Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy to give way, but I think that Christine Grahame was first—my apologies.

I want to begin by recognising, as many members have today, that immigration is a sensitive topic and that we owe it to our constituents to refrain from reckless generalisations. There has actually been a fair amount of consensus across the whole chamber. I suggest that, instead of making such generalisations, we ground our arguments in facts, as Liz Smith and others have done, reflecting the world as it is, not as we idealise it to be or fear that it might be.

In that spirit, I associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues and others when they acknowledged that illegal immigration should not be accepted or—what is worse—encouraged. I fundamentally disagree with Maggie Chapman. Illegal immigration has harmful effects in all the areas that are dealt with by Government portfolios, but especially in social security, which is already at breaking point in Scotland. It is clear that the matter needs to be addressed swiftly and effectively.

We must also admit that the previous Government did not get it all right.

I am grateful to Michael Marra for taking my intervention. One of my concerns with the white paper from his colleagues in London is that it does not recognise that in some sectors, such as the caring sector, there is a massive shortage because of the income that individuals in that sector earn. Is there a danger that people who give valuable care to disabled and older people in Scotland will be cut off from coming?

I absolutely agree with Christine Grahame on that point. However, it is a fundamental role of the state to ensure that we have secure borders, so I support efforts to curb the number of people who illegally enter the United Kingdom.

I think that it was one of the factors, but I am not sure that it was the only reason, which is why we need to look at the issue as a whole. Therefore, I support the curbs on the number of people who illegally enter the United Kingdom.

That said, I also agree with a number of speakers in the debate that legal migration can be a real positive force in the United Kingdom. Bringing in skilled workers from other countries helps us to build world-leading industries, which should be an ambition of all political parties in Scotland. We want to attract talented people to Scotland. We want to see people coming to contribute to our economy, whether they are doctors, engineers or scientists. They all contribute to improving standards across the UK.

At the same time, we should recognise that other sectors benefit from an increase in their workforce. As I said previously, and as Daniel Johnson debated, jobs such as care work do not require high levels of education, and the sector is not currently attracting enough people into that workforce in Scotland. Even if we could bring everybody who is currently economically inactive into employment, that would not solve our long-term problem.

More and more care organisations are struggling to provide suitable packages for disabled and older people because of staffing pressure, and the truth is that people in this country are not going into the care sector in the numbers that we need them to. I accept that we need to look at conditions and pay, but, if we are serious about ensuring that disabled and older people’s rights are respected and that those people are treated with dignity, we need to fill those jobs. The easiest and best way of doing that is to make allowances in the immigration system for carers to take up the jobs. I can personally vouch for the fact that carers from other countries can be excellent, as is demonstrated by the number of wonderful people who help me each morning.

To be clear, I am not saying that we should totally outsource those jobs away from British and Scottish people. I am in favour of any efforts that either Government can make to encourage more British young people into the caring profession, which is an incredibly rewarding career path indeed. However, unfortunately, any such scheme would take a number of years to bear fruit, and we have a short-term problem.

In the meantime, we have to play the ball that is on the pitch, not the ball that we wish was there. We have a need, and the rest of the world can help us with it. To bring in people who are ready and willing to contribute to our society and meet the needs, who can also help with the taxation system—is that not how any successful immigration system should function? However, at the moment, we are turning away people who could fill those jobs. It seems to me that a good way for the Scottish Government to promote more migration into Scotland would be to work to make it a more attractive place for people to move to, instead of pursuing anti-growth and anti-wealth policies.

The Scottish Government does not and should not have the powers to act on immigration law. What it does have is the power to make Scotland as attractive a place to live and work in as possible within the United Kingdom. It has the levers; it is time that it started to pull them.

The Government has dragged its heels on changing places toilets, introduced floating bus stops and restricted car access in large parts of our cities, so many disabled people continue to struggle to take part in society. If the cabinet secretary believes that disabled people provide so much value to the economy, will she explain why her Government continues to ignore their needs and to make it more difficult for them to earn and spend money in this country?

To ask the Scottish Government what the estimated value is of the contribution that disabled people make to the Scottish economy annually. (S6O-04772)

I, too thank the minister for her constructive engagement over the past few days. I recognise that I am late to the show on this matter, but I think that amendment 1 is important, and I ask members to agree to it this afternoon.

We all want unpaid carers to be able to maximise the amount of money to which they are entitled. We hear often from constituents that they go to one public body and fill out a form and then they have to go to other public bodies and do the same. For people who already have stressful, busy lives, that can put them off maximising the benefits to which they are entitled. Amendment 1 will ensure that, for that reason, the first appropriate body that someone goes to will be responsible for not only signposting but helping them to complete the necessary forms.

That already happens in local authorities in many cases, but we have heard many stories of local authorities not being able to provide those services, or of people slipping through the net. In addition, local authorities are not responsible for any work with external bodies. The same is true for Social Security Scotland, which is getting good at signposting individuals to the benefits that they are entitled to in Scotland but has no duty to signpost to local authorities or other appropriate groups.

Amendment 1 will clarify the situation. It will allow stakeholders, the Government and other interested parties to make sure that we get the regulations right when they are made and that they are correctly consulted on. I hope that the Parliament will accept the amendment.

We cannot hear the minister.