The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-17906, in the name of Kate Forbes, on a migration system that works for Scotland. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
15:23
Scotland’s economic history is deeply intertwined with migration and emigration. Famines, industrialisation, the growth of cities, lowland and highland clearances, public health advances, bursts of emigration, wars, baby booms and freedom of movement are all key chapters that have formed the basis of our changing population and economic landscape.
We have a rich history as an open trading nation, and our future prosperity relies on that. Our natural resources, outstanding higher education institutions and growing reputation for innovation and technology make us a draw for international investment. We are renowned for our open-arms approach to welcoming others from around the world. Evidence from the latest nation brands index shows that we are recognised as the open, outward-facing country that we strive to be. Our people are our heart, and we are nothing as a nation without them.
We are prioritising action that maximises our workforce and removes barriers to employment. The programme for government and the budget outline the £90 million investment that we are making to help more people into work through our no one left behind programme and how, by the summer, local authorities will offer enhanced specialist support for disabled jobseekers and the improvements that are being made to support workers and employers to access health services to help to keep our workforce healthy.
Through our investment in education, reform of the skills system and targeted action in key sectors, we are not only increasing employment but taking action to increase productivity and earnings, too.
The Deputy First Minister is absolutely right to focus on how we maximise people’s participation in the workforce. Has there been any analysis of why economic inactivity is higher in Scotland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom?
It is an excellent question. The figures fluctuate considerably from month to month, and I am tracking them very closely. There are a number of elements to the drivers of economic inactivity. Some are historical, where particular demographics or communities have a significantly higher rate of economic inactivity rate and have done for many years. Some of that is quite stubborn, although it is difficult to use that word in relation to human beings. More recently, some of it has been driven by the experience of the pandemic—that is another element that economists and people in Public Health Scotland are pointing to. Where people left the job market during Covid, they have been slower to return to it. The third element is probably similar across the UK, and it relates to those who need to access healthcare support—either mental health support or other forms of support.
My answer to Daniel Johnson is that the interventions required to help each of those cohorts are very different. People often lump together people who are economically inactive as one homogeneous group, but they really are not. Some fascinating work is going on with Public Health Scotland as well as with employers to find how we reach different cohorts. For the cohort that needs healthcare intervention, in one sense, it is not on the employer to provide support, but where somebody is finding it difficult to access the labour market because of changes that an employer can make, Public Health Scotland is working with employers to make those changes.
That is the high-level answer, but I would be more than happy to involve Daniel Johnson—and Liz Smith, as I see that she is nodding at me—and anyone else in some of the work that we are doing with Public Health Scotland. I find it a particularly fascinating piece of work because there is a lack of homogeneity in that cohort.
The actions that I talked about are important, but they are not sufficient. It is no secret that our country is facing significant population challenges. Migration is predicted to be the sole driver of population growth for decades to come. Right now, we need people to come here to live and work, to bolster our working-age population. Our positive reputation helps, and we already see evidence of Scotland attracting people from all nationalities. In the year to mid-2023, net migration into Scotland was higher than in any other year in the past decade. Of the 61,581 people who moved here that year, the majority were of working age and probably therefore taxpayers, too. That is a great thing for Scotland.
Migration to the economy is like adding rich compost to the soil. Just as that brings nutrients to plants, migration introduces fresh talent, skills and innovation, and it boosts productivity in our sectors. When that is abundant, businesses expand, new jobs are created and economic growth happens. Without that, plants struggle to survive and thrive.
Our economy, like many others, depends on migration to sustain our public services, fill gaps in the workforce and drive our long-term prosperity. The food processing sector, for example, has calculated that nearly 45 per cent of its workforce comes from overseas—27 per cent are from the European Union and 17 per cent are more international. Most come to Scotland through a skilled worker visa. The sector has a strong retention record and is an important employer in many of our rural communities.
Rural communities, especially, are facing challenges from population change. Areas where people traditionally built their lives, businesses and connections are now struggling as families and workers move away to follow opportunities, leaving local services and businesses struggling and local economies weaker for it.
I do not need to remind the cabinet secretary of how important the rural depopulation issue is within all of this. That is not just a matter of migration policy; it is a collective policy issue that requires efforts from a whole lot of areas to encourage more people to stay in their local communities. Does the cabinet secretary agree with that?
I absolutely agree. The National Records of Scotland, among others, forecasts double-digit reductions in population, particularly across coastal and island communities. That focuses on the working-age population, which masks the fact that we also have an ageing population.
Reversal of the depopulation trend and the restoration of economic vibrancy will not result from a single action. I have enough respect for my opponents across the chamber to know that we will approach the issue by understanding the multifaceted nature of the challenges, but it is the package of actions that we take that will ease the strain. In rural and island areas, there is a requirement to support housing, to deliver on key infrastructure projects and to improve transport links. It is also key—this is what I want to talk about today—that we call for tailored regional migration routes, such as a rural visa pilot. It is interesting that the development of a rural visa pilot enjoyed support from a number of different industries and sectors—indeed, at the time, it had support from across the Parliament as well.
We are quite concerned that the discourse around migration seems to be focused solely on reducing numbers instead of focusing on the needs of our economy and our diverse communities. That is what a rural visa would do—it would have us working very closely with employers to identify need.
Regarding the rural pilot schemes for visas, 48 per cent of Scotland’s dairy herd is in the south-west of Scotland, and a lot of the cows are milked by persons from Europe. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we need to recognise how important it would be to support the south-west economy with a rural visa pilot scheme?
I do, and anecdotes like that could be replicated in many different parts of Scotland. Employers frequently put it to me that migration is an area where they want to see progress, because they see it as an effective solution to the challenges that they face.
We have data that demonstrates the huge impact that immigrants have on our economy. Research that was commissioned by the Federation of Small Businesses in 2019 found that immigrant-led small and medium-sized enterprises generated £13 billion in revenues and 107,000 jobs. We want to attract more entrepreneurs to Scotland, in line with our long-term vision.
Using existing devolved powers, we launched Scotland’s migration service in 2024 to support migrants and Scottish-based employers in navigating the UK immigration system to meet their relocation and business needs. Through it, we are always looking at ways in which we can support businesses, short of having control over immigration.
It will come as no surprise that, like many sectors and industries, we are deeply concerned about some of the policy approaches that are contained in the UK Government’s recently published immigration white paper. It failed to take on board our proposals for action that meets our needs. The plans are likely to have a severe impact on migration to rural areas of Scotland that already face significant demographic and economic challenges.
I strongly believe that we need an immigration system that reflects our distinct demographic, economic and social needs. For example, the hospitality sector was very reliant on workers from the EU before Brexit, and, in 2019, 20 per cent of hospitality workers were non-UK nationals compared with 8 per cent in the wider Scottish economy. In spite of concerted efforts to retain workers, however, there are still 30,000 fewer people working in the sector today than there were pre-Brexit.
There is a case to be made for tailored migration routes for Scotland. We proposed a Scottish graduate visa, which would allow international graduates from Scottish universities to stay in Scotland for two years to gain work experience before transitioning to a skilled-worker visa. When I was first elected, I was often struck by the fact that there was cross-party support for the post-graduate visa from both the Conservatives and Labour. It was a tailored, nuanced approach that enjoyed cross-party support, and we want to see that again. UK ministers could choose to support us on that. We had the fresh talent working in Scotland scheme between 2005 and 2008, which I am very happy to say was a Labour Party initiative. The point is that I think we can still speak with one voice on the importance of migration to Scotland and of working collaboratively to have a tailored approach for Scotland.
Migration enriches our society and makes a net contribution to our economy, our public services and our public finances. It is the fertiliser that helps us to thrive, innovate and grow in the face of demographic challenges. We cannot wish those challenges away, but there are things that we can do within our devolved powers. However, we cannot expand the workforce completely without control over migration, so I invite members from across the chamber to join us in making this call.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the contribution to Scotland’s communities, public services and economy by those who have chosen to migrate to Scotland and build their lives here; notes that stakeholders from multiple sectors across Scotland have expressed significant concerns with the UK Government’s immigration white paper, and that proposals submitted by the Scottish Government to the Home Office were not included in the published paper; 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; calls on the UK Government to engage with Scottish Government officials urgently to ensure that the needs of Scotland’s businesses, public services and communities are supported, rather than harmed, by the reforms outlined in the UK immigration white paper, and further calls on the UK Government to ensure that a new youth mobility scheme is designed, with engagement from young people across the UK nations, to be as broad and inclusive as possible, restoring the greatest freedom of movement for young people as can be agreed with the EU.
