jeremy Balfour stated a stark fact, which is that Scotland receives 6 per cent of net migration to the UK, which is lower than its 8.4 per cent population share. The Scottish Government likes to downplay the significance of that, but it is extremely important. The reality is that, after 17 years of SNP mismanagement, Scotland is often not an attractive prospect for people who are looking to relocate. The SNP-controlled NHS is performing worse than the health service in England. If the SNP wants to support Scotland’s economy, public services and communities, it should show some more common sense and focus on using the powers that it has to make Scotland a more attractive place to move to.

I call Tom Arthur to wind up the debate.

16:47  

Tom Arthur

I thank colleagues across the chamber for their contributions to what I thought was a broadly informative, productive and constructive debate.

Before moving to the substance of the contributions, I will respond to a point that was raised by one or two members who questioned whether it was even legitimate for the Parliament to be discussing the issue of migration. Of course, there are a number of policies that members on the Government benches would like to see devolved to the Parliament that are currently sitting in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. However, there was once a time when every power exercised by the Scottish Parliament and by Scottish ministers was exercised at Westminster and Whitehall. In a democracy, it is perfectly legitimate to make the case and advocate for change. If we cannot parlay in a Parliament, goodness knows where we can do it, particularly when it is on a subject of such profound importance to our economy, our wellbeing and our society overall as that of the very people who live in Scotland and how we create pathways for people to come and live in Scotland.

I will move on to some of the fundamental economic arguments that underpin the motion that the Government has brought before Parliament today. However, first, I want to say two things. As I said in my opening remarks, this is not seen as a silver bullet or as a single solution. We recognise that what is required to ensure that we are able to sustain and grow our population in Scotland is a multifaceted approach that involves retaining people in Scotland, attracting people from other parts of the UK and attracting people internationally. As part of that, the migration system under which we operate has a key role to play, but I want to disabuse members of the notion that it is the exclusive focus of the Government’s action to address the matter of population.

Craig Hoy

I thank the minister for giving way and for conceding the fundamental point that the migration system is not a silver bullet. What does the minister say to Scottish Financial Enterprise, which says that its evidence-based approach clearly shows that higher taxes have reduced migration into Scotland, particularly in the financial services sector?

Tom Arthur

I say to Mr Hoy that I very much recognise the points that have been raised by SFE and others and that have been reported anecdotally in the media. He will note the comments of the finance secretary on presenting the budget to Parliament and, indeed, the First Minister’s comments about the Government’s position regarding tax policy for the remainder of this session of Parliament. I will not rehearse the arguments, but Mr Hoy is well aware of the significant additional revenues that are raised through taxation policy in Scotland, which are estimated at some £1.5 billion this year.

As many members have noted, there is a view that the performance of our public services is of key importance in attracting and retaining population in Scotland. A significant tax cut in the region of £1.5 billion is not consistent with wanting investment in our public services. However, I do not want to rehearse those arguments, as they have been well aired.

The second point that I want to note is about tone. The point was raised by Maggie Chapman, Lorna Slater and Alex Cole-Hamilton, and it was implicit in the remarks of Mr Leonard. It was also very much at the centre of excellent contributions from Jackson Carlaw and, indeed, my colleague Bill Kidd. It is heartening that, although we see a coarsening of language and, quite frankly, some obscene and outrageous rhetoric in other quarters, we have avoided that in Parliament today. It is an opportunity to recommit to speaking positively and constructively about migrants and their contribution to Scotland.

Lorna Slater

I want to follow up on Mr Hoy’s intervention. I noticed that, in his speech, he spoke about central-belt bias in Scotland without recognising at all the distorting power that London has on UK and English economic statistics. I felt that his data misrepresented the point that he was trying to make. Mr Hoy presented London as the cheaper option, in terms of the cost of living, compared to Scotland. In Scotland, higher earners pay a little bit more tax, but they get so much more in return for that—baby boxes, free university tuition and so on. Does the minister recognise that point and agree with me?

Tom Arthur

That is quite helpful, because I was going to turn to a question asked by Mr Carlaw and touched on by one or two other members: why does Scotland seem not to take a population share of overall migration to the UK? It is a fairly legitimate question, but the distorting factor is, of course, London. I take the view that it is fantastic to have a brilliant, world-class city such as London on these islands, four and a half hours away on the train and an hour or so away on a flight, but it does not come without its challenges. There are many reasons why people would wish to move to London, but I do not think that the cost of living is one of them. I think that we all recognise that implicitly. There is a challenge there.

