Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 27, 2023

Official Report 1256KB pdf

---

Rural Visa Pilot Scheme

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-10392, in the name of Kate Forbes, on a rural visa pilot scheme. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament recognises what it sees as the vital importance of seasonal and migrant workers to Scotland’s £15 billion food and drink industry and the wider rural economy; appreciates the need for businesses to have access to the workforce that they require to carry out what it sees as their invaluable work in providing world-class produce; recognises the view expressed by NFU Scotland that, “The labour shortages encountered across the whole chain in 2021–on farm, haulage, processing and packing–coupled with the Government’s late delivery of the seasonal worker pilot scheme led to significant crop losses and millions of pounds of wastage”; understands that employers in the UK have found it difficult to source domestic labour to take up seasonal employment on farms, and that, in 2020, despite the widely publicised Pick for Britain campaign, UK residents made up only 11 per cent of this workforce, and domestic recruitment in 2021 was at 5 per cent for Scotland; notes previous reports that the East of Scotland Growers, the UK’s biggest brassica producer, incurred losses of 3.5 million heads of broccoli and 1.5 million heads of cauliflower due to labour shortages; further notes that Seafood Scotland has stated that, within seafood processing, there was a considerable reliance on a predominantly Eastern European workforce; understands that these workers comprised 52 per cent of the rural workforce across Scotland, 69 per cent in the north east, and up to 92 per cent in certain processing facilities; notes the recent reports of businesses in Fort William, Portree and elsewhere in Highlands struggling to find staff; welcomes what it sees as the invaluable contribution that seasonal and migrant workers make to Scotland’s society and economy, and notes the calls for the UK Government to urgently review its position on the Scottish Government’s proposal for a Rural Visa Pilot Scheme, and for an urgent reassessment of immigration policy to increase access to the labour that it considers Scotland needs for its economy and communities to prosper.

18:24  

It is a year to the day since the Scottish Government published a groundbreaking proposal for a rural visa pilot in Scotland. In that time, the need for the initiative has only increased, but the United Kingdom Government’s silence on the matter has been deafening. When Mairi Gougeon gave evidence to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee this morning, I asked her whether she had had a reply from the UK Government on the matter. She said that she had not.

It is rare to find an issue that unites businesses across rural Scotland, political parties in the Parliament and organisations across the public, private and third sectors. However, the proposal for a rural visa pilot does exactly that. Such is the pressure on the labour market, and such are the stark warnings about rural depopulation, that it is hardly a surprise that the proposal commands widespread support.

The visa would allow for bespoke immigration that would meet the needs of particular sectors and geographies and enrich our communities and our society. It is modelled on the successful Canadian Atlantic immigration programme, which proves that it could work even in a devolved context and be transformational for local economies. However, despite widespread support, the obvious benefits for rural Scotland and the comprehensive work that has gone into developing the proposal, it has not progressed for one reason: the UK Government has blocked it.

I reissue the call to the UK Government to change its stance and think again. We need a rural visa pilot. Our businesses, communities and public sector services need a rural visa pilot. It is the only sensible solution, but, not least yesterday, we see the Tories pursue an increasingly damaging, ruthless and despicable immigration policy that pulls up the drawbridge and inflicts devastation on our rural communities.

For rural Scotland, there are three reasons why it is imperative that there be a rural visa pilot. First, we need immigration after decades of emigration; secondly, the population forecasts for rural Scotland are stark; and, thirdly, the impact will be deeply felt across all rural communities.

Scotland is a country of emigrants with a long history of people leaving our shores. That is perhaps most stark in rural areas. For decades—indeed, for centuries—we have haemorrhaged people who sought new opportunities across the world. That memory is in our national DNA. We, of all people, should have compassion for people who want to make Scotland their home and should recognise the unique economic and social opportunities that that affords those of us who are already in Scotland.

Many businesses in rural Scotland have great ambitions and aspirations but cite a lack of skilled staff as the primary reason why they do not grow and develop. Farms and fishing boats try but are unable to meet the ever-growing demand for sustainably caught and grown food because of the lack of people. At a time when costs are increasing, inflation has eaten into margins and the economy is stagnating, the last thing that organisations need is a staffing shortage.