15:35
I greatly welcome the Deputy First Minister’s tone, because, as we all know, far too often, migration debates are highly contentious and framed by economic, social and security concerns. Sadly, nowadays, they are often framed by misunderstandings, negative perceptions that are sometimes very far removed from reality and, worst of all in this age of Trump and Farage, by increasingly unhelpful and damaging rhetoric that can border on racism and which clearly helps absolutely no one at all.
My contribution will be based very much on the facts—I hope that it will be an honest and open appraisal of the current challenges—and on my long-standing interest in labour market economics. However, before I begin that analysis, I want to be very clear about three things. First, I agree that the current system of immigration controls is not working. Secondly, in particular, the very high level of illegal immigration is a major concern, as is the associated fiscal cost of accommodation and public service provision. Thirdly, I quite strongly oppose a Scottish system of immigration, because of the inherent complications—although I will come to another aspect of that in a moment.
However, first, I come to the hard facts. Scotland has a very significant demographic challenge: an ageing population, as the Deputy First Minister said, a declining birth rate and worryingly high rates of economic inactivity.
I also welcome Liz Smith’s tone in the debate, and I recognise what she said at the outset about racism and misinformation about the facts of immigration. Does she also recognise that, particularly in the media, the nuance about the need to attract skilled workers, particularly to rural communities, is often lost in the heat and the hate that goes with the anti-immigration rhetoric?
Yes, I absolutely recognise that. The media is partly responsible for some of that divisiveness.
I come back to the Deputy First Minister’s point about homogeneity with regard to economic inactivity: she is quite right that there are lots of different aspects to economic inactivity, but we have worryingly high rates of it and very significant labour shortages in key sectors, such as agriculture, hospitality and care. We also have huge pressure on public services, which the Scottish Fiscal Commission set out last week; there are definitely challenges to a one-size-fits-all approach, which I will come back to; and there has definitely been a Brexit effect, which has changed the nature and the composition of the migrant population. More migrants now come from outside the EU—so it is a more diverse group, especially when it comes to languages and cultures.
However, I also make the point, which I think that the Deputy First Minister referred to, that, in the past five years, the UK has seen record levels of inward migration from abroad. However, Scotland has not always been able to attract what we would see as our percentage share of that. As I think that The Sunday Times pointed out at the weekend, we might be doing very well on attracting people from down south to Scotland, but there is an issue with regard to the fact that not so many people come to Scotland from elsewhere. That is in marked contrast to what is happening down south.
With regard to the Scottish Fiscal Commission, I heard the Deputy First Minister’s little comment about the tax base. The issue is about the tax increase that we need in revenue terms. Yes, people might be taxpayers, but, if we listen to an awful lot of people in the business community, particularly people like Sandy Begbie—I know that that message has gone back loud and clear to the Scottish Government—we learn that there is a problem in relation to attracting middle to higher earners to Scotland. That recruitment process is something that the Economy and Fair Work Committee heard a lot about when it visited Prestwick airport, and we need to take cognisance of that issue.
Last Wednesday we had a really interesting debate about entrepreneurship and innovation. Kate Forbes, who was leading for the Government, was quite right to say that entrepreneurs and innovators are the catalysts for economic growth. We should acknowledge both and welcome the very positive contribution that many of those people who are not indigenous to Scotland make when it comes to entrepreneurship.
Nonetheless, there are serious issues in relation to immigration policy, which is why I want to delve a bit deeper into the matter. I suggest that the debate should not be about Scotland against the rest of the UK but should be much more about different sectors across the UK. I do not like the fact that we often get into constitutional debate about the issue, when it has much more to do with the sectors.
I know from speaking to my local community in Perthshire that we have people there who are some of the best workers—indeed, some Polish workers are seen by their employer as absolutely outstanding in the contribution that they make to agriculture. That is the case in my community but people in Norfolk or wherever will say exactly the same.
We must be careful about how we play this, because I think that there is a—
Will the member take an intervention?
Will I get a little time back?
Yes.
Liz Smith is making a really interesting contribution about some of the nuances in the labour market. Is there also a broader, global context, in which world population growth is slowing? We perhaps need to concentrate on how we manage that issue rather than try to compensate for it with migration, which will only ever be a short to medium-term exercise.
That is a very good point from Mr Johnson. I think that he is right that there is a global context to the issue, which is important.
When I was elected to this Parliament in 2007, I was part of the cross-party group on post-study work visas—I think that people know of my passion about education, particularly higher education and the university sector. I was very pleased to join that cross-party group, because I think that there is a case for post-study work visas. If Scotland is to attract the brightest and best—whether that is students or people in research and development and staff—we absolutely need to have a welcoming structure for the people who would like to come here.
I remember that, just before some of the debates around the independence referendum, we were able to attract probably about 14 per cent of research and development grants because Scotland was leading the way. As I understand it from last week’s conference, that figure is now down to about 10.5 per cent. That is not a good direction in which to be going, so the case for post-study work visas is very strong.
Liz Smith talked about this being a UK-wide issue. First, although I agree that it is a sectoral issue rather than a uniquely Scottish one, we always come to the point that if the UK Government does not take a different approach, we will have to talk about why it needs to be different for Scotland.
Secondly, there is the question of illegal versus legal migration. We strongly feel that the reduction in the routes for legal migration—whether that is based on salary levels or otherwise—is not resolving the issue. Lots of countries around the world have a very relaxed approach to legal migration and therefore see very low levels of illegal migration.
That is a fair point to make. There is a broader picture about how well we can navigate not only a global situation but the situation in the UK. Although I have some sympathy for the amendment that the Labour Party has lodged, I also have some worries about the white paper, just as I have about my party’s on-going discussions about migration. I am not convinced that we have the right balance between those people who want to come to this country and whom we want to be able to welcome, and those people who are here through illegal means. A big discussion needs to be had about that.
The immigration system has to reward contribution and social integration, and any deportation system of illegal immigrants that we come up with must work. As yet, we are not there.
I move amendment S6M-17906.1, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert:
“believes that there is an important policy balance to be struck between welcoming those migrants who make significant contributions to the economic, social and cultural life of the UK, and reducing the numbers of illegal migrants who place added pressures on the welfare system and public services, and believes that the future of migration policy across the UK should reflect the specific needs of different sectors of the labour market.”
I call Michael Marra to speak to and move amendment S6M-17906.2.
15:44
As we have heard, Scotland has long been—and remains—a welcoming country to people who want to settle here, to join our community, to enjoy this beautiful country and to contribute to our shared life. My family arrived as migrants to this country in the 19th century, coming from a country that was ravaged by famine. They worked in the jute mills of Dundee and made a life, a home and a community. That is my family’s story, which I know is echoed in many MSPs’ family stories. It is the story of people who have contributed massively to our nation’s story and to the communities that we live in today.
Scottish Labour celebrates the many ways in which our country has been enriched by those who have made Scotland their home. In making the migration system sustainable and able to command the confidence and support of the public, we must also recognise that any immigration system has to be safe, legal and well managed. That is absolutely essential. Eleven months ago, the UK Labour Government inherited from the previous Government a chaotic, broken system that did not work for anyone. Without any doubt, fixing that system will take time. It is right that the UK Government is taking the necessary steps to ensure that immigration is safe, that it is fair and, crucially, that it meets the needs of our economy. Meeting the needs of the economy is part of the basis of making sure that migration enjoys public support, which is absolutely crucial.
I am grateful to Michael Marra for taking my intervention. One of my concerns with the white paper from his colleagues in London is that it does not recognise that in some sectors, such as the caring sector, there is a massive shortage because of the income that individuals in that sector earn. Is there a danger that people who give valuable care to disabled and older people in Scotland will be cut off from coming?
I will give you the time back, Michael Marra.
