Fresh Talent Initiative
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4110, in the name of Linda Fabiani, on behalf of the European and External Relations Committee, on the Scottish Executive's fresh talent initiative.
When I joined the European and External Relations Committee, it was just compiling the report "An Inquiry into the Scottish Executive's Fresh Talent Initiative Examining the Problems It Aims to Address, Its Operation, Challenges and Prospects". It was immediately obvious to me that a lot of time had been spent and a lot of hard work had been done by committee members, past and present, under the stewardship of the redoubtable John Swinney, who was the committee's previous convener. The clerking team and staff of the Scottish Parliament information centre also did a lot of work on the report.
I found it an extremely interesting report and I enjoyed contributing to its compilation. Since its publication, however, there have been changes, and the initiative has progressed in some ways.
The committee recognised in its report that, as a relatively new policy that aimed to tackle long-term issues, the fresh talent initiative would change and develop. No doubt, the minister will outline during the debate his perspective on progress made; likewise, others will express their views about the initiative's effectiveness and ambition. My role today is to reflect the findings and recommendations of the European and External Relations Committee.
The committee's first recommendation was that the Executive should set out clearly the purpose, direction and expectations of the initiative to help to ensure a better understanding of how the initiative fits into Scotland's economic strategy.
We recommended that as well as attracting external talent, the Executive should aim to mobilise Scotland's existing talent pool to the fullest extent, paying particular attention to the 688,000 people in Scotland who are economically inactive. The evidence that we received suggested that the employability framework should be revisited. As part of that, another recommendation stated that in
"mobilising Scotland's existing talent, the Executive seeks to address any barriers to economic participation."
We recommended that the Executive should develop into policy the originally stated intention of attracting skilled Scots and graduates back to work in Scotland.
In relation to potential new Scots contributing to our nation, the committee recognised existing examples. For example, we noted the Executive's recruitment efforts in Poland and recommended that such work should be undertaken in a proactive, promotional way in other accession states.
We also recognised the experience of the FirstGroup and suggested that it be promoted as an example of good practice in identifying and filling the skills gap.
In some of the recommendations, we expressed concern about the employment conditions and needs of potential workers in developing countries. We recommended that
"the Executive monitor recruitment processes to ensure it avoids depriving developing countries of needed skills through the Fresh Talent initiative",
and asked it to report back to the committee in that regard.
Some members expressed concern about the exploitation of workers who come to our country to work in certain sectors, and there was much discussion about the report's recommendation that
"the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board and other bodies should monitor proactively the employment of foreign labour through agencies to prevent unfair exploitation of foreign employees and to minimise the risk of friction between local and foreign workers."
Of course, we also acknowledged that such workers need support to be able to fit in with our society, and recommended that
"the Executive consider the support that employers of Fresh Talent workers may need in taking into account the particular social, moral and cultural responsibilities that there may be in taking on non-UK workers."
Did the committee discuss whether providing those workers with language skills would have a knock-on effect on local authority education budgets?
I hope that Irene Oldfather, who was party to all the discussions on the inquiry, will discuss that question with other committee members and respond directly to Mr Stone's point when she sums up. Although I absolutely see where he is coming from, the point was not raised in the short time that I was involved in the report's compilation.
Other speakers will no doubt focus on recent announcements on the United Kingdom's immigration policy. On that matter, the committee's recommendation was quite clear: we wanted the Executive to
"report to the Committee on the views it has expressed to the Home Office on the new points-based immigration system it is proposing as a replacement for the many existing work schemes for non-EEA nationals."
The recommendation that probably received more media coverage than any other was that
"the Executive, in its discussions with the Home Office, make the case for employment opportunities for those asylum seekers awaiting a decision."
That recommendation recognises that a lot of fresh talent is already available in Scotland, but that we are not able to utilise it because of laws over which we have no control.
I do not know whether, since it responded to our report, the Executive has gone any further than its response at that time, which was that it was up to the Home Office to determine policy on the issue. Perhaps the minister can give us some more information about that.
One of the committee's overarching recommendations was that the Executive should ensure that, instead of "being a stand-alone initiative", fresh talent is mainstreamed across policy areas. In that respect, the committee also felt that
"in seeking to grow the Scottish economy, the Executive may see sectoral employment gaps which a more focused approach within Fresh Talent may be able to address directly."
I very much look forward to hearing from committee members who, unlike me, were involved in the inquiry and the compilation of this fine report from the start to the finish and to hearing the minister's views.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the 4th Report 2005 (Session 2) of the European and External Relations Committee, Report on an Inquiry into the Scottish Executive's Fresh Talent Initiative Examining the Problems It Aims to Address, Its Operation, Challenges and Prospects (SP Paper 448).
I commend the European and External Affairs Committee's report on the fresh talent initiative. In saying that, I am not patting myself on the back, because I joined the committee late in its deliberations.
Scotland's population is projected to fall below 5 million by 2017. However, projections can vary because population trends can vary. As a result, if we sustain the increase that has occurred over the past two or three years in the Scottish birth rate and net in-migration, that worrying 2017 projection might well be revised.