The magnitude of the impact is difficult to quantify, but, just this week, NFU Scotland said that, in 2022, as much as £60 million-worth of food was wasted on farms because of labour shortages. Fruit and vegetable produce was especially impacted. That £60 million-worth of food was wasted at a time when our children are hungry, our economy is stagnating and key sectors such as agriculture have much to offer.

I mentioned population. We need only look at last week’s initial findings from the census to see confirmation of research that we previously knew about from the Scottish Fiscal Commission and National Records of Scotland. They demonstrated that rural Scotland faces sustained and substantial depopulation. The Western Isles, Argyll and Bute, Dumfries and Galloway, the Shetland Islands, Angus, Moray, the Orkney Islands and the Highlands could all experience population declines of up to 16 per cent between 2018 and 2043. Those figures are in stark contrast to some of the growth in urban centres, which demonstrates why the visa should initially be bespoke.

Population decline is not just a question of numbers and percentages. It will directly increase poverty, it will shrink the economy and it will hamstring public services, because, if the rural population decreases and gets older, as forecasts suggest that it will, there will be fewer workers in our national health service, our care homes and our grocery stores; there will be fewer children in our schools, enriching our communities; and our older people will struggle to get basic services.

Therefore, I come back to the fact that, tonight, we are not just complaining about the situation that our people face; we are proposing a workable, groundbreaking proposal that will reverse depopulation and ensure that there is a viable future for rural Scotland. The proposal outlined by the Government, with support from Shetland Islands Council and Scottish Rural Action, involves a community-based approach that allows rural communities to attract workers in line with their distinct needs. In agricultural areas, the demand might be for farm workers and, in urban centres, there might be more interest in attracting bespoke skills. Employers can advertise vacancies within designated geographic areas and then assess prospective candidates before recommending the chosen candidates to the Home Office for final approval and security checks. At that point—critically and, perhaps, most interestingly—there would then be a package of support to allow newcomers to settle.

I hope that the Parliament can once again unite, irrespective of party, constitutional lines or sectoral boundaries, and call on the UK Government to grant this opportunity for rural Scotland to reverse population decline and ensure that there is a viable future that enriches our communities and ensures that our economy can grow.

18:32  

I begin by thanking Kate Forbes for bringing to the chamber a debate that has a striking relevance to my constituency. As she mentioned, the census figures show a population drop of 5.5 per cent in the Western Isles in the space of a decade, and I note the future figures that she referred to. Those figures might be stark, but they are not surprising. We are now at a crossroads. The very existence of some communities as places where children grow up and people work is now in question.

I will take Harris as an example. Last week saw the phenomenal and much-awaited launch of the Hearach—the first whisky from the Isle of Harris Distillery. In passing, I note that the work and vision that have gone into that island enterprise are now quite rightly being celebrated. However, of course, all businesses need a workforce, and nearly every local business that I speak to is struggling to find staff. The local authority is having real difficulty in providing care for elderly residents. Harris—whose population has halved since the 1960s—simply needs more people, and, as I have mentioned in the chamber before, the on-going challenge across the Western Isles to the traditional concept of a house as a year-round dwelling is a major part of the problem.

There is no single answer, but, with fewer than one birth for every two deaths in my constituency, there is no solution that does not involve bringing more people to live and work on the islands. To illustrate the scale of the challenge, I draw members’ attention to the fact that the Outer Hebrides community planning partnership identified the need for inward migration of 1,000 working-age and child-bearing families to keep the islands’ workforce anything like sustainable.

In such a situation, we should not shy away from any available avenue. Immigration has the power to keep public services, industries and communities sustainable. I can think of local businesses that successfully attracted workers from eastern Europe. Those workers put down roots and, in many cases, their children have grown up speaking three languages. However, since Brexit, the UK Government’s approach to immigration is simply not working for Scotland—certainly not for rural Scotland.

