Scotland does not need large-scale immigration to fill its skills gap, a new cross-party group suggests today as it calls for a substantial cap on the number of migrant workers coming to the UK.
In their report, the new group's co-chairmen, Labour's Frank Field, the former welfare reform minister, and the Conservatives' Nicholas Soames, the former shadow defence secretary, call for a policy of "balanced migration", whereby, over time, the number of people coming into Britain is more or less equal to those leaving.
"This would stabilise the UK's population and greatly reduce the pressures on public services and society," they say. On Scotland, the report points out that between 1996 and 2006 the number of immigrants coming here was just 27,000, compared with 1.6 million going to England.
While it has been argued across Scottish political parties that immigration has been beneficial to Scotland's economy and has helped stem the projected decline in the nation's population, the new parliamentary group puts forward the case against the need for any sizeable increase in migrants.
It says: "It is often suggested that Scotland needs large-scale immigration because it has a declining and ageing population. This is simply not the case."
The report notes how Scotland's population is not falling. It has been about five million for the past 50 years and will remain at this level for the next 25 years "even without net migration".
Pointing to a slight increase in Scotland's population until the middle of the century, the report explains that the assumption behind this is that net international immigration will be 4000 a year and internal immigration, mainly from England, will be a net positive of 4500 a year.
The report goes on: "Some in Scotland argue that immigrants are needed to fill vacancies, to do jobs that Scots will not do and to invigorate the Scottish economy.
"All these propositions were also considered by the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs, which was unconvinced."
The MPs say the current points-based system, aimed at providing only those workers the country needs to fill the skills gap, should continue.
However, those granted leave to stay and work in Britain would, under the new group's proposals, only be allowed to do so for four years, after which they would have to apply again under a further points system if they wanted to remain.
"The main criterion for permanent settlement would be skills," insists the report.
A cap of 20,000 a year on non-EU citizens, including dependants, is suggested. The report also states that a balanced migration would mean a net annual immigration of 5000 as opposed to the current one of 190,000.
While the report notes a "proportion" of the 20,000 could settle anywhere in Britain, under its plan the likelihood is, given the current flow of migration, very few would venture to Scotland.
"It is up to the authorities there to provide the necessary incentives," it adds.
Mr Field, one of Labour's leading mavericks who led the rebellion over Gordon Brown's controversial abolition of the 10p tax rate, said he accepts immigration has brought "gains to some sections of the community".
However, he claims those who have borne a disproportionate cost through pressure on wages, longer waiting times for housing and increased demand on public services have been lower-paid black and white workers.
Habib Rahman, chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said the proposals ignored the positive contribution migrants made in the UK.
He added: "Many of the health professionals in the NHS are from non-European Economic Area countries."