However, there are no grounds for complacency, given the potential damage to Scotland that is implied in the original projection. The effects—to mention just a few—would include falling school rolls, shrinking tax revenues, labour market contraction and declining domestic markets.
Building on the record net in-migration of 2004 has been a key orientation for the fresh talent initiative. Efforts will need to be sustained over a decade but early partial snapshots of the initiative's progress are encouraging. Significant progress has been made through measures to strengthen Scotland's international image, on which a full report will be released in June this year.
The relocation advisory service, which has been live for 18 months, has provided in-depth advice to more than 8,700 people and its website has received more than a quarter of a million hits. Such efforts are underpinned by targeted marketing and promotional campaigns in key markets, such as Poland, China, India and the USA. One Scottish feature on a Polish radio station generated 300 inquiries overnight to the relocation advisory service, and an article in a leading Indian newspaper resulted in more than 500 inquiries.
That work is of vital national importance. The bottom line is that, in each year, we need at least 8,000 more people to be born here or to migrate to Scotland than we lose through death and emigration if we are to avoid the worst-case scenario. Fresh talent must be sustained.
We must also continue with other initiatives that have the potential to address the problem. The committee recognised Glasgow City Council's largely successful efforts to support asylum seekers and refugees. That is credit where it is due. For all the difficulties, Glasgow's six-year involvement with thousands of asylum seekers has been overwhelmingly and mutually beneficial.
Over the past six years, of the thousands of asylum seekers in Glasgow who have been given leave to remain in the United Kingdom, some 2,500 families—a total of some 7,000 individuals—have chosen to remain in Glasgow. That is testament to the attractiveness of that city and our country. Those who have stayed on include doctors, nurses, lawyers, academics, engineers and, I assume, hewers of wood and drawers of water. That is fresh talent indeed. Scotland is the stronger for its new Scots.
I drew comfort from the objective that was set by the policy paper "New Scots: Attracting Fresh Talent to Meet the Challenge of Growth". It states:
"to achieve a balanced economy, with a stable tax base to support strong public services … we must boost the working age population, particularly the 25-45 age group."
That is absolutely right, as there is no doubt that Scotland faces a serious issue on population.
As those of us who attended the Allander series of lectures will recall, William Baumol predicted that unless we do something meaningful soon, the solution will be neither easy nor obvious. Although we have had a fillip of late from young migrants from the accession states, the underlying data in a report from the Government Actuary's Department resonate in my mind. That report suggests that Scotland's population, which has been 5 million throughout my life, will drop to 3.6 million by 2073. In that time, our working-age population, which is currently 3 million, will drop to 2 million. That is surely reason for a very serious strategy indeed.
We made a good start with an easily understood and worthy objective, but the initiative has tended to go a bit pear-shaped since then. Not all stakeholders were involved in the objective, as the scheme was repeatedly undermined by the Home Office. Our senior management might be committed to perpetual improvement, but a distinct lack of continuity is evident in the way in which the style and operation of the programme are changing.
The statistical control that I would like has simply not been available. In response to my questions to ministers on how many successful applicants are now resident in Scotland and how many people have contacted the relocation advisory service, I have been told that those data are not held. Without statistical control, we cannot move forward properly. Fundamentally, we do not have all the tools to do the job. That is the biggest of the big issues.
Moreover, the fresh talent programme has now been overtaken by events, although Westminster's takeover of the scheme is given derisive treatment in this week's edition of The Economist. Fresh talent has been exposed as a derivative of the existing science and engineering graduates scheme and has now been subsumed into the UK scheme. Some differentiation may be retained, but the branding and momentum have been wasted and the continuity has gone. Problems abound with the number of loose ends, including the lack of data that are forthcoming about the scheme.
On top of that, to date, the initiative has failed. The original target of 8,000 individuals was miles short of the 40,000 that we need to maintain population balance. The annual rate of 1,500 immigrant workers is miles short of the 8,000 target. The initiative is expensive and offers a half-hearted welcome. Although we are benefiting from workers from the European Union accession states, which is giving us a kind of fig leaf, performance is quite stark. We have had 23,000 people come in from the accession states, but Ireland has had 120,000 in just one year. We are falling dramatically behind.
In making the wider comparison, the big issue is that the countries that we are competing against have economic and immigration powers and are delivering success. In 1905, Norway had a population of 2.2 million people; it now has a population of 4.6 million people. In 1973, Ireland had a population of 2.8 million people; last year, it went through the 4 million barrier, and in 2019 it will go through the 5 million barrier. We must learn the lessons from those other countries and be competitive. That means having fiscal powers, being able to invest in people and in infrastructure, so that we can get more people into work, and attracting and retaining talent. We need immigration powers. Not only is Charlie McCreavy telling us that that is what works in Ireland; George Osborne has come back from Ireland and has told us that that is what works and that we should adopt that approach here. The Steel commission is adding weight to that view.
Scotland must get real and have the immigration and fiscal policies that are the hallmark of a real economy and a real country.
I was pleased to play a positive role in encouraging the European and External Relations Committee to take on board the debate about fresh talent. Sadly, I was not able to play a full part in that work—in part, because of Jackie Baillie and her formidable team of clerks on the Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee, which tended to keep me away from the European and External Relations Committee. Having said that, I was able to contribute to the report in the final stages.