I thank Jeremy Balfour for his intervention. I understand that he has personal experience of care, as he has often set out in the chamber. It is a very relevant point. The central challenge, which he alighted on, is the issue of income and the fact that those in the care sector have been far too low paid for far too long. We heard exchanges in the chamber earlier today on the exact issue of the amount of money that is paid to carers and making sure that people in Scotland and in other parts of the EU can take on that job.
Kate Forbes rose—
I would appreciate it if I could make some progress, Deputy First Minister.
By contrast, on the economic side, the Scottish National Party is propping up a system that is undercutting one set of workers by exploiting and underpaying others. That goes back to the point of Mr Balfour’s contention. We should be clear that there is absolutely nothing progressive about that situation. The SNP has presided over a scandal of low pay in our care sector, particularly across the whole of social care, which has driven people from the workforce. That is the SNP’s record, and it is not one to be proud of. That is the substantial lacuna in the Deputy First Minister’s considered remarks that opened today’s debate.
There are multiple widespread and deeply significant skills gaps in Scotland’s workforce across many industries. I cite the Open University’s “Business Barometer 2024” report, which showed that 56 per cent of businesses—a clear majority—are experiencing skills shortages in Scotland. Audit Scotland’s report on the Scottish Government’s infrastructure spend singled out skills shortages as a key factor in delayed projects and rising costs, which pose a huge problem to generating growth in our economy.
Industries such as construction are needed more than ever if Labour’s record investment in housing is to be mobilised by this Government. Instead, Scotland enters its second year of a housing emergency on the SNP’s watch, and the sector is crying out for workers. A report by Scottish Engineering in January of this year found that there are skills gaps for welders, machinists, electricians, manufacturing and maintenance technicians and engineers. It said:
“The skills pipeline gaps for these roles are in an immediately stark situation”.
The transition to net zero requires retrofitting and upgrades on a scale that requires more of those workers.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have the time, Ms Grahame—apologies.
However, the Scottish Government has not even managed to train enough workers to meet the current demand. Instead, it presides over the decimation of college budgets, is damned by independent report after brutal public assessment for its lack of leadership, and a skills system that is directionless, fractured and misfiring. That is at the core of the issue. None of those assessments is addressed. Watered down and rudderless legislation is limping by in this Parliament—that will the case in respect of the Education (Scotland) Bill in the coming weeks. The SNP Government is running down the clock with weak leadership and no ideas. That is not my assessment—it is the assessment of SNP members and even MSPs.
As set out by Liz Smith, the SNP might also ask itself why, given that net migration to the UK is at record levels, people are choosing not to come to Scotland. From 2020 to 2023, Scotland received only 5.7 per cent of net international migration to the UK. That is well below our population share, and it is a trend in the wrong direction over time: five years ago, we exceeded our population share of net migration in the UK, and it is now going in the wrong direction.
The SNP Government might want to ask itself about its failure to grow the economy, with Scots paying higher taxes but, as set out by the Scottish Fiscal Commission, losing more than £1 billion as a result of the Government’s incompetence. Could it be as a result of the Government’s failure to provide enough homes, with record homelessness and thousands of children in temporary accommodation? Could it be down to the failure to invest in Scotland’s infrastructure? There is no infrastructure plan; nothing is set out for years at a time, or projects are delayed time and again, and there are no plans to invest for the future. It makes it difficult for people to live in rural areas.
The SNP has an awful lot of tools at its disposal that could make Scotland a much more attractive place in which to be, live, work or study. However, the Government chooses not to use them. It limps along, trailing other parts of the UK and looking for the next grievance. The public know that we need to get a grip of our immigration system. The UK Government is getting on with the job, and the SNP Government should do the same.
I move amendment S6M-17906.2, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert:
“supports the move towards a more sustainable immigration system for the whole of the UK; regrets that the care sector has become overly dependent on low wages and exploitative working practices for migrants; believes that Scotland’s stagnant economy cannot be fixed through migration alone; calls on the Scottish Government to grow the workforce through using its devolved powers to build more housing, strengthen public transport, increase pay for social care work and incentivise skills development, and welcomes the UK Government’s deal with the EU, which includes increased trade, negotiation to rejoin Erasmus+ and co-operation on a youth experience scheme.”
I advise members that we have a little bit of time in hand. If members take interventions, they will certainly get the time back.
15:50
I am pleased to contribute to the debate, not only to support the motion but to speak to a principle that must guide us in everything that we do: every person who chooses to make Scotland their home brings with them value, dignity and the potential to contribute meaningfully to our shared future.
I also want to use my time to challenge the toxic narratives that continue to define UK immigration policy. We must be absolutely clear that immigration is a societal good and not a problem to be managed. We should celebrate it. Indeed, Scotland’s communities, culture, economies and public services are strengthened every day by people who have come here from around the globe. They bring with them skills, ideas, cultures, care and resilience. They are nurses, teachers, farmers, carers and artists. They are our friends and neighbours. They enrich our society in every possible way. They are part of us. They are us.
However, again and again, we are asked to accept the cruel and divisive narratives that are pushed by Westminster. Those narratives cast human beings as threats, speak of illegal migrants as if legality ever equated to morality and promote a so-called hostile environment—words that are designed not just to exclude but to dehumanise.
We must ask ourselves why people migrate. Why are so many forced to uproot their lives, families and futures? Too often, migration is spoken of in isolation, as if it happens in a vacuum, but it is often a direct consequence of histories of empire, colonial extraction and economic injustice. For centuries, the British empire profited from the exploitation of people and land around the globe, from Africa to south Asia to the Caribbean. Borders were drawn, communities were displaced and resources were looted. Those legacies are still with us. It is both deeply unjust and bitterly ironic that the very states that built their wealth on global movement and domination now criminalise those who move in search of safety and dignity. Many migrants are fleeing the instability, poverty and conflict that imperial powers, including the UK, played a key role in creating.
Increasingly, climate change, too, drives displacement. We must remember that those least responsible for the climate change crisis are most affected by it.
When we speak of immigration policy, we must also speak of responsibility—not just legal but moral and historical. The UK Government’s hostile environment approach is rooted in denial of our history and of the UK’s role in creating the conditions that force people to move now.
The immigration white paper continues the legacy of harm. It ignores Scotland’s specific demographic and economic needs, disregards proposals from our Government and deepens the dehumanisation of people who deserve compassion, not condemnation.
The Scottish Greens have long advocated for a migration system that is rooted in fairness, human rights and compassion and that recognises people not as economic units but as full members of society. Many of the most harmful migration policies—the raids, detention centres and deportations—are grounded in racist assumptions that must be challenged and dismantled.
We urgently need a migration policy that is tailored to Scotland’s realities and that puts dignity and human rights first. We need a youth mobility scheme that rebuilds what was lost after Brexit and restores the freedom of movement that allowed young people to learn, grow and connect across borders.
Crucially, we must change the way in which we talk about migration. We must reject the language of scarcity and suspicion. We must insist that our communities are richer—culturally, economically and spiritually—because of the people who have chosen to come here.
Scotland has always been a nation of migration, both outward and inward. Our future depends on our ability to embrace that identity with open arms, to stand against the xenophobia that is peddled by the right wing and to say clearly, loudly and proudly that everyone who makes Scotland their home is welcome and that they belong here.
15:55
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I am also grateful for the tone that has been fostered by those on all sides of the chamber thus far. My remarks begin in large part where Michael Marra’s began: I, too, am a product of immigration. My mother came here in the 1960s to undertake an English degree and never left. Perhaps that is not an advert for immigration on some sides of the chamber, but I am proud of it nonetheless.
All of us, whether we are in this Parliament or in Westminster, have a responsibility to speak up, clearly and confidently, in defence of the many benefits that immigration brings to our society. Too often, our political discourse shrinks from that responsibility and retreats in the face of rising hostility and negative press, instead of standing firm on what we know to be true.
Immigration is a fundamental part of Scotland’s story. It has shaped who we are and it continues to shape who we will become—from Irish immigrants in the 17th century to those from Italy and Poland during the industrial revolution and after the second world war; from those who came to us from India, Pakistan and Uganda in the 1960s and 1970s to those fleeing war in Ukraine today, who have found refuge and such welcome and new beginnings in Scottish homes the length and breadth of our community. Each wave of immigration has enriched our culture. It has strengthened our economy and contributed to a more diverse, dynamic and successful society, bringing new languages, traditions and ideas that are now woven into the fabric of Scotland. It has created jobs, filled vital gaps in our workforce and brought fresh perspectives, drive and innovation.