We know from the Migration Advisory Committee that rates of international inward migration to islands and remote rural areas are less than a fifth of what they are to our larger cities. Communities are crying out for a bespoke rural visa scheme to encourage inward migration to those areas. We know that that works successfully in other countries, such as Canada, with its Atlantic immigration programme. The proposal has been endorsed by Scotland’s local authorities, business groups and Parliament. I remember putting the proposal to the UK Government when I was Minister for International Development and Europe. However, if the UK Government had any appreciation of Scotland’s distinctive demographic needs at that time, it did a good job of being undemonstrative about it.

Unfortunately, the necessary powers lie not with this Parliament but with another—one with an obsession with net migration and hostile rhetoric. If we are to create a wealthier Scotland—a Scotland that can meet the needs of its industry and public services and properly tackle depopulation—we need a tailored migration system. Communities in the Highlands and Islands need one sooner rather than later. Therefore, I hope that all parties will commit themselves either to providing rural visas to Scotland or to devolving the necessary powers so that Scotland can provide them herself.

18:36  

I genuinely thank Kate Forbes for bringing this debate to the chamber. I know that we always say that, but I think that this is an extremely important debate to have, and I hope that, by debating the issue under the auspices of members’ business, which usually provides a less heated forum, we can be more open and discuss pragmatic solutions to a rural economy issue that, as she quite rightly highlights, needs to be solved.

However, I think that the member’s motion focuses only on a solution based around seasonal and migrant workers and does not delve into the more complex issues around the rural economy.

Here is a fact: last year, we had record migration into the United Kingdom. So, the question has to be, why can Scotland not attract its share of that inward migration?

As far as I am aware, Scotland has the same percentages of inward migration, generally, as many other regions of the UK. It is specifically in the south-east of England that a lot of immigration is concentrated. Is the consideration for all of us not how we can get a less homogeneous migration system that better serves all of the UK, so that those who come to the UK can work and live in different parts of the UK more easily? It is about changing the system.

The whole ethos of what we are discussing is about how we attract people to Scotland. Why are we not attracting these people to Scotland already? I say to Ben Macpherson and Kate Forbes that one of the biggest issues is migration from rural areas to urban areas. Quite frankly, that is due to a lack of infrastructure, be that road or rail links. Anyone who wants an example of that can look at the south-west of Scotland, where the busiest port in Scotland, Cairnryan, is connected to central Scotland by the A77 and to England and the south by the A75.

I do not dispute the importance of infrastructure, although, as I have mentioned, housing is also important and is an issue that people in some of the other parties are less keen to engage with.

However, is the member not overlooking something major? Does he agree that one of the major reasons why people used to come from many European countries to live in rural Scotland was the freedom of movement that we used to have? If we are not going to have freedom of movement across Europe in the way that we did as a member of the European Union, we will have to create something else that works, but there is currently nothing that is attracting people from other European countries to live in rural Scotland in the way that they once did.

I respectfully disagree with the member. I agree that we are perhaps not looking at the whole picture, and that is what we must do. I feel that Kate Forbes’s motion is very narrow.

I return to the example of Cairnryan. There is no rail link to the port, so it has to be served by those arterial roads, which are completely inappropriate for the type of heavy goods vehicles that are used. Half of all goods going in and out of Ireland pass through Cairnryan, so all the communities along those routes have to deal with convoys of 44-tonne lorries throughout the day, which is hardly appealing in terms of country living.

On top of that, there is a lack of infrastructure investment in rural Scotland, and there is an increasing lack of childcare and adequate schooling, especially when it comes to specialist learning.

I have already mentioned affordable housing. Where are we going to house all those workers? We would have to look at matters such as highly protected marine areas—how do they encourage the rural economy? We also need to consider support for people at rural colleges going into farming communities.

There are also the cost issues with food production, and we should recognise the need for workers in food production. I wonder whether the Scottish Government and Kate Forbes have an answer to the question of comparative costs across the world. We import food into Scotland and into the rest of the UK, but we also grow food here. I note that some fruit producers in Spain, for example, use seasonal migrant workers. They bus them in, pay them poorly and house them in shanty towns. That might give us cheaper food, but we would definitely not want to go down that route. The only solution to that issue is to provide proper pay and to accept that food will cost more if we are to support our local food producers and the rural economy.