When Jack McConnell first described the policy, he saw the falling population as Scotland's most serious long-term problem. He was right, although since then he has described a number of other serious issues, such as climate change, which perhaps take precedence in his mind at present. The falling population is not just a Scottish issue; the committee found that, in virtually every country in Europe, there are declining populations. That is a cause for concern.
It is interesting to look at the figures in the report that relate to the rest of the UK. In the midlands and the London area, populations are increasing, whereas they are falling in the north of England. That suggests that it is not just the falling birth rate that is having an effect on the size of population in Scotland. There are worrying aspects to that. If we analyse the situation in relation to the population age groupings, we find that, as we move forward, the number of people in the working-age band is falling while the number of people in the elderly bracket—the retired bracket—is rising. That must cause us concern, especially because of the revenue dependency of our national state system for pensions. Indeed, we already see problems arising in the private pension system because of actions that have been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, in raiding those pension funds.
Perhaps we should take a little comfort from the situation that I picked up on regarding the rising populations in parts of England. Our national economy provides an overall umbrella for us.
What weight would the member give to the recent figures from the registrar general for Scotland, which show that there have been more births than deaths in Scotland and that, for the first time in a generation, more people moved to Scotland from other parts of the UK than the other way round? Would he put that down to the success of devolved policies in Scotland?
The point that the member makes about births is something that I pointed out in the committee debates on the fresh talent initiative. It is an interesting factor and I hope that the situation continues into the future.
I am sorry, but I missed the member's second point; I hope that I will address it as I go on.
There is more to the issue than the birth rate. The economic standing of Scotland is all-important. I take no great comfort from the fact that, since 1997, Scotland has fallen from being the third equal most competitive part of the United Kingdom to eighth out of 12, and I believe that to be a real problem.
One of the aspects—
You are over your four minutes, Mr Gallie.
I am over my four minutes already—goodness me!
The committee's report expressed members' concerns about the economically inactive. The report mentions that there are 688,000 economically inactive people, but the minister's response to the committee says that 526,000 economically inactive people are available to move into an active economy. That represents 20 times the fresh talent initiative's target of 8,000 people moving into the Scottish economy.
I support the committee's report and thank the committee and its members for everything they have done on it. It is a good report.
I welcome the debate, the report and, indeed, the fresh talent initiative. As Charlie Gordon indicated, although the demographics have changed somewhat since the First Minister announced the initiative, there is nevertheless no room for complacency. The news that in-migration is greater than it has been for a generation does not sit comfortably with the doom-and-gloom merchants. Nevertheless, it is right that we continue to focus on the fresh talent initiative.
We have to address not only the total population figure but the demographics within that figure—such as the fact that the population is increasingly aging. As was made clear in the Executive's response to the committee's report, one of the purposes of the fresh talent initiative is that it should contribute towards the growth of the Scottish economy so that we can compete and succeed in the global economy.
I have always maintained that as well as attracting fresh talent to our shores—and perhaps even before we start to do that—it is important that we retain the talent that is already here. There are encouraging signs about graduate retention. Professor Joan Stringer's evidence to the committee indicated that 84 per cent of graduates of Scottish universities stay on in Scotland. The figures that were issued towards the end of last year about graduate destinations in 2003-04 showed that 79 per cent of respondents who gained permanent employment in the year after qualifying gained it in Scotland, and 90 per cent of Scotland-domiciled respondents who were in permanent employment were employed in Scotland. We all want those figures to be built on.
Many have derided the visa scheme that was introduced. During the week when it was announced, I had to address some foreign students who were studying for master of business administration degrees at the University of Edinburgh and there was great excitement when I mentioned that there would be a scheme under which, after graduation, people would be allowed to get a visa to stay in Scotland for two years. I was almost lynched when I told them that it would happen not in the year of their graduation but in the following year. That shows the interest and excitement that the scheme produced. Figures have shown that there were 1,500 successful applications from 75 different countries during the first seven months of the scheme.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry but time is too short.
As the committee's report points out, we should encourage those who are economically inactive. The smart, successful Scotland approach indicates that the enterprise networks must focus on economic growth in a way that supports the policy of closing the opportunity gap. Perhaps George Lyon will be able to tell us when the employability framework is likely to be published, because it is important that we take advantage of the talent, ability and skills that we have.
I will give way to Mr Gallie after all.
Does Mr Wallace recognise that Scottish networks international has been carrying out a very similar exercise during the past 15 years? That work, which was very successful, might have been phase 1 of the fresh talent initiative.
I recognise that, and I am sure that all members will have noted the briefing that we got from SNI before today's debate, which underlines the points that Mr Gallie has made.
My second point is about the importance of encouraging ethnic minorities in the workplace. Linda Fabiani pointed out the important recommendation that the minister should press the Home Office—because it is a Home Office responsibility—and should make the case that asylum seekers for whom a determination as to whether they should stay is pending should be allowed to work if they have the opportunity to do so. It is far better that they be allowed to work and to make a contribution. Evidence given to the committee suggested that 21 per cent of refugees were university educated but that very few were in work suited to their qualifications. That is a loss to us.