It may be helpful for the chamber if I share some statistics. We know that London attracts disproportionately more skilled workers than the rest of the UK. Analysis by the migration observatory found that, between 2016 and 2020, 44 per cent of skilled workers with certificates of sponsorship went to London. London has the highest proportion of migrants among UK areas, and around 40 per cent of its residents were born abroad. According to census data, in 2021-22, almost half of all foreign-born residents of the UK lived in London and the south-east. That is the reality. There is freedom of movement, and London will always have that magnetic pull.

Here I will draw a comparison. Richard Leonard made the point that it is interesting that some of the most vociferous advocates of free movement of capital are also the most vociferous opponents of restricting migration. We know that, against a country such as the United Kingdom, in which there are significant opportunities for inward investment, Scotland competes well. London and the south-east do disproportionately well, but Scotland is regularly the strongest-performing part of the UK outside those areas. That is testament to the tremendous work of our overseas offices, such as Scottish Development International, and of Scottish businesses and our business representative organisations in attracting inward investment. The challenge for us is that the migration system in the UK is more restrictive; it is not as open as the opportunities for investment.

That reflects the Government’s three-part approach. First, we want to provide as much support as we can within the existing UK migration system. Secondly, we aim to advocate for change in that system. Thirdly, we will argue for a tailored approach, because the principle of adopting a differentiated approach is conceded. We have sectoral differentiation, so why not geographical differentiation? What is the role of Government if it is not to intervene through regulation when we see the distortionary effects of the magnetic pull of London and the south-east? That is the situation that confronts us. London provides great opportunities for Scottish business and Scottish people, but it also presents a challenge.

Will the minister take an intervention?

Tom Arthur

Certainly—in just a moment.

We can help to address that challenge in a similar way to our approach to capital. We work to attract investors to Scotland. We work within the existing system to attract people to come here. Let us remember that we are seeing net migration to Scotland from the rest of the UK, including among taxpayers, according to the recent data that we have available. However, there is much more that we can do. The way in which we could enhance our progress to date would be to see changes made to the migration system. I stress that those changes would not be a silver bullet, but they could make an important contribution.

I will give way to Tess White.

The minister says that it is an important part of the role of Government to use interventions, but what about the fact that a quarter of the working-age population in Scotland is inactive because of ill health?

Tom Arthur

That is an important point, and it sits directly within my portfolio as the minister with responsibility for fair work. We are making a range of interventions. I gently caution members against looking at the available statistics, given the caveats that the Office for National Statistics has placed on them and given the issues with the labour force survey. We already know that too many people are economically inactive. We are taking action through the no one left behind strategy that forms part of our devolved employability services. That is a devolved, local partnership-based approach that allows such partners to respond to the needs and assets in their areas. Further funding for that has been committed in the Scottish budget. We have also committed to providing specialist disability support across all 32 local authority areas.

I want to see opportunities for consistency in our devolved employability system where that is in the interests of collaboration. I also want to see local working that engages with businesses and organisations that are specific to each community. I have engaged directly with the UK Government on its “Get Britain Working” white paper. I want to work with it constructively on employability, given the overlap between devolved and reserved competencies in that area.

Of course, we are seeking to implement other measures, such as interventions through health. The UK Government is seeking to implement policy interventions through the social security system, which we must consider very carefully. We must ensure that we are incentivising people back into work and supporting them at their own pace, rather than having a system that would stigmatise people. That is always a danger in the employability sphere. We want to support people back into work and into jobs that they can sustain. That is a key priority for the Government.

I go back to my earlier point that, if we are to grow our workforce and our pool of labour, we will need to take a multifaceted approach. We are not looking at any one matter in isolation, but regulation of the movement of people in and out of the UK is a key component. We have issued proposals that I think are reasonable and proportionate and that can command support. We want to work constructively with the UK Government, because, as I said, there is differentiation based on sectors and we believe that we can look to have that on the basis of geography. Furthermore, as Alex Cole-Hamilton highlighted, that should not be confined to Scotland, as there are challenges with the retention of population in parts of England and Wales. We absolutely agree with the Liberal Democrats’ proposal on the inclusion of devolved Governments and ministers in that process.

I hope that what the Government has set out in the debate will command the widest support among members. We recognise that we will have to take a multifaceted approach. However, looking to have a tailored approach to immigration that we can work and collaborate with the UK Government to design will be of significant benefit to the Scottish economy, our public services and our society.

I encourage members to back the Government’s motion.