Chamber and committees

I might be wrong, but I think that today is the third or fourth evidence session in which we have touched on that issue as an emerging and on-going initiative that we hope will make concrete strides, so I am glad that the issue has been brought up again.

I will provide an update to the committee on progress since I gave evidence with the health secretary, Humza Yousaf. We have set up a short-life working group with health colleagues to agree a clear set of actions for collaboration. The terms of reference are being drawn up and all the things that you would expect to happen to make the process productive are happening. The group involves health and wellbeing colleagues for their comment, including colleagues with particular expertise in policy interests regarding social prescribing. However, the group will have a broader remit than that, as it will cover a range of policies that cross various bits of government.

We will provide more information on the work of the group in our culture strategy action plan, which will be refreshed before the end of the year, so the Government is considering the issue. I do not want to give the impression that the matter has gone somewhere that it will take a very long time to come back from, or that we will not hear anything because people are away thinking great thoughts for far too long. The work needs to be on-going. Be assured that we are seized of the matter.

The circumstances that we are in now do not make this any easier, because it does not take long before people ask questions about additional funding. We are back to our new initiatives; this would be a new initiative. How do we make a new initiative happen? At some point, money comes into the equation. There is also an additional challenge, to which I do not have the answer yet, but I will signal it. No doubt you would be asking questions about this if I was here with Humza Yousaf again. If there is a growing cultural dimension to health and wellbeing, as there should be, should the health portfolio fund it, or should the culture portfolio fund it? Those are bridges that we will have to cross.

I know that we have a very strong focus on health. It was very helpful that Humza Yousaf and I sat next to each other and publicly declared that we want to make progress on the issue. I am very keen that it goes even wider than that; I have reported to the committee before that it was a Cabinet decision that culture would be mainstreamed across the whole of Government.

There are significant areas of positive impact—for example, I mentioned justice. Many cultural organisations already play a significant role in helping with rehabilitation and with the mental health of people in the justice system, but much more can be done. Similar questions arise about funding, but that should not deter us from making progress.

I have given concrete answers to Ms Minto’s question in relation to the administrative and governmental progress that is being driven across departments. The eternal challenge is to ensure that we are not stuck in our silos, is it not? We will all have to work to help our colleagues who have responsibility for health, education, justice and so on to realise that culture, and much that the culture sector can offer, should be integral to the thinking of many more people than has been the case up to now.

That issue was partly the subject of conversations that I had with UNESCO in Paris yesterday. I was very frank about the stage that we are at. We have an understanding and an aspiration, and we are committed to making progress. We are trying to make progress, although no doubt some people will say that we should be doing more or making quicker progress or whatever. That is fine—it is good to have that encouragement. A bit of pull and a bit of push are good, in this context.

I must say that UNESCO colleagues were extremely impressed that we are at the stage that we are at, and are very keen for us to engage with them, with a view to our sharing what we are doing with other countries and cultural organisations—not because we have the perfect solutions or all the practical applications of how to make things work, but because we are perhaps slightly further down the track than other places are. That is a good thing. The subject is not only relevant in Scotland, although it is extremely relevant here in Scotland; that is our responsibility. We should do our best to work with colleagues elsewhere, and not only to help those who want to emulate, follow or work in parallel with us.

I am keen to understand better whether there are countries that are further down the road. I am sorry—I know that I am digressing slightly, convener. As another update, I note that last week I met the head of the British Council and we discussed how best we can be informed about initiatives in other parts of the world that are further ahead or that are doing things better or in different ways. That could help us to identify and appreciate what we might want to do, and could encourage us to do it. It could also help us not to take a wrong turn somewhere along the way. I am not sure that we have a mechanism in place for that yet. I think that such learning could be relevant for the Parliament’s committees, the Government and its ministers.

How we might do all that was discussed during the Edinburgh international culture summit 2022. I am keen that we learn from others as much as we can, because that will help us to get to where we want to be more quickly than would be the case were we just trying to test our own approach. No doubt the committee will do that, but I strongly encourage members to work in partnership with the Government to ensure that we are best informed about what works. I know that some committee members have a very strong interest in the area. Ms Boyack is not here, but she, together with Mr Ruskell, are examples of members who have repeatedly expressed an interest in the matter. I am sorry—I have started to mention specific committee members. I will get into big trouble for not mentioning everyone.