The final point that I want to make in the relatively short time available to me is one that has already been made: in pursuing fresh talent, we should ensure that we do not draw away talent from countries that are in greater need than we are, particularly where students with specific medical skills are concerned. The committee urged the Executive to monitor that area, and it is worth monitoring it to ensure that, in pursuing a policy that is important from a Scottish point of view, we do not damage others in developing countries.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and I commend the European and External Relations Committee for its report. The Executive is right to address the demographic problem that Scotland faces with the falling population and, more specifically, the fall in the working-age population. We shall be addressing the issue of the aging population next week in Parliament, but it is useful to hold a discussion on the committee's report and on the fresh talent initiative today.
The distinction between the falling population and the falling working-age population is an important one. Although my Green colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are doing their bit to tackle the falling population, with no fewer than four births in the first half of this year alone—I have to admit that I have no intention whatever of adding to that total myself—we must recognise that the issue of our population's economic engagement is different to the issue of the size of our population.
Attracting new people to Scotland can be a positive thing, and one great change to the city of Glasgow over recent years has been the increasing diversity of culture, language, food and art, which are side benefits to the economic benefits that are sought. However, Glasgow has something else too. Phil Gallie may have left it until the fifth minute of a four-minute speech, but he eventually mentioned the fact that Glasgow also faces the problem of high levels of economic inactivity. I support the view of representatives from the Scottish Trades Union Congress who gave evidence to the committee that much more needs to be done to address that problem.
Although I accept that the fresh talent target of 8,000 people a year was indicative, I reiterate the figure, which has already been mentioned, of 688,000 economically inactive people in Scotland, however open to question that figure might be. Bringing some of those people into economic activity is not something that can be done easily or quickly, and I do not pretend that there are simple solutions to the problem. It will require the innovative use of powers that still reside at Westminster. Can we be sure that they will be exercised innovatively and in a way that is appropriate to Scotland's distinctive situation? Personally, I doubt it.
However, there is another group of economically inactive people in Scotland, and Jim Wallace and Linda Fabiani have mentioned them. Asylum seekers are economically inactive for no good reason, and most of them are prohibited from working. I stress that a mutual benefit could be gained by giving asylum seekers the right to work. There would be benefits to our economy as a whole and to sectors of our economy that are finding it difficult to attract workers with the right skills, but there would be benefits to the asylum seekers as well, whether they ultimately stay or leave and whether or not they gain refugee status. Can any of us—even those of us who have been unemployed for a long period of time—imagine the sense of prolonged stress, isolation and fear that comes from being an asylum seeker? If we imagine in addition to that the utterly frustrating boredom of being unable to put one's skills to good use, we can begin to recognise how changing the situation and giving people the right to work while they are here is something that would provide great mutual benefit.
I know that I am short of time, but I want to mention another issue that Jim Wallace raised. The committee should be commended for saying something about the potential impact of the initiative on other countries, especially developing countries. If we gain skills for our economy at the expense of the economies of developing countries, we should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves. We must ensure that any benefit to our country does not come at the expense of people in the world's most deprived countries.
I endorse the view that is expressed both in the European and External Relations Committee's report and in the Enterprise and Culture Committee's business growth inquiry report that the fresh talent initiative should be undertaken in addition to, but not instead of, work to exploit the unused fresh talent in the indigenous population.
I want to highlight two aspects of the initiative. The first, which has already been mentioned, is the role that Scottish networks international plays in attracting high-calibre graduates to Scotland's further and higher education institutions and supporting them to find employment with companies and organisations in Scotland. The second is the work of the ethnic minority employment team in Fife, which has recently carried out some highly innovative research to map the skills and qualifications of migrant workers, to examine the needs of employers and to match the skills with the needs. I would be happy to provide further information on that to the minister or to any other member who wished to find out about it.
It is important for Scotland's future that we continue to be an outward-looking and connected nation. Our international students play an extremely important part in the life of our nation and in helping to globalise Scotland, which many of them do when they return to their home countries. Last night I hosted an event for Scottish networks international, which was attended by representatives from the British Council, Scottish Enterprise, the Executive and Scottish Development International, as well as members and some 25 very bright young people from around 20 countries who are studying and working in Scotland. As Phil Gallie said, in the past 15 years SNI has helped more than 1,000 international businesspeople from more than 100 countries to come to Scotland to work. Many of them have returned home to continue promoting Scotland.
As part of the fresh talent second year programme, there has been a large uptake of both undergraduate and postgraduate international students—the number of applicants has exceeded 1,500. The fresh talent initiative has given SNI a budget of some £75,000 a year for three years to provide and manage the work placements. Those funds should also enhance the experience of a further 200 overseas postgraduates. An important element of the scheme is that graduates can identify and take up high-quality work experience after graduation, particularly with large, global Scottish companies.
As part of the development of the thinking behind the scheme, I believe that there would be considerable merit in providing students with options that offered guaranteed work experience once their full-time studies had ended. That idea is embryonic, but it is worth developing, so I ask the minister whether he would be prepared to meet me and other people who are involved in such work—in particular, representatives from the enterprise network and the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department—to discuss matters further.