There is a moral issue here. Is it right that we suck migrant workers out of countries where they are needed? Before we get to the point of pushing our responsibility elsewhere, the Scottish Government needs to look at its support for our rural communities. There has been a lack of support in Scotland over the past 16 years.

The issue that we are trying to address is complex, and it is not just about migration from other countries—we will have to look at the issue in a much more pragmatic way if we are to find a solution.

18:42  

I apologise to members as I will need to leave early. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for agreeing to that.

I thank Kate Forbes for raising the issue and for lodging the motion for debate. I signed the motion when I saw it because we cannot run away from the issue. It is one that we, as a Parliament, must tackle. We can all agree that, after Brexit, there is a real issue with worker shortages across most parts of the Scottish economy. I want to be clear that both the UK and Scottish Governments have a responsibility to the people of Scotland to work together to find a way forward on immigration that works for Scotland. We know that Governments in other parts of the world have been able to achieve that. I think that Canada was mentioned, and there are other examples, so it can be done.

However, in the interests of transparency, we must also be clear that, even if we can achieve a tailored approach to migration policy for Scotland that addresses some of the restrictions in the current policy, on its own, that will not fix the problems of labour shortages and depopulation.

In the report “Scotland’s Migration Futures: Challenges, opportunities, options”, Dr Heather Rolfe and Sunder Katwala state:

“Despite its restrictions, the new system offers opportunities for a Scottish migration strategy”.

Scotland has a shrinking population and it sees migration as a means to ensure future stability and growth. It cannot wait until it has control over immigration policy to replace the restrictive points-based system, but there are ways in which the current immigration system can be used to help to ensure that Scotland can attract and retain the new citizens that it needs. Those could include encouraging European Union migrants who are concentrated in lower-skilled work to stay in Scotland through opportunities to move into skilled roles; attracting skilled migrants to growth sectors, including by reducing the cost to migrants by paying visa and health surcharge fees; building on the existing success in attracting students by raising awareness of the graduate visa, which gives permission to stay for at least two years; and supporting progression so that graduate visa holders work at or progress to skilled levels so that they can score points that are required for a work visa.

My point is that there are things that we can be doing now—and we should be doing those things, not simply sticking with that one tool. I accept that we need it, but that in itself will not solve all the problems.

I would add to the actions that we could take in addressing Scotland’s housing shortage, which, for me, is the greatest problem leading to depopulation in much of rural Scotland. If we add to that the lack of public infrastructure, public services and well-paid quality jobs, is it any wonder that we have this problem?

If we are to encourage more people to make Scotland their home, we need to be able to offer them a home. Given the housing waiting lists across Scotland, right now we are not able to offer people who were born here a home, never mind telling people to come and make Scotland their home. That is the reality of the here and now.

I would also say that migrant labour cannot be seen as cheap labour. I welcome the fact that, in the proposals that Scottish ministers have set out, it would be a requirement for all employers to comply with all relevant employment legislation and the Scottish Government’s fair work framework.

In conclusion, if the current UK immigration policy is not delivering for Scotland, the UK Government must listen to and work with this Parliament and Government to find better ways forward. However, at the same time, there is much that we must address that sits within our powers and our remit in this Parliament. It is not good enough simply to point the finger at Westminster when many of the solutions sit with us in the Scottish Parliament and Government.

18:46  

I, too, thank Kate Forbes for securing this very important debate.

Our rural communities recognise the need for migration to address the economic challenges that they face, but migration is about much more than work. Research released earlier this month showed that 74 per cent of people in Scotland believe that diversity is good for Scotland and 61 per cent believe that a mix of different people makes an area more enjoyable to live in. That makes the continued Westminster blocking of rural visa proposals put forward by the Scottish Government all the more frustrating.

The positive contribution that migrant workers can make to the local economy has been highlighted by members across the chamber, but I want to speak about the advocacy and support that we must offer to migrant workers.

Workers who come to the UK on the current seasonal worker visa are almost all housed in employer-provided accommodation on farm sites, in caravans or in Portakabins. More than half of workers on a seasonal worker visa do not consider their accommodation to be clean and comfortable. It can also be expensive. For example, six workers sharing a caravan could collectively have £1,600 a month deducted from their wages to pay for the roof over their heads.

