Seòmar agus comataidhean

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am locked out of both of my devices. I would have voted no.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am in a similar position, because my app is still not connecting. I would have voted yes.

Will the member take an intervention?

[Made a request to intervene.]

I hope that the member will make the distinction—I am sure that he will—between illegal immigration and asylum seeking. Sometimes, those become conflated, and that is a very wrong perception.

The phrase “taking back control” is provocative. It is the language and policy of Sir Keir Starmer, but it comes straight from the Boris-Trump-Farage playbook.

Let me start with the following facts. Brexit has had a substantial impact on the mobility of employment in this country and, as others have said, it has particularly hit the hospitality, horticulture and care sectors and—I say this to Michael Marra—the construction industry. Brexit brickies. Polish plumbers.

The majority of migrants are here legally. The sad high-profile images of desperate people crossing the Channel in flimsy dinghies represent a small portion of migration to the UK.

Scotland has an increasingly ageing population. In the health debate yesterday, I advised that, currently, over 1 million people are over the age of 65, and that is predicted to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. That is 25 per cent of the population. In addition, the birth rate is falling. The ramifications are that we are short of people in necessary workforces, particularly in our health and care services, and that the tax take is reducing, which impacts on the delivery of public services, not simply through the workforce but in terms of revenue and funding.

Asylum seekers are trapped for long months and even years in the UK system and they are not permitted to work and contribute to the economy. Rural areas feel the brunt because of the nature of the employment there, which often involves farming, fishing and hospitality. It is abundantly clear that Scotland, unlike the overheated and pressurised south of England—I do have sympathy, given the pressures on public services there—needs a tailored migration system.

The Scottish Government proposed a rural visa pilot scheme for Scottish remote and rural areas, which was jointly led by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. It set out a practical and robust approach to delivering a pilot scheme between the UK Government, the Scottish Government, local authorities, employers and communities. Participating employers, in collaboration with Scottish Government and UK Government organisations, would have been responsible for ensuring that the scheme’s terms and conditions continued to be met. After four years, restrictions would have lifted and migrants would have been free to work anywhere in the UK outside their community pilot area.

In 2019, the UK Migration Advisory Committee, giving evidence to a committee in this Parliament, accepted that

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

What happened to the rural visa pilot scheme? It was blocked and binned by Sir Keir Starmer because he is desperate to keep tight reins on devolution, saying, “Keep and know your place,” and he is trying to keep Reform UK at bay. That is some message from him. He should remember that, at the election, Labour got only 33 per cent of the vote on a turnout of under 60 per cent. He hardly speaks for the UK, let alone for Scotland. “An island of strangers”—perhaps it is for Sir Keir Starmer, but not in Scotland and not in our name.

To ask the Scottish Government what support it will provide to businesses to redevelop and use former mills and other disused buildings, in order to support regeneration and economic development. (S6O-04773)

The Bristol mill at the entrance to Galashiels on the Edinburgh road closed in 1998. There have been many proposals to redevelop the site for commercial and housing purposes, but its listing is a major obstacle. Does the cabinet secretary consider that Historic Environment Scotland’s process to delist or even permit the demolition of listed mills needs to be reviewed to allow economic development to meet modern requirements?

Oh! You have caught me on the hop, Presiding Officer—not for the first time.

“What on earth is the Scottish Law Commission?” I hear you ask—or perhaps not. I say that even knowing that commissioners and staff are in the public gallery. Is that a brave or a foolhardy move? I leave that to the jury.

As for Michael Clancy, we go back a long way, especially as I twice convened the Justice Committee—I will leave it at that; my lips are sealed.

Quietly and effectively in the background, understated to the point of invisibility—that is a compliment—the Scottish Law Commission recommends reforms to improve, simplify and update the law of Scotland. It constantly keeps its eye open to the development of the law and ensures that it keeps pace with changes in the way that we live and work.

Outdated or unnecessarily complex law makes for injustice and inefficiency and leads to law being out of step—or even being bad law—instead of fulfilling the needs of ordinary people. That is bang on.

The Scottish Law Commission offers the Scottish Government independent—I stress the word “independent”—advice on law reform. Public consultation is an essential step in the process to ensure that the recommendations are workable and acceptable. For example, as we have heard, the Scottish Parliament has passed legislation to implement the commission’s recommendations on the abolition of feudal tenure of land and on the protection of the rights and interests of adults who are incapable of managing their own affairs.