I also believe that to improve overseas students' access to the major companies, it is important that the fresh talent initiative and the work of Scottish networks international be promoted not just through the business gateway—as is the case at present—which deals with smaller enterprises, by and large, but through the account management folk in the local enterprise companies and in the headquarters of Scottish Enterprise in Glasgow. Again, I would be more than happy to discuss my thoughts about that with the minister and his team.
I am pleased to have participated in the debate, and I welcome the report and what the fresh talent initiative is doing for Scotland.
As other members have said, the Executive's fresh talent initiative is aimed at halting Scotland's declining population, given the possible social consequences of present demographic trends. In short, the Executive's initiative is about keeping in Scotland people who would otherwise leave to go abroad and bringing people here who would otherwise go elsewhere.
In the context of the debate, it is important for us to recognise Scotland's rich tradition of inward migration. Our country has benefited from the arrival of people from Ireland, Pakistan, India, China, Africa, the Caribbean, Lithuania—I am thinking of the Lithuanians in Mossend—
And Italy.
And Italy. Members can add their country of choice to the list. I understand that 10 per cent of the population of Edinburgh is now English—as is 50 per cent of my household.
It is clear that Scotland can and has accrued great benefit from the inward migration of new citizens, both economically and culturally. I am struck, however, as other members must also be, by the contradiction between what is being said in this debate and what was said in the recent debate on asylum and immigration policy. On the one hand, Scotland is trawling the world, at jobs fairs and elsewhere, for talented people who want to live and work in Scotland; people who will contribute to making Scotland a more economically successful place. There is nothing wrong with that. We are also enticing overseas students to settle in this country once their studies are over. Again, that is a good thing. On the other hand, we seem intent on asking people to leave the country, and doing that in quite an inhumane way. We have debated the situation at Dungavel, the protocol between the Home Office and the Executive on asylum and the situation of families, including the Vucaj family, who have been asked to leave the country.
Last Thursday evening, I shared a platform at a public meeting in Dalkeith with John Ragwar from Penicuik, who faces deportation any day. John came to Scotland to study in Edinburgh. He fell in love with the country, married a Scottish woman and has raised two fine boys. Despite his talents, which are clear and abundant, he is about to be separated from his family and shipped back to Kenya. The people of Penicuik are being robbed of a fine, upstanding member of their community. Instances such as that make a mockery of the entire fresh talent initiative, with all its talk of attracting a net annual increase of 8,000 people.
Scotland rightly welcomes people from Poland and eastern Europe who come here. I am glad to see many of them in the course of my work in the Lothians. Last autumn, I met a group of Polish people in West Lothian on the FirstGroup bus drivers' picket line. Many of the Polish drivers I spoke to told me that their pay and conditions were different from those of the other drivers who worked for the company. The committee's report rightly highlights the dangers of that practice, which are all too obvious. Not only is such practice unjust, but the danger is that local labour rates may be undercut as a result of people being brought into Scotland to do jobs at lower rates of pay. Linda Fabiani and the committee rightly highlighted the important role of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board in this regard. All too often, as we have seen over recent years, agricultural workers have suffered from exploitation.
I turn to the issue of Scotland's economically inactive—the 688,000 people who are mentioned in the report—and how to get them back to work. The key is to encourage, persuade and offer people attractive incentives that will encourage them to come off benefits and retrain for work, as the STUC, the Scottish Food and Drink Federation and Highlands and Islands Enterprise pointed out. If we were to do that, we could go a long way towards solving the central dilemma in the debate.
The approach that I would take would see people being given the help that they need. Instead of forcing people off benefits, they should be offered incentives and helped back into work. In terms of the debate, those people offer a unique additional advantage; one that is right under our noses. With the right approach, their return to the labour market could form part of the solution to the problem that we are all trying to grapple with.
Fresh talent is an excellent initiative. I am glad that, over the course of the debate, all parties have acknowledged that point. It is part of the solution to an alarming demographic problem and our First Minister should be congratulated on having had the political courage to launch this policy. I welcome the fact that the Home Office has agreed to work with our Executive to attract people to Scotland; we need more people who will live and work in this country.
That said, I must offer a cautionary tale. Some employers out there have different motives in their employment of foreign workers. I want to make a further appeal—I have done this before—to the Executive and to UK agencies to be far more vigilant in their enforcement of employment legislation and the national minimum wage, especially if firms employ foreign workers. Paragraph 74 of the committee report raises that point and Linda Fabiani referred to it.
In recent years I have become extremely worried about the situation at the Monaghan Mushrooms farm at Fenton Barns, in my constituency. I have met the workers and the management, I have repeatedly asked the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board to intervene, I raised the issue in the Parliament and I met Ross Finnie to discuss the situation on 18 May 2005. In a nutshell, an Ireland-based company has got rid of a local workforce of nearly 200 people by what might be regarded as a policy of contrived redundancies. I understand that most of the remaining local staff were under pressure to leave last week. That local workforce has been replaced by people from Ukraine and other parts of eastern Europe. The new workforce is made up of talented and hardworking people, but those people are perhaps the victims of suspect employment practices. There is concern about very long working hours and unattainable production quotas and there is doubt about whether the workforce is being paid the national minimum wage by the Monaghan companies or by gangmaster agencies—not to mention concern about deductions for agency fees. Perhaps shoppers should be aware of that aspect of the price of cheap supermarket mushrooms. I know that the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board has found it difficult to deal with the complicated trail of company records on the island of Ireland and I fear that competing involvement by different agencies of the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions might make it easy for a clever company to duck and weave. However, many of my constituents have lost their low-paid jobs and appear to have been replaced by vulnerable foreign workers, who are doing more work for even less pay. There is a name for that sort of practice, which certainly does not fit with the First Minister's ideas about employing fresh talent from overseas.