If workers are to come and contribute to Scotland, we must treat them with dignity and respect. Far too often, their housing, pay and conditions are overlooked. A review of regulations and powers carried out by the Worker Support Centre Scotland indicates that it is unclear where responsibility for that sits in legislation. David Neal, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, stated that

“the Home Office has not demonstrated that it has the mechanisms or capabilities in place to assure itself that scheme operators are meeting compliance requirements. When serious concerns have been raised by workers themselves, it did not act promptly or seriously.”

That is damning criticism for an official report and further strengthens the Scottish Greens’ position that the Home Office is not fit for purpose and that control over immigration must be devolved to Scotland.

Rural and island areas have been quick to recognise the positive impact that an influx of young, often skilled and motivated families can have on their communities in boosting school rolls, establishing new businesses and filling staff shortages. However, migrants also face specific challenges when settling in the countryside. They speak of loneliness and social isolation, poor and expensive rural public transport and a lack of community spaces in which to meet.

Migrant workers must have access to an effective worker voice under the Scottish Government’s fair work commitments. We must provide suitable and flexible English as a second language provision, with embedded support for building social relationships, learning about the local area and sharing customs and practices.

Rural visas in the pilot scheme should set the language requirement at an appropriate level, recognising the views of groups, such as the Shetland Fishermen’s Association, that hands-on skills and experience in fishing and in other sectors such as farming or horticulture might be more important than advanced English.

Rural Scotland urgently needs tailored migration solutions, but we must not forget that it is people who are at the heart of driving our rural economies. The Government and sector can do much more to attract Scottish residents to seasonal farm worker roles and sectors in which many jobs are highly skilled and a core part of our green transition.

Wherever they come from, all workers should be confident that, in Scotland, they can expect fair pay, good housing and a warm welcome.

18:50  

I congratulate my colleague Kate Forbes on securing this important debate. She outlined the issues in support of a rural visa pilot for Scotland scheme very well.

As a member of the Scottish Parliament whose region covers a vast rural area in the south-west of Scotland, I am acutely aware of the real challenges that our agriculture sector faces when it comes to recruitment. Although those challenges are faced across many parts of Scotland, such as the Highlands and Islands, as described by Kate Forbes, they are also faced in the south-west, and I will focus my contribution there.

The Scottish Government is clear that inward migration enriches our society, and migrants make a net contribution to our economy, public services and public finances. Scotland’s demography, our ageing population and the depopulation of some remote and rural areas mean that inward migration is crucial to Scotland’s future prosperity. In the past decade, an estimated 45 per cent of overseas migrants to Scotland have come from the EU, but analysis has shown that there is a reduction of around 30 to 50 per cent in net overseas migration into Scotland as a result of the ending of the free movement of people. That is significant in the context of the latest NRS projections, which were published in January 2022 and which show that in-migration is the only factor maintaining Scotland’s current population growth.

The decline in labour from the EU is particularly acute in Scotland’s agricultural sector, and it is important to say why that is concerning. It concerns me because our farmers are our producers. They put the food on our tables, they are the custodians of our land and they are the future of our food security. Indeed, agriculture is the linchpin of rural Scotland, as it directly employs 65,000 people in production, while also indirectly supporting Scotland’s food and drink industry, which employs 360,000.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will, but please be quick.

Thank you. I appreciate the member giving way to me. As Ariane Burgess said, we have to pay and house people properly and we have to make sure that they have services. There is a cost associated with that that will inevitably have to be paid by the consumer, and we have to accept that our food prices will have to go up if we are going to compete with the rest of the world. Does the member accept that?

I thank Brian Whittle for that. I realise that our food prices have gone up because of decisions that were made by Tory Governments. When Sajid Javid was Home Secretary, in 2019, he agreed with the recommendations of the Migration Advisory Committee that we should have a rural pilot scheme in Scotland. I therefore respond to the member by asking what is the reason for that dither and delay from the UK Government?