These are not strangers; they are our neighbours. They are our colleagues, our friends, our lovers and our families. They are us. However, instead of valuing that, the aftermath of years of mismanagement by the previous Government in Westminster has left the UK’s immigration system in tatters. Public trust has been eroded. The issue is the battle line of our political discourse, and that is deeply regrettable.
Brexit only made things worse. When the UK voted by a slim majority to leave the European Union, ties that matter deeply to Scotland and to all of these islands were broken. We lost freedom of movement and, with it, easy access to the people who kept our national health service going, worked in our care homes, picked our crops and powered our businesses.
Only today, I stood outside the Parliament alongside social care workers campaigning for fair pay and conditions. Scotland’s care sector depends hugely on overseas workers. In fact, it relies on them—they are its backbone. Imposing thousands of pounds’ worth of fees will only make the crisis worse and push more providers to the brink. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues at Westminster are calling for punitive Home Office visa fees, which were introduced by the previous Government, to be scrapped for care workers and NHS staff. The last thing that we need is more of a barrier to those who seek to come here to work in health and social care. We need a flexible migration system that meets the specific needs of each part of the United Kingdom and works closely with the devolved Administrations. That is the best way to ensure that Scotland’s economy is bolstered with the workforce that it needs.
I am pleased that the UK Labour Government is finally considering a youth mobility scheme with the European Union. My party was the first to call for such a scheme. Young people already have the chance to use similar schemes in many countries across the globe, so there is no reason at all why we should not expand such access to our European neighbours. It will offer amazing opportunities for generations to come.
Let us be clear: the issue is not only about giving people the freedom to travel and experience life across Europe, although that in itself is valuable and powerful. A properly designed youth mobility scheme would be a huge win for our economy. The Centre for European Reform has said that a youth mobility scheme could add nearly 0.5 per cent to our gross domestic product in the longer term, while analysts at the House of Commons library who were commissioned by the Lib Dems suggest that such growth could add roughly £5 billion to the Exchequer each year. That could mean that there would be about £5 billion of additional tax revenue each year in the long run. The 0.45 per cent figure was arrived at in a Centre for European Reform study on the economic impact of a youth mobility scheme between the UK and the EU.
Our hospitality and tourism sectors, our farms, our construction sites and our start-ups all need flexible and energetic workers. Local economies benefit when young people come here to work, to live and to spend. Such a scheme would be a two-way street, as young Scots would be able to access the same opportunities across the continent.
We move to the open debate.
16:00
A lot has been said about immigration in recent days, particularly from podiums in Downing Street, but very little has been said from places where decisions about immigration land the hardest, such as places in my Banffshire and Buchan Coast constituency. There, immigration is not just an abstract debate; it is a practical necessity. Immigration is necessary to ensure that there are enough workers to staff our care homes, to keep seafood processing lines running and to support our public services and the local economy. We are talking about real jobs, real communities and real people, and what the UK Government is proposing will make their lives and livelihoods much harder.
The UK Government’s immigration white paper is not about supporting growth or meeting need, and it is certainly not about fairness. It is a political manoeuvre, dressed up as policy, that is aimed at placating Reform UK. It is not about helping Scotland, and it is certainly not about helping rural Scotland. It proposes raising visa thresholds to degree level, extending English language requirements to dependents, increasing the qualifying period for settlement from five years to 10 and—crucially for us—closing the overseas care worker route. In areas such as mine, that change alone could devastate care provision. Services are already stretched, vacancy rates in social care are at their highest, and now a key recruitment route is to be cut off. There is no plan to replace it—all that we have had are vague promises of training and home-grown staff. We have heard that before.
It is not only care that will be affected. Our essential seafood industry, which feeds the country and exports globally, is again being treated as expendable. Processing facilities in my constituency rely heavily on migrant workers. They are already dealing with the legacy of Brexit, from lost labour to increased bureaucracy, and we are now being told that the very workforce that has kept them going is no longer welcome. Those are not hypothetical concerns; they are genuine concerns that have been expressed directly to me in conversations that I have had with employers.
We are constantly told that migration should be controlled, but what is being proposed is not control; it is restriction for the sake of restriction. It ignores Scotland’s demographic reality. Our working-age population is shrinking, our birth rate is falling and our population is ageing. National Records of Scotland and the Fraser of Allander Institute have both been crystal clear in saying that inward migration is essential if we are to sustain our economy and our public services.
The argument that we need to motivate more people into work falls flat when the evidence—especially in my constituency—shows that the working-age population numbers are simply not there. We need a migration system that reflects Scotland’s needs, not Westminster’s polling priorities and a culture war that sows division. We must reject hateful messaging and work together to ensure peace in our communities.
That is why I support the Scottish National Party Government’s motion, because it not only rejects the damage that the white paper would cause but recognises the positive, vital contribution that migrants already make to our communities, our services and our economy. Their contribution deserves recognising, not scapegoating. I underline the need for urgent and meaningful engagement between the UK and Scottish Governments. We cannot afford to be sidelined. If the proposed rules go ahead without adaptation, it will be Scotland’s businesses, care providers and families who will pay the price.
I plead that we look to the future, including that of our young people, many of whom want the freedom to work, study and travel across Europe. A new youth mobility scheme must be broad, inclusive and shaped by young people themselves. They have lost so much to Brexit, and it is time to give them something back. Scotland’s needs are distinct, and our values are even clearer. Rather than lying down to UK populism, we must use our voice in the immigration debate to stand up for Scotland.
16:04
This has been a really good debate so far and members have generally made good points. The Government is quite right to talk in its motion about the benefits of migration, a point that Kate Forbes made strongly. Liz Smith is also right to deal in her amendment with the difference between managed, legal migration and illegal migration, which is an issue not only on these shores. I might be wrong, but I think that I detected some consensus between Liz Smith and Kate Forbes, so perhaps Kate Forbes might consider voting for Liz Smith’s amendment on that basis, as we are all being so friendly.
If I can be honest, some of the objections to immigration over the years have been rooted in racism, but others have not. Attitudes have changed for the better during my lifetime. There was a lot of racism about when I was at primary school in greater Manchester in the early 1970s and some of it was directed at my friends. Things have improved a bit since then, but not nearly enough.
In my early days in journalism, in the early 1980s, I took up the case of one of the Vietnamese boat people—some here will not be old enough to know what I am talking about. He was a chap called Mr Yip, who had settled in Daventry, where I was working at the time, and was fighting to stay in the UK. Those people were fleeing repression and were very welcome indeed. Reg Prentice, who had sensibly left the Labour Party for the Conservatives and was the town’s MP at the time, took up the case but was on the brink of giving up and claimed that the immigration rules did not allow Mr Yip to stay. I was only in my 20s then, but I pointed out to the experienced Mr Prentice that the rules that were in force when Mr Yip first applied to stay in the UK were the ones that counted, and that they favoured him, so the MP pressed on and we won.
Thousands of Vietnamese people still arrive here by boat, but they are now largely illegal immigrants and are in an altogether different category to their earlier counterparts. I will come back to that idea.
Fast forwarding to the here and now, last week, I visited a project in Hamilton that is looking after around 100 Ukrainians, most of whom have learned English—if they could not speak it before they came here—and have either found jobs or are at college. They all pay their way, but they are on time-limited visas that will expire in July next year, four months after the funding for that project is due to end. Although visas are a UK Government matter, the funding is not entirely a UK Government matter and I therefore ask Kate Forbes whether there have been any discussions about extending such vital schemes, because those discussions are necessary, and those people need to stay.
People who have come here via legal routes are to be welcomed and we need them, but those who arrive illegally are a different matter. The director general of the National Crime Agency, Graeme Biggar, last year highlighted the detrimental impact of illegal migration on Scotland when he said:
“The main issue may be occurring in the Channel but we have others flying into different airports in the UK every single day. That includes the likes of Glasgow and Edinburgh. It is a problem which we are seeing right across the world and it is happening in Scotland too.”