If we are serious about attracting good foreign candidates to fill job vacancies in Scotland, we must ensure that all employees are treated fairly. I am extremely worried about the local and foreign victims of what seems to be going on at Fenton Barns. Apart from the distress that is caused by job losses and bad employment conditions, we should recognise the risk of racial friction. I am disgusted by a suggestion that the British National Party might be taking an interest in the Monaghan workforce.
I strongly support the fresh talent initiative and I am glad that members of all parties endorsed the initiative, which is right for Scotland and for potential new Scots. However, I ask the Executive to underpin its excellent initiative with vigilant and effective measures to deal with the risk of bad employment practices and to protect vulnerable foreign workers against exploitation by bad employers. We must ensure fair conditions for all employees in Scottish workplaces. There must be fair conditions for mushroom pickers and catering staff as well as for dentists and bus drivers. The experience at Fenton Barns is worrying and we must do better.
I have every sympathy with what John Home Robertson said. I welcome the European and External Relations Committee's report on the fresh talent initiative. Many important points have been made in the debate about issues of concern for Scotland, not least how best to secure her economic development and cultural diversity.
Jim Wallace made one of the most important points when he talked about people from overseas who come to Scotland as students and do not necessarily go home. There is considerable evidence from Scottish networks international that graduates can gain work experience and financial benefit by working for a limited period in this country and that when such people go home about two years after graduation they bring substantial benefit to their home countries. Scotland also benefits from the building of links and bridges. We should consider the approach with sensitivity and care, but it has been demonstrated that there can be, is and should be a two-way benefit. Not only does Scotland benefit but the graduates' home countries benefit.
According to the registrar general for Scotland, Scotland's population is expected to fall below 5 million in about 30 years' time. It is estimated that by 2031 the number of people aged 75 or over will have increased by 75 per cent, which could present Scotland with a significant economic problem. It is only right that we take steps to address the matter and the fresh talent initiative is the Scottish Executive's response. As we heard, the scheme involved the setting up of a relocation advisory service and a programme to allow international students to apply to stay on in Scotland for two years. In the first seven months of the scheme, more than 1,500 applicants from more than 75 countries were successful. The fresh talent scheme will be subsumed under tier 1 of the United Kingdom Government's proposed new points-based immigration system, which will allow highly skilled migrants to seek residency after two years.
According to the Scottish Executive, specific Scottish flexibilities have been secured under the new system, one of which is the shortage occupation list, which will be produced for Scotland by the UK skills advisory body. Perhaps the minister, when he sums up, will kindly confirm that, in Scotland, the qualifying period for residency will be reduced for the top two tiers of the immigration points system—the highly skilled and skilled. Will the minister say what that will mean in practice?
The committee has made a range of recommendations, including that more must be done to mobilise Scotland's existing talent pool to the fullest extent, with particular attention to the estimated 688,000 people in Scotland who are currently economically inactive. It is clear that Scotland needs more skilled migrants. We should bear it in mind that only 4 per cent of immigrants to the United Kingdom apply to come to Scotland. We must build on a strong economy to create dynamic and well-paid jobs with a level playing field for small businesses. However, we must do more than that: we need to attract talent from overseas and retain a substantial proportion of graduates to work and stay in Scotland, especially those who are ready, willing and able to make a substantial contribution. I welcome the report.
The Scottish National Party welcomes the report. I would not go as far as John Home Robertson and say that the fresh talent initiative is an excellent scheme, because it has flaws, but we welcome the Executive's recognition of the demographic problem that Scotland faces and the requirement for innovative solutions to address it. Charlie Gordon is correct that we are in a fluid situation. In recent years there has been a change in the demography to our benefit, but a substantial problem remains. However, in recent months, there has been a change at UK level—Charles Clarke's proposals will to an extent trump whatever significant advantage we have gained through the fresh talent scheme, as will the proposals for a UK green card scheme. We must catch up with that underlying movement.
The European and External Relations Committee report raises valid points and numerous points have been made in the debate with which we agree. We agree that we must not seek our nation's advantage to the great danger of nations in the third world and that we should not ignore the skilled indigenous people who currently languish in the west of Scotland and elsewhere. We have far too many people who are economically inactive. They are a loss to the nation and are not achieving all that they can. The committee correctly pointed out that asylum seekers have a contribution to make but are restricted in making it. That must be addressed.
When I considered my comments for the debate, I had not thought that there would be a great deal of synergy between the two committee debates this afternoon. One was initiated by the Justice 1 Committee, on the European Union, and the other was from the European and External Relations Committee, on the fresh talent initiative. However, there is a synergy, because both involve a recognition that we live in a global economy. Our opposition to the European Union proposals in the first debate was based on the argument that they will undermine what is best for Scotland. The present debate is about allowing Scotland the best economic and social advantages.
