Hansard

Yes. The answer, of course, is that I was only one and a half minutes into my speech.

Let me make clear where we agree with the motion. Do we welcome international migrants to Scotland? Of course we do. Britain at its best has for centuries been a shining light of democracy, liberty and hope, and we believe that our internationalism abroad must be echoed here at home. As Ruth Davidson has said many times, in the debate on numbers, criteria, quotas, rules and percentages, we must never forget that behind those things are homes, families and human beings. Let me make it clear: we whole-heartedly support the UN’s international migrant day, and we welcome the fact that the motion clearly signals the status of refugees.

However, we must also acknowledge, as the first part of our amendment does, that the UK Government is on track to meet its target to resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees by 2020; that the UK Government has pledged that refugees will receive £8,500 per head for housing and healthcare in the year that they arrive, along with lessons in the English language; and that the UK Government has spent more than £2.3 billion on providing opportunities for work and access to services. We must acknowledge, too, that the majority of people who become refugees do not want to leave their home, community or country and live in hope that one day they will be able to return and rebuild their life. The first part of our amendment pays tribute to the UK Government, the Department for International Development, our aid workers and our staff from around the world.

Britain is the second-largest bilateral donor supporting Syrian refugees in the region. The United Kingdom has contributed £1.1 billion since 2012 for food, tents and other humanitarian aid and is giving a further £10 million to help vulnerable refugee minors who are already in Europe. The UK Government has provided more funding for refugees than any other western European country. It is a Government that is less about gestures and more about the solid long-term work at the root of the problem that aims to prevent people from taking life-threatening journeys and funding traffickers.

I turn to economic migrants and I agree with the Scottish Government’s motion. We make clear again and again what Ruth Davidson said to Conservative Party conference in October:

“for those who have already chosen to build a life, open a business, make a contribution, I say this—this is your home, and you are welcome here.”

We urge the UK Government to guarantee the rights of EU nationals to live and work here. However, as the next part of our amendment proposes, that must be a two-way process. The Prime Minister has to ensure that she looks out for the 1.2 million UK nationals, of whom 120,000 are Scots, who are in the EU. That means that we aspire to an open, reciprocal agreement in which UK citizens in other EU countries would be guaranteed rights to remain, and in turn those from the EU who have already settled in the UK would receive the same guarantee: mutual assurance for mutual benefit. That is, of course, a little different from the

“robust and common sense position”

that

“There are 160,000 EU nationals from other states living in Scotland ... If Scotland was outside Europe, they would lose the right to stay here.”

Those are not my words, but the words of the First Minister in 2014.

I am pleased at reports that the EU may be relaxing its hard-core position. Just recently we have heard prominent MEPs talk about possible associate citizenship of the EU. That will require rigorous scrutiny and inspection, but let us hope that the EU sees sense, confirms UK citizens’ status as soon as possible and allows our Government to make a reciprocal promise.

The next part of our amendment is on non-EU migration and a future immigration system that would provide migrants from outwith the EU equal opportunities to live and work here. I cannot imagine that anyone in the chamber believes that the UK should not have a border. Certainly

“Nobody’s suggesting uncontrolled and unmanaged immigration”

because

“we’ve ... got to get more of our own young folk staying here, maximising good jobs and more women in work as well.”

That was the First Minister again.

If we start from that premise, we have to accept that there must be criteria under which people can and should enter. The white paper on independence talks about

“a controlled, transparent and efficient immigration system”

that

“includes a points-based approach”.

That is a fair system, in which the doors are open to anyone who meets the criteria—currently, they are not open.

We will always work to make this country a welcoming place for international migrants, but we must make the immigration system a fair system that works for all and is in the interests of our communities and country.

Of course we acknowledge the UN’s international migrants day; of course we remember the refugees who have lost their lives; and of course we celebrate the contribution that migrants have made. However, we take an incoherent approach if we sit here and call on the UK Government to guarantee the rights of EU nationals and do not urge the EU to do the same for British migrants.

This Parliament must note that non-EU migration is essential and that a future, fairer immigration system can provide equal opportunities for all. Our amendment also notes the significant powers that the Scottish Government has at its disposal to create incentives for people to live and work in Scotland, and we must note the UK Government’s aid and support programme—the second largest in the world—