Chamber and committees

Are you confident that those development centres have enough protections and support in place for youngsters? Is their wellbeing protected and looked after enough?

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.

In my Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley constituency, reliable rural bus services are vital. Does the minister agree that it is wholly regrettable that the privately run business Stagecoach, on which my constituents rely, has failed to broker a deal with its employees over the strike period to ensure not only that they receive equitable pay in accordance with fair work principles but that such fragile transportation links are resumed?

Many constituents across rural Ayrshire, who, in the main, support the calls of the drivers, are now cut off from accessing health appointments, attending work and accessing food—the basics that we all take for granted. That simply cannot continue, so I ask the Scottish Government to work with local areas urgently to create sustainable bus services.

Some of my questions have been touched on by the convener.

I will say from the get-go that I first heard about the Galloway national park back in 2016, nine years ago. I was a local councillor in East Ayrshire in 2018, when that council took what I viewed as a positive decision to support the national park after doing extensive public consultation on the back of what the Galloway National Park Association was doing.

The idea of the park did end up feeling like a bolt out of the blue for some sectors, including farming, forestry and renewables. We seemed to get to a point where those sectors became galvanised after suddenly realising that the park might have an impact on them and feeling that their voices had not been heard in the mix. I do not think that anyone can apportion the blame for that to the people from the Galloway National Park Association, because they set out their vision and took it out to people and they consulted quite extensively from 2016 onwards.

Having listened to the other members around the table and yourself, I am wondering how we can ensure that sectoral issues and any further proposals that affect real people on the ground who are farming or who are part of forestry or renewables do not get to the stage where it feels as though people are getting entrenched. There was a groundswell of support, but all of a sudden it got to a crunch point where it felt as if there was not, and some sectors felt that they were not being heard. How do we deal with that? How do we overcome challenges from those sectors to get to a positive conclusion?

Should a requirement be put into the 2000 act for park authorities to consult a wider suite of public bodies on their plans? Right now, it feels like consultation is restricted to local authorities. Although I think that they all feed in in some way, should the duty be explicitly widened to include further public bodies?

Some of my questions have been touched on by the convener.

I will say from the get-go that I first heard about the Galloway national park back in 2016, nine years ago. I was a local councillor in East Ayrshire in 2018, when that council took what I viewed as a positive decision to support the national park after doing extensive public consultation on the back of what the Galloway National Park Association was doing.

The idea of the park did end up feeling like a bolt out of the blue for some sectors, including farming, forestry and renewables. We seemed to get to a point where those sectors became galvanised after suddenly realising that the park might have an impact on them and feeling that their voices had not been heard in the mix. I do not think that anyone can apportion the blame for that to the people from the Galloway National Park Association, because they set out their vision and took it out to people and they consulted quite extensively from 2016 onwards.

Having listened to the other members around the table and yourself, I am wondering how we can ensure that sectoral issues and any further proposals that affect real people on the ground who are farming or who are part of forestry or renewables do not get to the stage where it feels as though people are getting entrenched. There was a groundswell of support, but all of a sudden it got to a crunch point where it felt as if there was not, and some sectors felt that they were not being heard. How do we deal with that? How do we overcome challenges from those sectors to get to a positive conclusion?

I want to explore the proposal in the bill to have a strengthened duty on public bodies to facilitate the implementation of the park plans. We have heard from both national park authorities that they believe that that is a positive move. The Cairngorms National Park Authority said that

“‘Have regard to’ is a fairly passive term”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 2 April 2025; c 23.]

and that having a duty to help to implement the plans would be a positive move. However, we heard concern from some stakeholders that that duty could run into conflict with a public body’s own statutory duties and functions. What would the Scottish Government like to see fulfilled in practice with that measure, and what changes do you think that that will lead to?

Do you think that other things had been happening at the same time that ended up making this feel very messy? The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill has been going through, as have been the changes that we spoke about in the previous question session and the changes that are happening with agricultural payments. The convener also mentioned that permitted development rights might be coming into question. Do you think that a lot was going on and it felt as if the national park would be something else on top, so the vision could not be seen?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it is supporting colleagues in COSLA regarding their call for civility in public life. (S6O-04777)

I welcome the work that colleagues and COSLA are undertaking that is aimed at tackling abuse and intimidation of elected members.

The tragic and barbarous murders of Jo Cox MP and David Amess MP as they went about their daily duties shook all of us to the core. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the growing abuse and intimidation of elected representatives is a direct threat to democracy? Many elected representatives are standing down from their roles because they are not prepared to tolerate such abuse—which also actively deters people, especially those from underrepresented groups, from entering politics in the first place. Does the cabinet secretary also agree that the work initiated by COSLA should be supported by all of us to ensure that elected members can conduct their duties free from violence, threats and abuse?