We live in a global economy in which capital and labour are mobile. If people choose to go and work elsewhere, we cannot keep them. If a person graduates from university and prefers the bright lights of Barcelona to the joys and delights of Bathgate, we cannot hold them back. We have to give our indigenous talent a reason to stay, but we must also compete on a global basis for other talent. We must have the opportunity to encourage others to come and work here. For generations, Scotland has been denuded of skilled men and women. We had trade fairs the length and breadth of our country that encouraged people from the Clyde, Leith and wherever else to take their skills to the new world, whether New Zealand, the United States or elsewhere. We could not stop those people seeking to better themselves.
We have an opportunity to build upon the fresh talent initiative to create an indigenous green card scheme. I welcome the First Minister's trip to Australia. I hope that he recognised, in signing a concordat with the state of Victoria, that that state has a system under which it can specify and pursue individuals whom it wants to come to the state. Victoria can get the advantages that it needs.
Such a system could be added to the current fresh talent initiative, which will clearly have to change as a result of events south of the border. Perhaps we could morph that system into a green card scheme. It is not only Victoria that has such opportunities—other states, such as New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia and South Australia are firing ahead. Scotland must have the opportunity not only to have a fresh talent scheme, but to go out and locate the skilled workers who are necessary if our society is to compete in a global economy.
I am pleased to speak in the debate. Probably every member would agree that an hour is not long enough to do justice to the fresh talent initiative. Many members have made good speeches on the different issues that were raised in the committee's report. Perhaps two and a half hours in which to explore issues in more depth would have been better. Nevertheless, I will deal with some of the issues that have been raised and respond to the committee's report and its recommendations.
The fresh talent initiative is a key priority for the Scottish Executive because Scotland has a declining and aging population, which leaves fewer working-age people to contribute to our economy. However, as Phil Gallie rightly pointed out, Scotland is not the only area in the United Kingdom whose population is projected to decline, and members have mentioned that recent projections from the registrar general indicate that the decline is nowhere near as steep as some doom-and-gloom merchants would have us believe.
The fresh talent initiative aims to attract to Scotland bright, talented and hard-working people who can make a positive contribution to our economy and society. There is widespread support among members for that objective. The focus of the initiative is on bringing people to Scotland to live, learn and work. However, I will be clear: the fresh talent initiative is only one strand—albeit an important strand—of our activities to address Scotland's demographic challenge. The Executive is doing many other things to ensure that Scotland has a thriving economy and a dynamic and diverse population.
First, I will address the perception that we are neglecting the needs of the local population by promoting the fresh talent initiative. Nothing could be further from the truth. The initiative specifically focuses on attracting and retaining bright and talented people to Scotland. Jim Wallace and the convener of the European and External Relations Committee, Linda Fabiani, mentioned the employability framework. That framework will be published in the very near future during the spring. I am sure that they will welcome it and that they will examine its role in ensuring that people who are economically inactive get the opportunity to return to work and to contribute to the Scottish economy.
Other parts of the Executive and Westminster are working hard to ensure that we maximise the opportunities for people who already live in Scotland—I am sure that members of all parties support that work. In our response to the committee's inquiry report, we described how the fresh talent initiative complements rather than replaces such important work.
Several members mentioned the concern that, by attracting talent to Scotland, we are depriving vulnerable developing countries of the talented people whom they need to grow their economies, but that is simply not the case. We promote Scotland and the fresh talent initiative abroad, but we do not—and will not—target those countries as sources of permanent migration. That does not mean that talented people should never study or train overseas. The opportunity to do so can provide valuable experience that can bring benefits to their home countries when they return to them.
Will the minister give way?
I am very short of time, but I will take a short intervention.
I accept that the minister will not in the short time that is available be able to flesh out in more detail the reassurances that were given to the committee on the use of monitoring processes to prevent what he has described from happening, but will he undertake to give more information about that monitoring process in the near future?
I will compensate the minister for taking that intervention.
I am happy to endorse the commitments that my colleague Mr McCabe gave to the committee on that matter.
Scotland has a reputation as a provider of world-class education. I hope that students from developing countries who are looking to spend a few years broadening their horizons will continue to opt for Scotland as a destination. Their doing so would be to the benefit of Scotland and their home countries.
We have heard much today about whether people who are seeking asylum should be able to work while their claims are being considered. This is not the first time the issue has been raised. The Scottish Executive has regular meetings with the Home Office to discuss asylum issues and how they affect Scotland, so the Home Office is aware of the concern in Scotland. Nevertheless, immigration and asylum policy is reserved to Westminster so it is for the Home Office to determine policy on it.
In its report, the European and External Relations Committee expressed an interest in how the Executive was feeding into the Home Office's review of the system for managed migration. Today's debate is timely, following the publication last week by the Home Office of "A Points-Based System: Making Migration Work for Britain". As well as setting out in more detail how the points-based system will work at UK level, the paper lists some of the key Scottish flexibilities that will help to progress the fresh talent initiative. The final package deals us a strong hand when it comes to attracting the best talent to Scotland and keeping it here.