The commission has issued reports over many decades, such as the report in 2000 on real burdens. In 2010, the commission established links with the Malawi Law Commission, and, in 2020, it conducted a review of cohabitation law. In addition, the commission ran a social media campaign entitled, “60 bills for 60 years”—I do not know whether it deliberately made sure that it had one for every year, but that is how it has worked out.

The Scottish Law Commission must be distinguished from the Law Society of Scotland, the professional body for more than 13,000 Scottish solicitors, which was established in 1949. It aims to be

“a world-class professional body, understanding and serving the needs of its members and the public.”

I took that straight from the society’s website, so I am not making any comment about it.

The Scottish Law Commission is completely different from that. Quietly working off stage, in the wings, out of the spotlight of political dramas, the commission is invaluable in seeking out solutions to changing legal requirements, casting its collective beady eye over Scottish Government-proposed changes in the law or, indeed, suggesting changes that the Government ought to be considering—or not considering, as the case may be.

Politicians are often in too much of a hurry, driven by tabloid headlines and public clamour—of course, I exclude myself from that; my deliberations are measured. In contrast, the Scottish Law Commission, with its expertise, takes its time. Although it is ultimately the politicians who decide what form laws are to take, it is wise for the Scottish Government and, indeed, the United Kingdom Government to pay heed to the Scottish Law Commission’s comments.

On its 60th anniversary, I hope that I have helped to publicise the real, in-depth significance of the Scottish Law Commission to Scotland’s everyday life. I hope that I have also made it sound a wee bit sexy.

First, I do not accept that the NHS in Scotland is in crisis. It avoided being in crisis even at the height of the Covid pandemic, which was due, in the main, to its extraordinary staff. Yes, it is in challenging circumstances, but to say that it is in crisis is scaremongering—not that Labour is known for that. If the NHS were in crisis, one would have thought that Labour would have assigned all its debating time to that subject, instead of holding this very short debate.

I will try my best to make the following points in the paltry four minutes that I have for my speech. In relation to pressures, Covid continues to have an impact. Research by the University of Strathclyde states:

“The challenges faced by NHS Scotland are not unique and reflect broader global trends within healthcare systems.”

In relation to demographics and the ageing population, it was estimated that a million Scottish residents were aged 65 years or older in 2020, but that number will rise to an estimated 1.4 million by 2040, which will represent 25 per cent of our population. I am one of those people. As we age, we require to use our medical services, including GP surgeries, pharmacies and hospitals, more and more. At 80, I can testify to that. An ageing population also means that there is a depleted available workforce.

In relation to policy interventions, the Scottish child payment, which has cost £1 billion since 2021, supports more than 326,000 families and mitigates Labour’s two-child benefit cap. Poverty equals disadvantage equals ill health. There are many Scotland-only preventative measures that will, in time, reduce pressures on our healthcare system. That is why the U-turn on the winter fuel payment by UK Labour—which was shamed into the change by pensioners and the Scottish Government—is welcome, before another Scottish winter hits home and hearth. It is a pity that we cannot shame Labour into ditching the two-child benefit cap. [Interruption.] I have four minutes—of course I will not give way.

In relation to staffing, there are fewer people in the working population, but UK visa restrictions, Brexit and Labour’s policy to increase employer national insurance contributions, which will cost NHS Scotland an additional £191 million in one financial year, all have an impact on staffing pressures across the entire health landscape. That includes general practices and pharmacies, which I know are not recruiting because of the added NI burden—it is a tax on jobs.

In relation to pay and conditions, NHS nurses, midwives, paramedics and other healthcare staff across Scotland have voted to accept an 8 per cent pay deal over two years. The figure in the Scottish deal is significantly higher than the 3 per cent that was recommended by pay review bodies in England and Wales, where pay negotiations are continuing and strike action is a real threat.

The hospital at home service has a role in reducing the time that people spend in hospital and leads to better recovery. All such interventions, preventative measures and modern ways of treating people are reducing—and will, in time, further reduce—pressures across our healthcare landscape. We need a wider review, given the value and cost of interventions to reduce health pressures.

The Labour Party has to be honest about the impact of the labour gaps that have been exacerbated by Brexit, which Sir Keir Starmer is now embracing, even though he used to oppose it. The visa restrictions and the dreadful burden on employers through the increase in their national insurance contributions are all UK Labour policies to which I have referred in this very short debate, which, as I anticipated, is only about chasing tabloid headlines—it has nothing to do with reality.