Yes, yes and yes. We covered some of this ground while you were at the corporate body meeting. In general terms, I made the point that, during the Covid pandemic, additional funding was made available to the Scottish Government. It was up to the Government to decide how that funding would be dispensed to deal with the Covid emergency, and very significant additional support was provided to the cultural sector, for the reasons that Ms Baker has rightly pointed out.

However, it is important to put on record the fact that we do not have additional funding to deal with the present circumstances in which we find ourselves. Unless there is additional funding or, indeed, additional powers for the Scottish Parliament to raise funds—as we know, we are pretty much unique in world governance terms in not being able to borrow in times of emergency—we will have to manage our finances within the constrained devolution settlement in which we find ourselves.

If I were an organisation that had been supported through Covid and which had emerged from Covid to find myself in constrained circumstances with much diminished support, would I feel bitter? No doubt I would. We are doing everything that we can to try to use the resources that we have, while at the same time being absolutely frank with cultural organisations and the committee about the scale of the challenge. Unless somebody is able to come along and say to me, “Here’s additional funding of the kind you had during Covid,” there is not going to be additional funding in general. We are now in an unenviable situation, and some organisations are going to find it extremely difficult, because the same scale of additional funding that was available during Covid is not going to be available at a time when we are trying to recover.

I understand very well the point that Ms Baker is trying to make, but I draw attention to another point that she has made, which I, too, make regularly. A significant part of the spending on the cultural sector that comes from the Scottish Government through Creative Scotland and Screen Scotland, for example, is key to unlocking additional resource in the wider economy, and I am extremely keen to ensure that, in having to make such difficult decisions, we do not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about an important part of not just the nation’s cultural life, but the economy and different economic sectors.

I am making that case very loud and clear in Government. I know that people are listening but, as I have pointed out a number of times now, my colleagues are having to make very difficult decisions on the basis of constrained financial circumstances—and with the additional problem of inflation, which as the committee has heard is, in many parts of the creative sector, running significantly higher than the 10 per cent in the general economy. Indeed, I have been hearing the figure of 30 per cent quite a lot from certain cultural organisations.

Ms Baker is drawing me into an exchange about the Scottish Government’s on-going emergency budget review process. Her point has been made. I have heard it, and I hope that she has heard me say that I am being as vocal, outspoken and constructive as she and the committee would expect me to be during an internal budget process to ensure that we have the best possible settlement in the circumstances to support the cultural sector. Unfortunately, I cannot say more than that.

You were looking at me, convener, when you talked about having to be quick. I feel suitably guided.

My answer to that question is the same as my answer to Ms Baker’s: we are in the middle of a process. Mr Ruskell’s point is well made, and I will take it away and discuss with officials how we can satisfy the need for transparency. As I have often said to the committee, I understand how important that is for you in your work and for us to be able to collegiately make progress in what is a shared endeavour. I will take that away and no doubt, as we emerge from the budget process and there is greater certainty about things, you will have wider questions that we will be able to answer directly. I hope that I can leave that there.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

I welcome the opportunity to open this important debate on Scotland’s population. Scotland is its people: they are our most important resource. People deliver our public services, teach the next generation, build our communities and drive innovation. We are each a part of Scotland’s population.

A growing population is vital for a growing economy. Population growth has been the most significant driver of economic growth in Scotland and the United Kingdom in recent years. As the Scottish Fiscal Commission noted in its recent report,

“population size and structure directly affects economic growth and also Scottish Government finances through the effects on revenue and spending.”

Scotland’s population has been shaped by our history of migration. In times past, as a nation of out-migration, people left Scotland to make a future elsewhere and to contribute to shaping other nations. Between 1825 and 1938, more than 2.3 million people left Scotland to move overseas. Emigration was such a strong thread in our population history that, in 1935, Edwin Muir could write of his concern that Scotland was

“gradually being emptied of its population”.

Since the turn of this century, the narrative has shifted and we have become a nation of in-migration. Freedom of movement was a key driver of that change, but it has also been driven by people from the rest of the UK who have chosen to make their homes in Scotland. More people move to Scotland from the rest of the UK than move in the opposite direction and more people move to Scotland from outwith the UK than leave. Scotland is an attractive destination. People want to come here to build their future.