I will focus on what I hear from south-west Scotland dairy farmers, who are saying that dairy farming is not seasonal—it requires work all year round—and south-west Scotland has 48 per cent of Scotland’s dairy herd.

I have previously focused on encouraging our own young people to consider rural and agricultural careers. In fact, last week, I was at the Royal Highland Education Trust event in Parliament, which was about supporting young people into agriculture. However, we require migrant workers. They are essential for farm operations, for the supply of dairy produce and for animal welfare. Many agricultural tasks do not have viable or affordable mechanical alternatives, and the availability and capability of local people is limited.

I reiterate that the UK Government needs to support Scotland by allowing the implementation of a rural visa pilot scheme so that we can have the workforce in Scotland, encourage immigration to our area and support our rural economies.

18:55  

I pay tribute to my colleague Kate Forbes for her motion and for bringing the debate to the chamber.

Some members might be wondering why the constituency MSP for the most densely populated urban part of Scotland is speaking in a debate on a rural visa pilot scheme, but I had the privilege of engaging in the issues in Kate Forbes’s motion, and the issues more widely, for some time as a minister, first working with Fiona Hyslop and then with Kate Forbes as minister with responsibility for migration.

It is important that the motion that we are debating is fact based. The warnings about the position that we are in are stark. Other facts are important, many of which are in the Scottish Government’s population strategy, which is an extremely important document. It is arguably the most important document in relation to our collective concerns about the future of our country, because our people are what matter most.

It is also a fact that, contrary to what was said earlier, Scotland has been an attractive place for migrants from the rest of the UK, from where—as far as I am aware—net migration is still positive, and for international migrants. However, there has been a dip in recent years since Brexit and we face real population challenges across Scotland, particularly rural Scotland, which are due to a number of factors.

That is the position that we are in. I was migration minister through the Brexit process and, although the pandemic exacerbated the situation that we find ourselves in, it was predicted through various engagements. There was a collective concern among all different types of stakeholders across the business community, the third sector and the public sector about the impact of a tightening of the immigration system as a result of Brexit. That concern remains. However, I was keen to look for solutions, which is what the motion proposing a rural visa pilot scheme is about.

In February 2020, when the Scottish Government published its paper “Migration: Helping Scotland Prosper”, there was determination among stakeholders across all Scotland to look for solutions, work with the UK Government and to work collaboratively to achieve tailored policy for Scotland. When that paper and those proposals were compiled, analysed and proposed, there was a focus on considering different options about what could be devolved, how it would work with the Home Office and what the practicalities would be. A suite of proposals was put on the table. They were not just Scottish Government proposals; they were backed by a huge number of stakeholders with huge credibility in Scotland.

I am trying to be pragmatic and have a proper debate on the matter. It is about tailored solutions. What would Ben Macpherson say to the parents who are leaving Dunlop because there is no childcare? Seventeen or 18 of them came to me, and I now have to organise a meeting with the local council. We have to widen the debate and understand exactly what is happening in our rural communities around services.

Considerations around the population strategy, which relates to the issue that Mr Whittle raised, are important. We need to be focused on those challenges, too, and the Government is.

Immigration is not a panacea for our population challenge, but it is part of the solution. Everyone understands that—well, not everyone does, but a huge number of people and stakeholders understand that and have inputted into the proposed solutions. The rural visa pilot scheme is one important solution but, collectively, we should also look again at the wider considerations about how the UK could have a less homogeneous immigration system and, in particular, what the Scottish Parliament could do to make a meaningful difference. We should use the debate to build momentum on those matters again and apply ourselves in a solution-focused way.

19:00  

I was not going to speak in the debate, but I am here, so I will. I say to Brian Whittle that my understanding is that the rural visa pilot scheme is tailored—it addresses community, employer and third sector needs—because one size does not fit all across Scotland.

I agree with Ariane Burgess that there is exploitation of some migrant workers. Without spilling the beans, I will say that I am working on something in my constituency, where I know that people are crowded in a place where their employer is charging them at least rent, if not for their board, so they are really trapped. They might not think that they are but, from our perspective, they are.

