Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

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.

First of all, I apologise to all the Presiding Officers, the chamber more widely and the cabinet secretary for my absence at the beginning of the debate.

All of my life, we have faced the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. However, in recent years, the seriousness of the global challenge has been even more evident. We can all see the need for us to save ourselves; in the shorter to medium term—the way that time passes—it is not our planet that is at risk but, in essence, it is ourselves. In order to save ourselves, so much action is required. For years, that need has compelled individual action—by me and many, many people around the world—as well as organisational activism and some corporate leadership. After decades of too much apathy and inaction from too many Governments in too many places in too many ways, it has been motivating and uplifting to see Governments taking more of the action that is needed.

That absolutely happened here in Scotland. There is hope, and we have helped to provide it through the 2009 act and many of the initiatives and investments that have stemmed from it. To be fair, we saw action at the Westminster level as well: David Cameron’s Government’s approach was a step change from the Conservative Party. We seemed to have a consensus that we needed to step up as a major player on the global stage.

Do not get me wrong: it is important to recognise, with humility and honesty, that Scotland alone cannot stop climate change. We need others in other places to play their parts, too. The UK cannot stop it either, but we can be, should be and have been leaders in all the different ways possible, and that must continue.

We may not meet the challenge as a global community, but people look to the UK to give them motivation, inspiration and innovation to do what they need to do, to retain hope, and to provoke action elsewhere. People look to the UK because our economy is one of the most advanced and biggest economies internationally and, historically, we have been the fifth-biggest emitter in the world. We have a responsibility from generations past because we started the burning of fossil fuels. We were the birthplace of the industrial revolution.

Scotland can make our contribution. We have done so already, not just in reducing emissions and making huge progress on that, but in developing new technologies, as Nova Innovation, which is a tidal development firm in my constituency, has done. We can collaborate with others, as we did at COP26 in Glasgow just a few years ago. We can do what we can to nurture and restore nature and enhance our biodiversity, as we have done in the Forth estuary, which the cabinet secretary has marked in recent weeks. In time, we can start to take more carbon out of the atmosphere.

We have a particular advantage in Scotland, given our natural resources. We have huge opportunities. I pay tribute to everyone who has been part of that—local communities, individuals, businesses and workers. However, Government and law have been key, as have public finance investments and policy direction. They have helped to provide markets with incentives and the impetus to push social change and shifts in consciousness. That political direction, ambition and leadership, and the consistency of that on the journey, has been so important in obtaining the momentum that we have had.

What is so disappointing, out of touch and wrongheaded about the UK Government’s announcements last week is that they will likely stall some of that progress by creating a wedge issue for electoral purposes. That sort of short-term thinking is everything that we do not need in tackling the challenge. It also dwells on the negatives when we should be focusing on the opportunities of the action that we need to take.

Whenever I receive letters from young people in my constituency, they are always about things to do with climate. They are convinced, so we need to match their expectations. Emphasising the local benefits of taking action on the climate emergency for our wider quality of life, as well as the need to reduce emissions, is important. Taking action will bring greater health benefits from less pollution for children and other people walking through our streets. Walking, cycling and wheeling will create greater opportunities for exercise. Eating less meat, fish and dairy products will mean a better and healthier diet for many people. Evidence that was produced by the University of Oxford in the summer suggests that that could have the impact of taking the equivalent of 8 million cars off the road in the UK.

Warmer homes will have a significant impact on costs, as will the action that is being taken to ensure that landlords meet expected standards in their dwellings. That will help people. I ask the minister in his summing up to touch on the challenges for tenement properties, because misinformation has been spread on those issues. That is a big issue in Edinburgh Northern and Leith, as it is for other members’ constituencies. It would be great to have some clarity on those issues.

There are many opportunities. We often focus on the economic opportunities of net zero, but the social and health benefits cannot be overestimated or overemphasised. However, I give a warning: we have missed opportunities in the past. The onshore wind farms that we put up in Scotland and across the UK were developed in Germany and Denmark. The UK had a comparative advantage in that technology, but it did not act on it. Now other countries are building those and benefiting from that employment.