Scotland’s population growth in recent years has been driven entirely by migration. However, National Records of Scotland now projects that Scotland’s population will start to fall from around 2028 onwards, that almost half of our 32 local authorities will decline in population over the next decade and that, by 2045, the proportion of children in the population will have fallen by 22 per cent. Further, the Scottish Fiscal Commission is projecting a 16 per cent fall in Scotland’s population between 2022 and 2072.

I agree whole-heartedly. Birth rate issues have been a core part of the deliberations of the Scottish Government and its partners when dealing with the population challenge.

I stress that the scale of population challenge that we face in decades to come is immense, so, following the first intervention, I take the opportunity to note that I really hope for and look forward to a constructive working relationship with members from all parts of the chamber, notwithstanding the differences that we might have on a series of different subjects. It behoves us to work in the interests of the communities that we represent, including—in the case of the subject that we are discussing today—but not limited to rural parts of the country. We need to garner the best ideas from all parts of the mainstream political spectrum to deal with the challenge that we face.

Scotland’s history of emigration has implications. As a nation, we lost future generations. Communities lost not only the individuals who left but their children and grandchildren. There is a legacy to emigration, one that is most keenly felt in our rural communities.

Scotland has distinct needs. Our situation is unique within the United Kingdom: we are the only country within the United Kingdom where the population is projected to fall by 2045. We need to tailored solutions that meet our needs, yet the UK Government’s focus is on restricting migration and putting barriers in place for those who might seek to come here to build a new life.

No, I do not, but I take the opportunity to invite Mr Lumsden and other members to read the document that we are debating and to reflect on the fact that we are trying to approach the challenge in partnership with representatives of local government from different parts of the country and with representatives of different parts of Scottish society. I would genuinely welcome a serious attempt by the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party to take part in that debate.

Last year, this Government published Scotland’s first population strategy—one that was endorsed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and that sets out the actions that we will look to take at local and national level to address our population challenges. Those actions were set out against four pillars, which set out that Scotland should be family friendly; be a healthy living society; be an attractive and welcoming country; and have a balanced population.

I chair a cross-cutting ministerial population task force, which is looking across Scottish Government to identify where policies should be strengthened and what new actions we need to take. In the past year, my task force colleagues and I have developed a new talent attraction and migration service that will be launched in 2023 to support both Scottish employers who will recruit and individuals who want to come to Scotland. We have committed to publishing an addressing depopulation action plan, working with communities facing the most acute population retention challenges. We have refreshed the independent expert advisory group on migration and population, which continues to provide expert advice, as it has done since 2018. We have commissioned new research looking at attitudes to family size and how those have changed over time and have looked to learn from work that other nations have done to address similar demographic challenges.

Scottish Government ministers have continued to reflect our demographic challenges in their own portfolios, through work such as the housing to 2040 strategy, the fourth national planning framework and the national islands plan.

Despite that work, there are crucial levers that are not within Scottish ministers’ control, most notably immigration. Scotland’s population is not a monolith. From Edinburgh to the Orkney Islands, from the Borders to Argyll and Bute, every local authority feels our demographic challenge differently. Some local authorities are experiencing rapid population growth, while others are experiencing population decline. Rapid population growth and depopulation both bring challenges, and we are committed to working with partners to support population balance.

I will focus today on the specific challenges that are faced by our rural communities. Let me be clear: there is no easy fix to local population challenges, such as depopulation. That is why we are working collaboratively, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities in general, and through structures such as the convention of the Highlands and Islands and the convention of the south of Scotland, to ensure that we have a partnership approach that best addresses our population challenges. Migration is a crucial part of that approach, yet current UK Government immigration policy does not reflect the needs of Scotland’s rural communities.

I would like to make some progress on this point.

Scotland needs working-age people to settle here in the long term and to raise families here. Our rural communities want to attract families who will make their homes here, but the UK Government’s family migration policy stops people from bringing their families here. It limits the family reunification rights of UK citizens. The “Migration Integration Policy Index 2020” assessed the UK immigration system as one of the least family-friendly migration systems. That UK immigration system was assessed as the second worst of all the immigration systems that it reviewed, in terms of family reunification policies.