With the Deputy Presiding Officer’s leave, I will move beyond the seasonal to the all-year-round impact of Brexit in my constituency on three sectors—the care sector, hospitality and commercial driving by people such as bus drivers and lorry drivers.

There is no doubt that Brexit has had a substantial impact on the care sector in the Borders. People have left, never to return. In rural areas—I am speaking generally; I cannot say that this applies all the time—people are welcomed and become part of the community. In hospitality, that is even more the case. Hotels that I know well have cut their services because they do not have enough people to work there. The people who left were skilled, but their roles are not on the shortage-of-skills list.

The same thing happened with bus services across the Borders. Firms did not have enough drivers, so people lost services and timetables went all askew. [Interruption.] Does Mr Whittle want to intervene? I can tell that he is an athlete, because it is almost as if he is at the starting blocks—he has half raised himself.

I thank Christine Grahame for her fulsome introduction. She is right that we have a shortage of HGV drivers. A friend of mine who owns a haulage company said that we used to bring across a lot of Polish drivers but, because there is a shortage of drivers in Poland, Polish drivers are now being paid more in their country. There is a struggle to bring those people across, which means that we have to pay even more to bring them here. The morality of that worries me.

It is so good to hear a Conservative wanting to give people decent pay. I wish that the Conservatives would devolve employment law to Scotland so that we could work together.

There is a bit of both, but there is no doubt that some people left and could not return. Covid exacerbated that. People from Poland who used to work in hospitality in the Parliament have left and not come back. Brexit has had a big impact on people who were skilled in hospitality.

I go back to the big impact on commercial drivers. That is easing off a little, but not enough.

I will make my final point on immigration. One of my sons has gone the other way—he has just migrated to Canada. He is welcome there, but we have lost a family. The good thing about migrants coming here is that they are generally young—they are not my age—and, when they come here, they have a family. I do not think that we have to rely on that, but they help the demographics as well as contributing to the economy.

Migration is a two-way thing. We do not just receive—we lose at the same time. Brexit has had a substantial impact on the mobility of employment in this country, and it has in particular hit the sectors that I referred to. That has not yet been sorted.

I thank the Deputy Presiding Officer for her tolerance and I thank Mr Whittle for his interesting intervention.

19:04  

I always used to feel bad for the folk who had to follow Christine Grahame, and here I am.

I thank my Highland colleague Kate Forbes for raising an important issue in her motion, with which I whole-heartedly agree. I warmly welcome the opportunity to state once again that the UK Government needs to do more to enable these vital sectors to be supported to thrive in our communities.

The sustainability of rural Highland communities is vital to Scotland’s future, and it is no coincidence that many of the members who have spoken in the debate represent parts or all of the Highlands and Islands region. We all want to see a Scotland in which everyone can play a full part in society, with empowered communities that are able to shape their individual and collective futures.

I was surprised to hear that Brian Whittle does not feel able to be open and honest in normal parliamentary debate. However, I am grateful for his bigger-picture comment, because it allows me to talk about one of my favourite policy areas. I am genuinely excited by the engagement that we continue to carry out across Scotland as part of designing our forthcoming action plan to address depopulation. We know that there is no quick fix for the challenges that lead to depopulation and that the challenges vary substantially from one area to another. That is why we have engaged with a wide range of local, regional and national stakeholders to ensure that the final plan is place based and will best support communities to thrive.

Over the summer, I heard from people in the Western Isles about Syrian refugees learning Gaelic. In Inverness, I heard how migrants are keeping businesses and schools going. Along with Emma Harper, in Dumfries, I heard how business owners are begging for more migrants to come and work with them. In Bute, I heard how experienced and knowledgeable matching in various resettlement schemes, including for people from Ukraine and Syria, has brought home caring, economically active and loved members of their communities.

I am grateful to the minister for giving way, and I say to her that I always tell the truth.

There have been a lot of good speeches in the debate. Ariane Burgess talked about the fact that we must ensure that people are properly recompensed. I think that we all recognise the importance of migration, but, in doing so, we have to recognise and at least try to understand why we cannot get our indigenous population to work in those areas. We really have to home in on that.