Glasgow City Council’s convener for homelessness, the SNP’s Allan Casey, has said that the asylum dispersal scheme is “damaging social cohesion” and placing unbearable pressure on the city’s housing supply.
Like Liz Smith, I am not in favour of a Scottish visa and do not see how it could work, but there are sectors, such as care, that need help, and the Starmer Government’s approach to that has been wrong.
I will end by mentioning students. I have been trying to help them through the Housing (Scotland) Bill. An amendment that I lodged would have helped foreign students who are asked to provide a UK-based guarantor, which is an impossibility for some. It is vital that we attract and welcome international students, just as it has always been vital that we welcome people from across the world who want to come here via legal routes. To that end, the Labour Government’s plan to tax international student fees at 6 per cent and reduce the terms of graduate visas—
You need to conclude.
—is very unhelpful. Thank you, Presiding Officer.
16:10
The phrase “taking back control” is provocative. It is the language and policy of Sir Keir Starmer, but it comes straight from the Boris-Trump-Farage playbook.
Let me start with the following facts. Brexit has had a substantial impact on the mobility of employment in this country and, as others have said, it has particularly hit the hospitality, horticulture and care sectors and—I say this to Michael Marra—the construction industry. Brexit brickies. Polish plumbers.
The majority of migrants are here legally. The sad high-profile images of desperate people crossing the Channel in flimsy dinghies represent a small portion of migration to the UK.
Scotland has an increasingly ageing population. In the health debate yesterday, I advised that, currently, over 1 million people are over the age of 65, and that is predicted to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. That is 25 per cent of the population. In addition, the birth rate is falling. The ramifications are that we are short of people in necessary workforces, particularly in our health and care services, and that the tax take is reducing, which impacts on the delivery of public services, not simply through the workforce but in terms of revenue and funding.
Asylum seekers are trapped for long months and even years in the UK system and they are not permitted to work and contribute to the economy. Rural areas feel the brunt because of the nature of the employment there, which often involves farming, fishing and hospitality. It is abundantly clear that Scotland, unlike the overheated and pressurised south of England—I do have sympathy, given the pressures on public services there—needs a tailored migration system.
The Scottish Government proposed a rural visa pilot scheme for Scottish remote and rural areas, which was jointly led by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. It set out a practical and robust approach to delivering a pilot scheme between the UK Government, the Scottish Government, local authorities, employers and communities. Participating employers, in collaboration with Scottish Government and UK Government organisations, would have been responsible for ensuring that the scheme’s terms and conditions continued to be met. After four years, restrictions would have lifted and migrants would have been free to work anywhere in the UK outside their community pilot area.
In 2019, the UK Migration Advisory Committee, giving evidence to a committee in this Parliament, accepted that
“the current migration system is not very effective in dealing with the particular problems remote communities experience.”
What happened to the rural visa pilot scheme? It was blocked and binned by Sir Keir Starmer because he is desperate to keep tight reins on devolution, saying, “Keep and know your place,” and he is trying to keep Reform UK at bay. That is some message from him. He should remember that, at the election, Labour got only 33 per cent of the vote on a turnout of under 60 per cent. He hardly speaks for the UK, let alone for Scotland. “An island of strangers”—perhaps it is for Sir Keir Starmer, but not in Scotland and not in our name.
16:13
I begin by making it clear that migrants and migration have had a positive impact on Scotland. In my life and career, I have known many people who decided to build their lives in this country and now call it home. I have met and worked with organisations such as Edinburgh and Lothians Regional Equality Council—I draw attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I chair that organisation—as well as Networking Key Services and Milan Senior Welfare Organisation here in Edinburgh, which support new Scots to integrate in and partake of their communities.
My family is a migrant family. We moved to the United Kingdom when I was very young. People who settle here work in our NHS and our universities and run businesses. Anyone who tries to claim that those with international heritage do not contribute or do not prioritise Scotland should be rejected. They do not represent my experience, and I know that they do not represent the views of Scots.
With all that in mind, it is important that our immigration system works for both Scotland and migrants. The previous Conservative Government took an approach that worked for neither. The health and care worker visa was a blunt instrument that put people at risk of exploitation and abuse, with harrowing reports of workers being placed into debt bondage and of others paying thousands to work at non-existent care homes. The UK Government’s Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner has said that that caused avoidable harm and severe exploitation. Migration should never be about the right to exploit vulnerable people. We need a sustainable system that prevents that from happening.
I welcome the progress that is being made on a youth experience scheme as part of the reset with the European Union, as well as the return to Erasmus+. We know how important Erasmus+ is in promoting cultural exchange. A youth experience scheme would add to that while providing our economy with greater flexibility. I hope that the UK Government will also ensure that working class and underrepresented groups can access those schemes, so that their benefit is shared across society.
It should be said that migration is not a sticking plaster solution. It alone will not resolve many of the challenges that we face. It will not end the housing emergency, fix our broken planning system, or stop the rise in violent crime. Migration will be necessary for our future in many areas, but it is a tool and we must use it correctly—not as a replacement for a skills strategy, or to contribute to exploitation, but for growing our economy and attracting highly talented people.
16:17
Scotland needs a migration system that works for us, not one that is imposed by a Westminster Government that, frankly, does not care about Scotland’s needs. Given our ageing population, migration is crucial to strengthen our public services and economy.
In recent years, many people have come to the UK as refugees and asylum seekers. Whether they are fleeing oppressive regimes, interpreters who supported UK armed forces in Afghanistan or Ukrainians escaping brutal Russian attacks, it is right that the UK offers refuge to vulnerable people. However, the UK Government’s use of hotels for refugees and asylum seekers is not appropriate.
Sadly, as a result of failed Westminster policies, many grass-roots organisations across the country have taken on responsibility for supporting refugees and asylum seekers. In East Kilbride, the East Kilbride Integration Network welcomes, supports and connects new migrants. It uses education, sports and campaigning to improve quality of life, wellbeing and integration into the local community. Its work in supporting asylum seekers in East Kilbride has been really important. I am looking forward to attending its footie and food community celebration this Saturday at K-Park, which will be just one of the many events that it has put on to boost integration and help people settle in.
It is a failure of the UK system that asylum seekers cannot work, despite many of them wanting to contribute to this country. That brings me to a key area of the immigration system, which involves ensuring that businesses and our public services can recruit the workers that they need.
Since Brexit, our social care providers in particular have been struggling with recruitment. I have visited care homes in East Kilbride and heard about the challenges that they face, including a lack of available labour in Scotland, the fact that EU nationals have left or are not interested in moving to the UK, and Westminster’s barriers to recruitment of people from the rest of the world. Some care homes sponsor applicants, which is quite an expensive task, to ensure that they can hire new staff to give residents the care that they sorely need. The UK Labour Government recently published its immigration white paper. I hope that it will improve the immigration system to support the social care sector.
Scotland’s universities are world renowned and attract some of the brightest students from around the globe. However, as a result of the previous Tory Government’s damaging immigration rhetoric, many international graduates left after completing their courses here. That is a huge loss to Scotland of some of the brightest minds. Those people have been educated here, have formed relationships here and have the ability to contribute to the social and economic life of Scotland, but they have been forced to leave by a hostile Westminster Government.
I support the Scottish Government’s call for a Scottish graduate visa programme, and I hope that the UK Labour Government will reflect on the failures of the previous UK Government. The Labour Government must support the Scottish Government’s proposals to keep talented graduates in Scotland. Indeed, the Smith commission, which was supported by all the main political parties, recommended exploring such a scheme. A decade on, it is time to put that into action.
Without bold action, there will be difficult challenges ahead. It is time for Westminster to deliver a tailored immigration system for Scotland or to devolve the powers so that the SNP Government can do that. Otherwise, as with many other areas, Westminster will continue to fail Scotland with a broken one-size-fits-all model, and more and more people will recognise the need for Scotland to have the full powers of independence.
16:22
My contribution will continue the factual and honest approach that has already been presented by my fellow Scottish Conservatives, as well as many other members in the chamber, including the Deputy First Minister.