Let us not lose those opportunities. Let us meet the challenge, and let us have a debate that is based on our shared collective interest. If we cannot meet the challenge of climate change, how will we deal with the potential challenges of adaptation? We must have courage, and we cannot dwell and wait.

I think back to the Leith dockers strike in 1913, when campaigners, individuals and trade unionists took to the streets of Leith and pushed for better conditions for workers. They lived in a time of deep income inequality, as we do now. Today, I want to speak on behalf of my constituents, too many of whom are living in in-work poverty.

In 2017, we as a Parliament committed to addressing child poverty. During the period 2019 to 2022, 21 per cent of working-age adults were living in poverty after housing costs were accounted for. In that group, 69 per cent of children who were living in poverty were also living in working households. In addition, 24 per cent of children were living in relative poverty after housing costs were accounted for. That should concern us all.

Parliament and devolved Government have the capacity to make changes to public sector wage differentials and have done so, which is why we have successfully avoided strike action in a number of areas and provided a situation where public sector workers are better paid in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK, which makes an impact on reducing poverty. However, for the four fifths of the working population who are in the private sector, although the Scottish Government can do a lot of persuasion and pushing of employers to do the right thing—and the drive towards the real living wage has made an important difference—it is binding a real living wage in the law that makes sure that private employers pay enough. That is the problem with the situation that we have in Scotland. Many of my constituents who come to me in real difficulty are in households where the working age adults work in the private sector.

We are absolutely right to push for those powers over fair work, in particular, to come to the Parliament. Whatever people’s thoughts are on the final destination of Scotland’s constitution and this institution, it is clear that, if Parliament is to protect our people from decisions that are made elsewhere in the UK, that have a negative impact in Scotland and are against the social democratic governance that Scotland has voted for consistently throughout my lifetime, employment powers, along with more financial and social security powers, need to come to this Parliament to deliver social justice.

It is not enough for Labour Party colleagues to say that, if and when we get a UK Labour Government, it will be able to do X, Y and Z. What about the years in between when our constituents are suffering from a lack of good working conditions and fair pay? That is not acceptable to me,

and it should not be acceptable to any of us on the centre left. We need employment powers to come to this Parliament. Yes, cross-border issues will need to be considered carefully. Any Scottish Government with the powers over employment law will need to exercise them thoughtfully and responsibly, but it is absolutely right that control over employment law should come to the Scottish Parliament, and any UK Government should be forthcoming in bringing a Scotland act during the forthcoming UK parliamentary session that delivers that. It is the right thing for social justice and for making sure that this Parliament has the suite of powers that we need to protect our constituents who, too often and in too many numbers, have been living in in-work poverty. It is not right and it needs to change.

Will the minister be meeting the fringe society soon to discuss the successes and challenges of the most recent festival, including accommodation issues and the short-term let regulations? Will she be working with City of Edinburgh Council to make the temporary six-week exemption as practical and as effective as possible, particularly for those home letting and home sharing? I know that the Minister for Housing has committed to meeting the festival about that.

Will the minister also advise what work is being done from the Scottish Government’s perspective to support working and touring artists with regard to working and touring visas post-Brexit in order to maintain Scotland’s thriving cultural sector?

I recall previous discussions that we have had on the system. The member has talked about the revaluation that many people aspire to. Does he agree that it is important for us as a Parliament to get to a shared position before the 2026 election, so that we can get a mandate from the people of Scotland for a revaluation and for change? That is what is required; otherwise, the issue will be just a political football.

I hope that I have come in at the right juncture in Mr Kerr’s speech. I have a question that is similar to the one that I asked of Mr Rennie. The Conservative Party did not participate in consideration of reform of the council tax previously. Will it be open minded about that ahead of the 2026 election so that we can take a shared position across the parties?

Will the member take an intervention?

I thank the member for taking an intervention. I appreciate that, as an Opposition member, she wishes to hold the Government to account, but does she agree that all the main parties in the chamber have been in power over recent decades and that, in many cases, the issues that we are confronting together in our communities are the result of decades of challenge and consideration? Would it not be better to have a collegiate approach to serving our communities better?