I turn to some key facts and figures about the fresh talent initiative. Members have heard them before, but they are worth repeating. Since October 2004, 8,700 customers from 135 countries have received advice from the relocation advisory service; there have been 1,500 successful applicants to the fresh talent working in Scotland scheme since its launch in June 2005—25 per cent of the overseas students who are eligible to apply; and there have been about 250,000 visitors to www.scotlandistheplace.com. There is a huge level of interest around the world in Scotland as a place to live, work and study. The fresh talent initiative will continue to build on that success, which is an important strand of the long-term challenge of building a strong, successful and sustainable Scotland for the future. I look forward to the European and External Relations Committee's continuing interest in the matter.
You can be grateful to Mr Scott for his negotiating skills on your behalf.
I am privileged to wind up on behalf of the European and External Relations Committee. The committee embarked upon the inquiry following one of its away days. John Home Robertson was an enthusiastic supporter of an inquiry into the fresh talent initiative. It was our intention at that time to have a short, sharp and focused inquiry. In the end the inquiry took five months; we held seven oral evidence-taking sessions and considered a large number of written submissions. I express the committee's thanks to all those who contributed significantly to our oral and written deliberations. Our inquiry was concluded in November, but it is clear from today's debate that even in that time things have moved forward considerably and that this is a work in progress.
As Linda Fabiani mentioned, one of the features of fresh talent that the committee recognised was that it was a project for the long term. I note from the Executive's response to the committee that its intention is that the project will be flexible and adaptable, and that it will evolve over time. That is important as long as—as the committee's report requested—the direction and expectations are clear and the results are audited and measured. That is a matter to which Jim Mather referred. It is important that we pick up on the statistical significance of auditing and monitoring so that we can establish how the project should change over time.
The fresh talent initiative may have begun as a response to demographic factors, but it has grown, evolved and developed. It has given us a unique sense of identity, and pride and confidence in being a multicultural Scotland. Today's debate has shown that the committee's comments on mainstreaming fresh talent across portfolios are valid. It is evident from members' speeches that the initiative is key to our economic success, to a smart successful Scotland, to our cultural diversity, to our attempts to promote Scotland worldwide as a place to live and work and to furthering our further and higher education sectors and investment in skills development.
Members have identified some excellent examples of good practice. Charlie Gordon spoke about the importance of having a successful marketing strategy in eastern Europe and highlighted the successful and commendable efforts of Glasgow City Council to integrate migrants into local communities. Christine May identified the good practice and benefits of the projects that are being undertaken by Scottish networks international, under the umbrella of the British Council.
However, as we have also heard today, there are areas in which progress is still to be made. Linda Fabiani and John Home Robertson identified the problem of exploitation of workers, which was of some concern to the committee during its deliberations. A proactive approach to supporting incoming workers, especially the low-skilled workers about whom John spoke this afternoon, is required.
I will say something positive about Europe and the 74 million people who have been added to the European Union since the most recent accessions. Does it worry the member that only 4 per cent of those who have come to the UK from Europe have come to Scotland?
I am delighted that Mr Gallie has something positive to say about Europe. I am not sure that his figures are absolutely correct, so I will withhold judgment on the issue that he raises. However, it is important that we do everything we can to continue to encourage people from eastern Europe to make the contribution to the Scottish economy that we all want them to make.
Phil Gallie and Jim Wallace reflected on the issue that I want to raise next—how we increase the number of economically active people in Scotland and retain talent here. It is vital that we build on the good start that has been made in that area.
Early in the debate, Jamie Stone asked about language skills. On that, the committee identified some good practice by FirstBus. The member's point related to local authorities, but the committee was keen to encourage employers to take charge of language training for workers. We would like that to be developed.
Jim Wallace and Patrick Harvie raised another issue that is important, especially on Commonwealth day. During the inquiry, we asked the Executive to reflect on the recruitment of workers from developing countries. I am happy to say that in its response to our recommendations the Executive assured us that there will be a code of practice for recruitment of health care professionals that will expressly forbid recruiting from sub-Saharan Africa. The minister has confirmed that today. It is important that that point be made. I was staggered to find out that there are more Malawian doctors in Manchester than there are in Malawi. The Executive's commitment on that issue is well-founded.
Kenny MacAskill referred to the pan-European situation. We are not alone in Europe in facing the challenges that the fresh talent initiative is seeking to address. However, in my experience, we are at the forefront of policy development to provide solutions to those challenges. I firmly believe that mainland Europe is looking in our direction to learn lessons from our innovative approach.
It is clear from this afternoon's debate that this is by no means the end of our deliberations on fresh talent. I am sure that the committee and the Parliament will watch this space closely and will return to the matter to monitor progress. The commitment that all parties that are represented in the chamber have shown this afternoon demonstrates that we want, as Colin Fox said, to be a forward-looking and outward-looking country that is open and welcoming to incomers, and that we see ourselves as benefiting from and being enriched by a multicultural, multi-ethnic society. That is a measure of how Parliament is impacting positively on Scottish society and the Scottish economy and of how, perhaps, we are maturing as a Parliament.
I am happy to support the motion in the name of Linda Fabiani.