When we are trying to find the solution to a problem, it is essential to first understand the root of the problem. To adequately answer the question of how we can produce a migration system that works for Scotland, we have to know why we are in the position that we are in. Many well-made points in the debate so far have set out some of the reasons, including our ageing population, changes to migration patterns from outside the EU, labour shortages in specific areas and illegal immigration.
I will expand on population decline. Although it is not unique to Scotland, we are in a far worse position than any other country in the UK.
The Office for National Statistics predicts that the UK’s population as a whole is projected to grow by 6.9 per cent in the next 20 years but, in Scotland, growth is predicted to be just 0.2 per cent. Scotland’s fertility rate sits at just 1.31 children per woman, which is the lowest in the UK and well below the replacement rate of 2.1 that is needed to halt Scotland’s population decline. As has already been mentioned, the outlook is even more worrying in rural Scotland, with a predicted 12 per cent population decline.
A Scottish Government qualitative study showed that an individual’s financial, social and personal circumstances are a key consideration when they decide on their family size. Some people—especially women—are delaying parenthood in favour of an established career. Appropriate housing, workable and affordable childcare, job security and financial security all play a part. Equally, the fact that more Scots are delaying parenthood into their mid-30s and early 40s is contributing to smaller family sizes.
Quite simply, Scotland’s population and workforce are affected by all the issues that are directly within the Scottish Government’s remit, including the housing emergency, economic inactivity, income taxation and inadequate childcare—I could go on. If societal pressures make Scotland a less attractive place to live in, we will be forever battling a reduction in our population. That is why migration policy needs to have a UK-based solution.
Scotland receives about 6 per cent of migrants into the UK. That is lower than its 8.4 per cent population share and lower than the UK average. We have open borders in the UK, but people are not coming north. We have to understand the root of the problem before we can fix it. We need to encourage people to live in Scotland, but why would they, when the disadvantages outweigh the benefits? Issues including a lack of housing, inadequate childcare, transport difficulties and taxation are all working against us.
The average wage in Scotland is £38,315. At that level, a person in Scotland pays more tax on £8,000-worth of their salary than they would in England. That goes against the aspirations that people have to advance and progress, especially when they are migrating to another country. Assuming that personal taxation is not a factor is simply naive.
Someone who wants to pack up and move away from everything that they know and love to go to Scotland for a better life and future has a drive and a determination to succeed and thrive. They aspire to be wealthier, healthier, happier and more secure in their new country than they were in the one that they plan to leave. If we continue to ignore the underlying issues behind our population decline, we are destined to repeat the same mistakes. As much as that might facilitate a political grievance in Scotland, it is the people who will pay the price.
16:26
As I am someone whose life journey took them across the Atlantic as an economic migrant, to Canada—a place that has long shown how migration can be shaped by the hands of local communities, not just central Governments—it was important for me to speak today to offer a tried and tested alternative to the status quo that is hampering Scotland’s vitality and the viability of many of our communities and industries.
Growing up in Ontario and Quebec, I witnessed at first hand how a distinct migration model that was designed by and for the people of each province could be both compassionate and practical. Quebec’s unique tailored immigration system does not just fill labour market gaps; it strengthens communities, nurtures diversity and reflects the province’s unique identity and values. That experience shaped who I am and, crucially, what I believe is possible here in Scotland. So, today, I ask the chamber to consider this question: why can Scotland not do the same?
Migration is not simply about numbers; it is about people: the care worker in Girvan; the engineer at the Prestwick aerospace cluster; the Gaelic teacher in the Hebrides; and the family rebuilding their lives in a new land with open hearts—a feeling that I remember all too well from when, as a wee six-year-old, I found myself in a place that welcomed me with open arms. It welcomed my dad as well: as an engineer, he helped to fill the skills gap in Canada at the time. Skills gaps are not unique to Scotland.
We know that, in relation to all the issues that have been outlined today that go beyond the issue of migration, there is a huge amount of things that we need to sort. However, we also know that our economy relies on talent—often international talent—in sectors such as agriculture, health and social care and hospitality. Therefore, let us look to Canada not just as an idea but as a proven model.
The Canadian federal system is built on a constitutional framework that recognises and respects the autonomy of provinces, allowing them significant powers over areas such as education and healthcare—like we have in our devolved system—and, crucially, immigration. Quebec has its own autonomous immigration system, with unique visas reflecting its distinct society status. The other provinces and territories can enter into agreements with the federal Government to run their own provincial nominee programmes, enabling them to tailor migration policies to local, economic and demographic needs. Provinces can nominate migrants based on specific criteria—for example, languages, skills and community ties—and ensure that migration works for them. They can create incentives to entice people to areas where they are needed, for all the reasons that we have just heard. The process is iterative—it is continually evolving and being tailored. That is what happens when there is trust.
In contrast, the United Kingdom’s highly centralised system denies Scotland similar powers, even though immigration deeply affects devolved areas such as health, social care and education. Despite repeated calls from the Scottish Government and widespread evidence of differing demographic needs, Westminster has continually refused to devolve immigration powers. That refusal undermines Scotland’s ability to address its unique challenges and opportunities, and creates a glaring inconsistency when compared with the more flexible and collaborative arrangements in countries such as Canada. That flexibility fosters trust, brings more accountability and, crucially, brings people into communities that want to welcome them—not because of quotas but because of shared purpose.
Let us imagine a Scottish rural visa, shaped by local councils and the voices of farmers, crofters, teachers and local businesses. Let us imagine a system that prioritises those who will contribute to Scotland’s society and economy while recognising their humanity and dignity. The Government’s motion is asking not for something radical but for something reasonable. This is not just about policy but about fairness. It is about devolution in action and Scotland having the tools to serve its people, communities and future.
We often hear that this Parliament is the most powerful devolved legislature in the world, and yet it is blatantly clear that a Canadian province wields much more power than we do in this chamber. Let us take a lesson from Canada. Let us take a page from Quebec and its unique circumstances that are reflected in its immigration policy, which is distinct from the policy in the rest of Canada. Let us write Scotland’s chapter on how immigration can work fairly, flexibly and for the common good of everyone.
The final speaker in the open debate is Emma Harper. You have up to three minutes, Ms Harper.
16:31
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will see how far I get with my notes in three minutes.
My South Scotland region has seen centuries of migration to and from our shores. In past centuries, boats would depart the ports of Galloway for North America, carrying thousands of souls across the Atlantic in search of a new life.
More recently, many people from across Europe have been welcomed into our communities. Despite the impact of Brexit, many of them have stayed and are a fundamental part of our society. Meanwhile, our country has exported people all over the world.
I was an economic migrant, too. I moved to California in 1990 and spent 14 years working in Los Angeles. Scotland has also received people who are looking for a better life in our communities, and my husband is one of them. He is an immigrant from the USA who owns a business, pays his taxes and employs people.
Today, as the cabinet secretary mentioned in her opening speech, my part of the world is going through demographic challenges. Dumfries and Galloway has the oldest age profile of any local authority area and the lowest proportion of working-age population. There is also a continued sharp decline in D and G’s overall population, while the rest of Scotland’s is increasing, unlike what members have said across the chamber.
People are moving to Scotland. Without families and workers coming to our communities, our schools will close, our health service will contract, our community facilities will dry up, and rural communities, not just in the south but across Scotland, will wither on the vine.
Our agricultural sector continues to struggle with employment. Again, I thank the cabinet secretary for taking my intervention about our dairy industry in the south-west. Those people who throw out rhetoric and policies that aim to block migration to Scotland need to answer for the consequences that their ideology is having for rural Scotland.
The SNP has been criticised for talking up Farage’s Reform agenda, but we certainly need to talk about Farage’s policy proposals and about how the xenophobic policies would utterly decimate our rural economies and leave communities such as the ones that I represent economically shattered. We need to talk about how the policies would strip our national health service of the skills and talent that migration has brought to it, because those people are saving lives and improving our health every day. As a nurse in the operating theatre I worked as part of a multicultural team, and we all benefited from the ideas and innovation of that multicultural experience. That has been the case every day in my job, both here and in Los Angeles.
It is high time that the UK Government stopped being the problem and got behind the migration policies that recognise Scotland’s specific needs, history and potential, rather than hiding behind its copies of the Daily Mail.
We move to closing speeches.