As I said before, if we pay people properly, house them properly and give them proper services, there is a cost associated with that and, inevitably, that has to be paid for somehow, whether through prices being increased or the Government intervening to ensure that prices do not go up.

Core to our approach is fair work and a wellbeing economy. It goes back to what Christine Grahame was saying: there is give and take. There is a large Scottish diaspora around the world, and it is about sharing skills and expertise and ensuring that people who want to travel around and do seasonal work have the ability to do so and that those who want to come and live in, work in and contribute to Scotland can do that long term.

This summer, I also heard from people about housing, transport and connectivity solutions that are driven by the community and supported by national Government. We are committed to supporting locally tailored solutions across all policy areas.

We cannot ignore the important role of migration. We have just seen, with the publication of the early census data, that Scotland is in a different position from other countries in the UK. We are looking at a potential population decrease in the next decade. All of Scotland’s future population growth is projected to come from migration, so any reduction in migration will impact on the size of the working population. We need a solution that meets Scotland’s needs and allows our communities and economy to flourish.

Recently published research from Migration Policy Scotland has found positive public attitudes towards immigration. Nearly four in 10 people want immigration to be increased, and nearly six in 10 people see the impacts of immigration as positive at national level. Although there are negative attitudes towards migration, it is our job as politicians and leaders to discuss the issues responsibly and explain clearly why migration is necessary, positive and welcome—a good thing for communities. We must not join the likes of the UK Government in making the dangerous and disgusting comments about asylum seekers and refugees that we have heard over the past few days, which only seek to create a hostile environment that impacts not only migrants but the wider LGBTQ community and people of colour.

Even if we cannot agree on that, we certainly should be able to agree that the current UK Government immigration policy does not reflect the needs of Scotland’s communities, including those in rural and island areas. The UK Government continues to blatantly ignore calls from businesses to open appropriate migration routes for vital workers to come to Scotland.

The UK’s immigration fees are some of the most expensive in the world. The Scottish ministers have called several times for them to be reduced, because they create an insurmountable barrier for workers and employers. The position is not sustainable.

We recognise the valuable contribution that is provided by Scotland’s soft fruit and seasonal vegetable sectors, the challenges that they face and the importance of non-UK citizens to the economy. However, the food and drink sector in Scotland and across the UK has recently borne the brunt of significant shocks, including from Brexit, which have disrupted supply chains, created new barriers to trade and helped to drive up food prices. Labour shortages have impacted on both sectoral performance and the wider economy. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands has written repeatedly to the UK Government to urge it to provide more support to the sector and address the cumulative impacts.

On the important point that a few members have raised about long-term integration, I note that our rural visa pilot proposal importantly includes a route towards long-term eventual settlement for migrants.

That leads me to reflect on Kate Forbes’s comment earlier in the debate that we are not just complaining: the Scottish Government is going above and beyond to try to help the UK Government to be a bit more sensible on the issue. It is one year to the day since the Scottish Government published its rural visa pilot proposal, which gained overwhelmingly majority support in the Scottish Parliament.

Ben Macpherson was absolutely right to say that inward migration to Scotland is positive and broadly similar to other areas in the UK, with the south-east of England being an exception in drawing a higher level. That is why the Welsh Government and the UK Government’s independent migration advisory committee have voiced their support for our proposal, with the MAC stating that it is

“in the interest of the UK Government”

to trial the scheme. They are not alone in their support: many partners, businesses, leaders and even those who are not typically known as friends of the Scottish Government have backed our calls and been clear that a rural visa pilot holds the potential to support their local efforts in addressing challenges.

Despite that support, and despite the letter of a year ago from then Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands, we are yet to see substantial engagement from the Home Office on the issue.

Once again, I urge the UK Government to engage meaningfully with us and agree to deliver a pilot scheme in collaboration with the Scottish Government, key local partners and communities. Let it run, properly evaluate it and we will see whether the approach works for communities and their needs. However, regardless of whether the UK Government agrees to implement the proposal, we will continue to engage with a range of stakeholders, in Scotland and across the rest of the UK, to build the case for and widen the coalition of support around a rural visa pilot.

Meeting closed at 19:12.