The financial threshold rules are a significant barrier, not just for those who are seeking to migrate to Scotland, but also for UK citizens. Analysis by the Scottish Government shows that almost 50 per cent of the Scottish population would fail to meet the financial threshold to allow them to bring a spouse and two children into the country through a family migration route. Those rules force people to choose between their family and living in their home country. The rules do not meet Scotland’s needs and they do not reflect our values.

On a personal level, I note that, as a child of someone who emigrated to this country, I would not be standing in the chamber today if the current UK Government immigration rules had been in place then. I wonder how many others in the chamber and across Scotland would similarly have been prevented from building a future here.

The rules also do not support the needs of our rural communities. There is clear evidence that the current UK immigration system is particularly poor at meeting the needs of those communities. That is not just the assessment of the Scottish Government; it is also the assessment of the UK Government’s Migration Advisory Committee, which stated in its 2019 report:

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

The solution that was proposed by the Migration Advisory Committee and accepted by the then Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, was

“to pilot a scheme that facilitated migration to these areas, then monitor what happens over several years and evaluate the outcomes.”

That was an evidence-based approach to policy making. Sadly, such an approach did not survive a change in Home Secretary.

However, this Government made a commitment to progress the rural visa pilot proposal. We wrote to the UK Government offering to work collaboratively with it to deliver on the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendation. In the absence of engagement from the UK Government, we have worked with 12 rural and island local authorities and with rural employers, as well as academic experts, to develop an evidence-based, practical proposal that could be delivered today.

At the moment, the UK immigration system issues visas to people that tie them to a specific job with a specified employer or a specific university course at an identified university, so the notion that a rural visa is inoperable within the current immigration system is simply untrue. The fact that the UK Government’s expert advisory group recommended such a visa is evidence of the fact that such a system could be made to work.

Our proposal, which has been led by my colleagues the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands and the Minister for Culture, Europe and International Development, is based on international evidence of what works. It builds on analysis from the independent expert advisory group on migration and population and it uses elements from Canadian and Australian immigration systems to show how a Scottish rural community immigration pilot can be delivered through a partnership approach.

The pilot would present a distinctly new, community-driven and employer-based migration route. It would offer a world-leading approach to spread the benefits of immigration to our rural communities. Above all, as has been done successfully in Canada, it would be tailored to meet the economic and societal needs of specified communities in Scotland.

The proposal that is included in the motion today sets out how that would be delivered in partnership between the UK Government, the Scottish Government, local authorities, employers and communities. The proposal has been jointly developed by the Scottish Government, local authorities and partners. I will quote just one of those partners. Councillor Paul Steele, the leader of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, said:

“The Scottish Government’s ‘Rural Community Immigration Pilot’ offers a thoughtful, safe, well-founded option as to how new labour can be streamed to island and rural communities”

to help respond to the issues that are faced. He continued:

“As such I am highly supportive of the proposed Pilot.”

Our ask of the UK Government is clear. If it means what it says when it suggests that its aim is to deliver an immigration system that works for all of the UK, that immigration system has to work for Scotland and for our rural communities.

I will listen closely to what colleagues across the chamber say in the debate, because I am keen, as we try to build partnership with the UK Government, to deliver the pilot. Working with a unified approach would make the proposal all the stronger. I will listen closely to what we hear from the front benches of other parties and I hope that we can work in partnership over the months ahead.

I move,

That the Parliament 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; celebrates the social, economic and cultural contribution made to Scotland by those who have chosen to live here; notes that the UK Government’s own immigration advisers concluded in 2019 that the UK migration system is not very effective in dealing with the particular problems that remote communities experience and recommended the establishment of a pilot scheme to support migration to rural areas, and that this recommendation was accepted by the then Home Secretary in a statement to the House of Commons in July 2019; further notes the distinct demographic challenges that Scotland faces, and that all of Scotland’s population growth is projected to come from migration; notes that the independent Expert Advisory Group on Migration and Population concluded in its 2019 report that the demographic challenges for rural areas would be exacerbated by the ending of freedom of movement; further notes that the Fresh Talent scheme introduced in 2005 was a differentiated migration approach for Scotland, and calls on the UK Government to accept the Rural Visa Pilot proposal, which has been jointly developed by the Scottish Government, rural and island local authorities and rural employers, and to engage constructively to support the delivery of Rural Visa Pilots that meet the needs of rural communities.