16:34
It has been interesting to listen to the various contributions this afternoon. I am grateful to those who have recognised and celebrated the many and varied contributions that migrants make to our lives.
Of course, immigrants keep many of our public services going, and I am grateful to Karen Adam for her very clear description of the damage to our north-east communities that will ensue if we allow the xenophobic populism that is all too often promoted by politicians and the media to continue.
I want to pick up on two points. The first is the awful phrase that Keir Starmer used not long ago when he said that we are “an island of strangers”. That claim is both false and harmful. It feeds the myth that migration weakens us, when, in truth, Scotland has always been shaped by movement and cultural exchange. From Norse and Gaelic roots to newer communities from south Asia and beyond, our history is one of connection, not isolation.
That narrative also ignores Britain’s imperial past—a past that drove global displacement and bound us to the world. People are not strangers here; they are already part of our schools, hospitals and communities. The real question is not whether they belong—they do—but whether we are ready to embrace that truth and build a future that is rooted in justice, solidarity and shared humanity.
The second point to challenge—again—is the notion of illegal immigrants. I would challenge those who have said that we need to tackle illegal immigration to describe the legal routes for those who are fleeing from war and persecution. What is at the heart of that? We need look only at the difference in approach that is taken to those who are fleeing from the illegal invasion of Ukraine compared with those who are fleeing form other conflicts. We opened our borders, our homes and our hearts to Ukrainians—rightly so—but when bombs rain down on Gaza or Yemen, where are the compassion and love? Where are the processes to get people here safely, rather than people risking their lives by crossing the Channel in dinghies? Where are the systems and structures of support into employment, housing and community? There are none. We have become inured to the racism that is embedded in our systems, but that is not new.
I do not often speak of my experience of being an immigrant—a foreigner—here, but I have witnessed at first hand the prejudice and xenophobia of the UK immigration system because of the colour of my passport. However, because I am white and sound like I do, I am still immensely privileged. I have witnessed people with exactly the same colour of passport as me, with exactly the same visa as me, in the same immigration queue as me, being treated with suspicion and disrespect. The only difference was the colour of their skin.
We can do so much better, and we must do so much better in Scotland. I say again that we need a system that is based on justice, dignity and care—a system that recognises people as whole and valuable human beings, not as statistics or threats. That is why we support a differentiated migration system for Scotland, and one that looks to the opportunities of the connections that we make when we travel beyond these borders, too.
It goes beyond policy; it is about how we talk, how we lead and how we imagine the kind of country that we want to be. We must reject the language of illegality. We must challenge the lie that migrants take more than they give, and we must root our response in solidarity, not suspicion.
Our future is multicultural, it is interconnected and it is built on the principle that everyone who chooses to call this place home—regardless of where they come from—belongs. Let us say that clearly, proudly and without apology.
16:38
It has been an interesting debate—calm and considered in the main, which is useful. As a number of members have pointed out, the debate occurs in a context, particularly a global context, that is worrying.
We have seen three key facets to the debate. There has been a debate about the values around migration, a debate about the economics and a debate around the practicalities. It is worth considering each one with care.
On values, it is important that we welcome migration, not only because of the values that it brings but because it is the human thing to do. A number of members have reflected on their family histories and talked about being descendants of migrants. Both of my Labour colleagues did, as have others across the chamber. My family on both sides is not originally Scottish. My mother’s family is of German derivation, and my grandparents were interned during the war.
The Scots themselves—that ethnic group—were migrants from Ireland who settled in Scotland. Our country is actually named for migrants, and we should celebrate that in the face of rising intolerance around the world.
However, in order to celebrate and embrace the economic and cultural benefits of migration, we need a migration system that is trusted, that works and that is fair. Graham Simpson made an excellent point in that regard. He juxtaposed very well the need to confront racism with the need for fairness in the system. I will carefully tread through that issue.
One thing that we need to do, as Roz McCall pointed out, is to look at the facts. The reality is that, in mid-2023, net inward migration to the UK reached more than 900,000, and in Scotland it reached more than 60,000. That represents the highest-ever level of inward migration for both the UK and Scotland. It is incorrect to say that Scotland is not receiving inward migration—because it is—but it is absolutely accurate to say that Scotland’s proportion of that has reduced. I do not pretend to understand all the reasons for that, but, having had our share of inward migration fall from 14.5 per cent in 2020 to around 6 per cent in 2023, we need to ask what is going on.
There has been conflation of issues in the debate. We need to take care about what it is that we claim to value. One of the employment areas that has become almost synonymous with migration is the care sector. I understand the worker shortages that occur there, and that is of deep concern. However, if we value social care workers so greatly, why is it that, at £12.60 an hour, the pay rate for social care workers is just 39p above the legal and statutory minimum wage?
Is the member arguing that everybody in the care sector should be on £32,000 a year? That is the pay threshold that his party at Westminster is setting for people coming in. We must either increase wages dramatically or we must reduce that figure. We cannot do both.
I understand the member’s point, but I think that even he would accept that that is a false binary choice. It is not the case that the only possible source of people to carry out those roles are people who currently live elsewhere. It is possible to attract people if we pay them a correct amount.
Kate Forbes rose—
I see that the Deputy First Minister is getting to her feet—I will give way to her in a moment.
We have been arguing for years that we need to increase that pay rate, and that we need to value, train and equip social care workers adequately if we wish to attract them to the sector, because pay is not the only issue. The terms and conditions of social care workers in this country are a scandal.
What Jeremy Balfour highlights is that the approach in the immigration white paper equates high pay with skills. There are people with incredible skills who are not permitted to come to this country purely on account of the jobs that they could fill not reaching that level of pay. The care sector makes that point better than any other sector, because the skills that are needed to work in it are incredibly valuable, but they do not meet the pay threshold.
My point is that the white paper equates skill with pay. I think that we should take a different approach—a sectoral and skills-based approach, not a pay-based approach.
If the work is valuable, we should pay for it at a commensurate rate.
That is not what I am saying.
But it is! The Deputy First Minister is saying that those are valuable skills but those with them are not going to be highly paid. At the heart of the debate is the fact that we have relied for too long on a broad range of occupations in our society and economy having low levels of pay.
Other economies have made different choices. Across the service sector, we see higher levels of investment driving higher levels of productivity, and workers in those same sectors—whether it is social care, hospitality or others—enjoy higher rates of pay than they do in this country. That is the issue that has been danced round in the debate. If we value work, we should pay for it.
Pay and migration are not the only factors at play. There are a number of other things that the Scottish Government has in its control that would enable it to deal with labour shortages, yet it does not use them. Listening to the Scottish Government, we would think that migration is the only source of labour—the only way to attract it—and that simply is not true.
We are now training enough doctors—we are just not employing them. Furthermore, if we want to look at why we have labour shortages in rural areas, we are not building enough housing—
Mr Johnson, please conclude.
Housing starts and completions are falling to levels that we last saw immediately after the financial crash.
I absolutely welcome the debate, and it has been useful to flesh out some of the economic arguments. However, that needs to be done in the round and in context.
16:45
I want to begin by recognising, as many members have today, that immigration is a sensitive topic and that we owe it to our constituents to refrain from reckless generalisations. There has actually been a fair amount of consensus across the whole chamber. I suggest that, instead of making such generalisations, we ground our arguments in facts, as Liz Smith and others have done, reflecting the world as it is, not as we idealise it to be or fear that it might be.
In that spirit, I associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues and others when they acknowledged that illegal immigration should not be accepted or—what is worse—encouraged. I fundamentally disagree with Maggie Chapman. Illegal immigration has harmful effects in all the areas that are dealt with by Government portfolios, but especially in social security, which is already at breaking point in Scotland. It is clear that the matter needs to be addressed swiftly and effectively.
[Made a request to intervene.]
We must also admit that the previous Government did not get it all right.
Will Jeremy Balfour take an intervention?
I am happy to give way, but I think that Christine Grahame was first—my apologies.
I hope that the member will make the distinction—I am sure that he will—between illegal immigration and asylum seeking. Sometimes, those become conflated, and that is a very wrong perception.
I absolutely agree with Christine Grahame on that point. However, it is a fundamental role of the state to ensure that we have secure borders, so I support efforts to curb the number of people who illegally enter the United Kingdom.
