Chamber and committees

That is a fair point to make. There is a broader picture about how well we can navigate not only a global situation but the situation in the UK. Although I have some sympathy for the amendment that the Labour Party has lodged, I also have some worries about the white paper, just as I have about my party’s on-going discussions about migration. I am not convinced that we have the right balance between those people who want to come to this country and whom we want to be able to welcome, and those people who are here through illegal means. A big discussion needs to be had about that.

The immigration system has to reward contribution and social integration, and any deportation system of illegal immigrants that we come up with must work. As yet, we are not there.

I move amendment S6M-17906.1, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert:

“believes that there is an important policy balance to be struck between welcoming those migrants who make significant contributions to the economic, social and cultural life of the UK, and reducing the numbers of illegal migrants who place added pressures on the welfare system and public services, and believes that the future of migration policy across the UK should reflect the specific needs of different sectors of the labour market.”

I do not need to remind the cabinet secretary of how important the rural depopulation issue is within all of this. That is not just a matter of migration policy; it is a collective policy issue that requires efforts from a whole lot of areas to encourage more people to stay in their local communities. Does the cabinet secretary agree with that?

I greatly welcome the Deputy First Minister’s tone, because, as we all know, far too often, migration debates are highly contentious and framed by economic, social and security concerns. Sadly, nowadays, they are often framed by misunderstandings, negative perceptions that are sometimes very far removed from reality and, worst of all in this age of Trump and Farage, by increasingly unhelpful and damaging rhetoric that can border on racism and which clearly helps absolutely no one at all.

My contribution will be based very much on the facts—I hope that it will be an honest and open appraisal of the current challenges—and on my long-standing interest in labour market economics. However, before I begin that analysis, I want to be very clear about three things. First, I agree that the current system of immigration controls is not working. Secondly, in particular, the very high level of illegal immigration is a major concern, as is the associated fiscal cost of accommodation and public service provision. Thirdly, I quite strongly oppose a Scottish system of immigration, because of the inherent complications—although I will come to another aspect of that in a moment.

However, first, I come to the hard facts. Scotland has a very significant demographic challenge: an ageing population, as the Deputy First Minister said, a declining birth rate and worryingly high rates of economic inactivity.

Yes, I absolutely recognise that. The media is partly responsible for some of that divisiveness.

I come back to the Deputy First Minister’s point about homogeneity with regard to economic inactivity: she is quite right that there are lots of different aspects to economic inactivity, but we have worryingly high rates of it and very significant labour shortages in key sectors, such as agriculture, hospitality and care. We also have huge pressure on public services, which the Scottish Fiscal Commission set out last week; there are definitely challenges to a one-size-fits-all approach, which I will come back to; and there has definitely been a Brexit effect, which has changed the nature and the composition of the migrant population. More migrants now come from outside the EU—so it is a more diverse group, especially when it comes to languages and cultures.

However, I also make the point, which I think that the Deputy First Minister referred to, that, in the past five years, the UK has seen record levels of inward migration from abroad. However, Scotland has not always been able to attract what we would see as our percentage share of that. As I think that The Sunday Times pointed out at the weekend, we might be doing very well on attracting people from down south to Scotland, but there is an issue with regard to the fact that not so many people come to Scotland from elsewhere. That is in marked contrast to what is happening down south.

With regard to the Scottish Fiscal Commission, I heard the Deputy First Minister’s little comment about the tax base. The issue is about the tax increase that we need in revenue terms. Yes, people might be taxpayers, but, if we listen to an awful lot of people in the business community, particularly people like Sandy Begbie—I know that that message has gone back loud and clear to the Scottish Government—we learn that there is a problem in relation to attracting middle to higher earners to Scotland. That recruitment process is something that the Economy and Fair Work Committee heard a lot about when it visited Prestwick airport, and we need to take cognisance of that issue.

Last Wednesday we had a really interesting debate about entrepreneurship and innovation. Kate Forbes, who was leading for the Government, was quite right to say that entrepreneurs and innovators are the catalysts for economic growth. We should acknowledge both and welcome the very positive contribution that many of those people who are not indigenous to Scotland make when it comes to entrepreneurship.

Nonetheless, there are serious issues in relation to immigration policy, which is why I want to delve a bit deeper into the matter. I suggest that the debate should not be about Scotland against the rest of the UK but should be much more about different sectors across the UK. I do not like the fact that we often get into constitutional debate about the issue, when it has much more to do with the sectors.

I know from speaking to my local community in Perthshire that we have people there who are some of the best workers—indeed, some Polish workers are seen by their employer as absolutely outstanding in the contribution that they make to agriculture. That is the case in my community but people in Norfolk or wherever will say exactly the same.

We must be careful about how we play this, because I think that there is a—

That is a very good point from Mr Johnson. I think that he is right that there is a global context to the issue, which is important.

When I was elected to this Parliament in 2007, I was part of the cross-party group on post-study work visas—I think that people know of my passion about education, particularly higher education and the university sector. I was very pleased to join that cross-party group, because I think that there is a case for post-study work visas. If Scotland is to attract the brightest and best—whether that is students or people in research and development and staff—we absolutely need to have a welcoming structure for the people who would like to come here.

I remember that, just before some of the debates around the independence referendum, we were able to attract probably about 14 per cent of research and development grants because Scotland was leading the way. As I understand it from last week’s conference, that figure is now down to about 10.5 per cent. That is not a good direction in which to be going, so the case for post-study work visas is very strong.

It answers my question perfectly, Mr Dey, because what you are saying is that the approach raises additional funds if it works properly.

Cabinet secretary, does the same apply to the field of outdoor education, where, as I have suggested, there could be better partnerships between the private and public sectors? It is a big ask of COSLA, as the minister knows.

That is very good to hear. Assuming that all goes well, can I ask again whether we can have some confirmation that there will be scope to lay the financial resolution?

Cabinet secretary, Kate Forbes made an interesting speech last week when she spoke about the essential need for economic growth in Scotland to be dependent on good collaboration between the public and private sectors for investment. That message was very much at the top of her speech at Panmure house. What discussions have taken place in Government circles about possible collaboration between the public and private sectors for investment in the education brief?

The Deputy First Minister set out that message as part of Government policy and she has put that on the record in the chamber, as has Mr McKee. I assume that it is Government policy and, in my opinion, rightly so. There must be areas of the education brief where there could be successful collaboration between the public and private sectors.

In its evidence to the committee, COSLA made it very clear that one area where it saw potential was capacity in the outdoor sector. I am pleased to hear that the Government still has that as an option, because, obviously, that was one of the concerns that was raised.

I have two more brief questions. The minister has very kindly invited me to speak to her again, and I have already said that, at that meeting, I will be bringing forward some proposed amendments. Can I get it on the record that, at the same meeting, the Scottish Government will be doing the same thing and proposing amendments, as the committee has requested?