Hansard

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

When the United Nations established international migrants day at the turn of the century, it declared that migration could be beneficial for all concerned. It could be good for migrants, moving country to better themselves and to improve life chances for their families. It could benefit destination countries, bringing in new people to do jobs that other people did not want, and gaining new residents who were on average younger and more active than the people there already. It could also be good for countries of origin. Migrants around the world sent more than $400 billion home to their families last year—more than three times as much as all the world’s development aid put together.

That is the up side, but of course it is not the whole story. Migrants can also be exploited and underpaid by employers; ripped off by landlords; trafficked into slavery—or something like it; treated as expendable; or placed in mortal danger on the journey from one country to another, as we have already heard today.

Countries of origin can lose their best-qualified and most enterprising people, while older, poorer and less able citizens are left behind. One country’s demographic solution can be another country’s demographic disaster. As the UN also says, in destination countries

“Migration may reduce wages or lead to higher unemployment among low-skilled workers in advanced economies, many of whom are themselves migrants who arrived in earlier waves.”

That is why it is right to manage migration, and to do it in the context of wider society, protecting the rights and interests of new migrants and established residents alike.

Scotland has been at both ends of the migrant journey. That point was made at the St Andrew’s day rally in Aberdeen by Piotr Teodorowski, a local member of the Scottish Youth Parliament. He reminded us that, when the merchant Robert Gordon traded between Aberdeen and the Baltic region, thousands of Scots lived and worked in what is now Poland. Those Scottish migrants had gone to the other side of Europe in pursuit of opportunity. Among other things, they were known for their strong work ethic and for looking out for one another, much as Polish migrant workers are known in Scotland today. Some of today’s Polish migrants work or study at the university that is named after the said Robert Gordon, which was founded with the profits of Scotland’s Baltic trade 300 years ago.

Every part of Scotland has a similar story to tell of outward migration in centuries past and inward migration in recent years. Some parts of Scotland are still experiencing both at the same time. As First Minister a decade ago, Jack McConnell saw that inward migration offered part of the answer to Scotland’s demographic deficit, and his fresh talent initiative was so successful that it was extended by the then Labour Government to the rest of the UK.

That is important, for a number of reasons. It is an example of managed migration: an immigration policy that was tailored to Scotland’s needs, including an incentive for overseas students to study at Scottish universities; and an immigration policy that was for only one part of the United Kingdom, but which was supported by a UK Government, with overall immigration policy still decided at Westminster. Scotland’s devolved Government was leading the way, with the rest of Britain following.

That example still matters today. After scrapping post-study work visas across the UK in 2012, Tory ministers are now piloting a very modest variant at four English universities, prompted no doubt by the potentially devastating impact of Brexit on excellence in higher education.

Perhaps more significant—and also in the context of Brexit—the idea of enabling skilled migrants to work in only one part of the UK has been taken up elsewhere. The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is exploring the idea of a regionally specific work permit that would allow people to enter the UK to work in greater London alone. Last month, when members of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee met our London Assembly counterparts, they were keen that Scotland and London should work together to see whether such schemes could be part of the answer to the challenges posed by Brexit. I hope that ministers share that view and that they will work with the mayor of London and other devolved Administrations to explore whether it is possible to devise a work permit scheme that is specific to given nations or regions and could operate in the context of the UK as a whole.

The outcome of the EU referendum has changed the picture profoundly as far as European migration into the UK is concerned, as well as for migration from here to other European countries. We have heard important words about the need, over the next two years—and, indeed, beyond—to support the position of migrants from other European Union countries who are resident or moving here. That message to those migrants is important and to say that they should be used simply as a bargaining tool is not acceptable.

The Tory amendment talks of levelling up the opportunities for migration from non-EU countries. In reality, UK Tory policy is much more likely to level down opportunities for migration to and from our nearest neighbours, potentially doubling the number of people who would require a visa or permission to enter the UK.

We should reject the folly of Tory plans to impose artificial caps on inward migration, which take no account of our demographic deficit or economic needs. We should instead embrace managed migration to grow Scotland’s skills base and our economically active population. We should explore all means to do so in the context of the United Kingdom.

To that end, I move amendment S5M-03049.1, to insert at end:

“, based on a recognition of the country's demographic deficit and economic requirements, noting in particular the importance of students and graduates from both other EU countries and other parts of the world, and calls on the Scottish Government to co-operate with devolved and city administrations seeking to address similar concerns in other parts of the UK.”