Christine Grahame has made the point that I was initially looking to intervene to make, but, to expand on that, does the member not recognise that the rhetoric of the previous Conservative Government, which did not institute safe routes for asylum seekers to make it to Britain without taking their lives and the lives of their families in their hands on leaky craft in the Channel, has led to the problem that we are now encountering?
I think that it was one of the factors, but I am not sure that it was the only reason, which is why we need to look at the issue as a whole. Therefore, I support the curbs on the number of people who illegally enter the United Kingdom.
That said, I also agree with a number of speakers in the debate that legal migration can be a real positive force in the United Kingdom. Bringing in skilled workers from other countries helps us to build world-leading industries, which should be an ambition of all political parties in Scotland. We want to attract talented people to Scotland. We want to see people coming to contribute to our economy, whether they are doctors, engineers or scientists. They all contribute to improving standards across the UK.
At the same time, we should recognise that other sectors benefit from an increase in their workforce. As I said previously, and as Daniel Johnson debated, jobs such as care work do not require high levels of education, and the sector is not currently attracting enough people into that workforce in Scotland. Even if we could bring everybody who is currently economically inactive into employment, that would not solve our long-term problem.
More and more care organisations are struggling to provide suitable packages for disabled and older people because of staffing pressure, and the truth is that people in this country are not going into the care sector in the numbers that we need them to. I accept that we need to look at conditions and pay, but, if we are serious about ensuring that disabled and older people’s rights are respected and that those people are treated with dignity, we need to fill those jobs. The easiest and best way of doing that is to make allowances in the immigration system for carers to take up the jobs. I can personally vouch for the fact that carers from other countries can be excellent, as is demonstrated by the number of wonderful people who help me each morning.
To be clear, I am not saying that we should totally outsource those jobs away from British and Scottish people. I am in favour of any efforts that either Government can make to encourage more British young people into the caring profession, which is an incredibly rewarding career path indeed. However, unfortunately, any such scheme would take a number of years to bear fruit, and we have a short-term problem.
In the meantime, we have to play the ball that is on the pitch, not the ball that we wish was there. We have a need, and the rest of the world can help us with it. To bring in people who are ready and willing to contribute to our society and meet the needs, who can also help with the taxation system—is that not how any successful immigration system should function? However, at the moment, we are turning away people who could fill those jobs. It seems to me that a good way for the Scottish Government to promote more migration into Scotland would be to work to make it a more attractive place for people to move to, instead of pursuing anti-growth and anti-wealth policies.
The Scottish Government does not and should not have the powers to act on immigration law. What it does have is the power to make Scotland as attractive a place to live and work in as possible within the United Kingdom. It has the levers; it is time that it started to pull them.
I call Kaukab Stewart to take us to 5 pm.
16:52
First, if you will indulge me, Presiding Officer, I would like to speak directly to migrants in Scotland. I understand that they might be concerned about the uncertainties ahead, and I want them to know that their contributions in Scotland are valued.
Secondly, I thank the Deputy First Minister for highlighting migration’s economic value in her opening remarks. I thank colleagues from across the chamber for their mainly measured and thoughtful contributions, and I acknowledge the constructive tone that Liz Smith set.
The Government will continue to support migrants and employers to navigate the existing immigration system through Scotland’s migration service. We will continue to listen to our stakeholders’ needs and to push the UK Government for change that recognises our distinct demographic challenges.
We are reforming our approach to skills at a national level. We need sustainable communities, and our population strategy is helping us to work towards that goal. Those efforts reflect the approach of this internationalist, outward-looking Government, and we continue to do all that we can to support migrants.
Let me be very clear that the Government completely rejects the hostile approach that the UK Government is taking. That point has been reinforced by contributions from across the chamber, including from Maggie Chapman, Karen Adam, Collette Stevenson, Emma Harper and Foysol Choudhury.
Migration benefits all sectors of our community and has a key role in Scotland’s prosperity. However, talking solely in numerical terms paints an incomplete picture. Migrants are more than numbers going up and down and are about more than innovation, productivity and skills; they are, in fact, woven into the very fabric of Scotland’s communities. Our society is enriched by culture from around the world that migrants bring with them to Scotland, and, indeed, by hearing people’s personal stories at the heart of this chamber, which all helps to develop the vibrant, multicultural Scotland that we see today.
Regarding the white paper, the most recent UK election offered an opportunity to reset the relationship between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. Unfortunately, Scotland’s needs are still being ignored. The Scottish Government issued comprehensive, evidence-based proposals for the white paper, and yet the white paper offered no evidence that Scotland’s needs were considered. There was no substantive engagement on the proposals that we submitted.
The UK Government’s proposals threaten our essential public services. It is not just us saying that—Donald Macaskill, the chief executive officer of Scottish Care, has warned:
“Without the ability to attract and to retain international colleagues, it is no exaggeration to say that care would not be able to be delivered in whole swathes of our nation.”
How does the UK Government expect us to develop domestic skills when policies threaten the viability of our education landscape, for instance? Where will we see growth if businesses cannot access the essential skills that they need?
Enoch Adeyemi, chief executive officer of Black Professionals (UK) Ltd, shares our calls for a tailored immigration system that reflects Scotland’s needs. His organisation endorses initiatives such as the Scottish graduate visa to retain diverse talent and ensure that Scotland remains a global hub for innovation and opportunity. Workforce shortages cannot be solved by training alone. The Migration Advisory Committee has cautioned that increasing domestic skills does not guarantee reducing migration, as migrant and domestic workers are not perfect substitutes.
The white paper regards social care as low skilled, but providers in Scotland have disputed that characterisation. They argue that providing care compassionately, day in, day out, is highly skilled and valued. International recruitment is already expensive, and organisations would not be doing that lightly. If the UK Government is not listening to stakeholders, experts or evidence, who are the proposals for? Who benefits from that approach? It is not Scotland; it is not our social care workforce; and it is not our higher education sector, our rural economy or our islands community. The UK Government must stop pandering to Reform, acknowledge the damaging nature of its proposals and change course.
Net migration figures reduce the entirety of migrants who come to the UK to one number. They erase the diverse contributions within that figure and force us to calculate migrants in terms of net good or net bad. The UK Government wants to lower that one number. It wants to reduce the number of talented individuals who contribute to Scotland’s economy and public services, restrict international knowledge exchange and innovation, and restrict people bringing family members here to build their lives in Scotland.
I do not want to interrupt Kaukab Stewart mid-rant, but in my contribution I mentioned a very important project for Ukrainians in Hamilton that is run by the Salvation Army. I mentioned that visas and funding are due to expire next year. Will she commit to looking at the funding issue and possibly have discussions with the UK Government, which she has been keen to mention so far, on the visa issue?
I can give that assurance—I have already done that regarding the visa situation. There are clear tests in place with regard to the pause that we currently have in place. It is not a decision that we take lightly. There are clear tests that have to be met, I can share further details of that with Mr Simpson, should he wish to have them.
The Prime Minister talks of “incalculable” damage being caused by so-called open borders. I disagree with that. I would like to address some points that were raised by Jeremy Balfour and Graham Simpson regarding legal migration versus illegal migration.
We have a moral obligation to offer a place of safety to desperate people who are fleeing conflict and persecution. The lack of safe and legal routes to the UK does not prevent, and has not prevented, people from coming, and it forces already vulnerable people to make extremely dangerous and life-threatening journeys across the Channel. Any damage has come from short-sighted, restrictive immigration policies and dehumanising language inflicted by, unfortunately, successive UK Government Administrations.
Last month, the First Minister chaired a round-table meeting with stakeholders from across Scotland’s businesses and institutions and heard directly from them about the issues that the immigration white paper risks causing to our communities and economy. In the coming weeks, the Scottish Government will publish a position paper outlining the concerns that were raised at the meeting. We will also publish the proposal document that was sent by the Scottish Government to the Home Office during the development of the white paper.
I come to my final two sentences, and I thank Maggie Chapman and Alex Cole-Hamilton for inspiring me, because they talked about heat and hate. I think that we definitely need more light and more compassion. The moral case is clear; this afternoon, we have also made the economic case.
Next
Decision Time