Chris Murray

As someone who served on the Home Affairs Committee for two years, I pay tribute to the Chair and the other members, who I can see around the Chamber. I am a partisan person, and I enjoy a partisan political fight, but in a Select Committee one works with people from other parties to get into the weeds of complex and difficult issues. I found that to be a rewarding experience that brings a lot to democracy, so I pay tribute to the members of the Committee. The statement and report are important, because although immigration is one of the most divisive political issues, the report shows us that the public are nothing like as polarised as we would think. I attended the deliberation in Renfrewshire with the Committee, and on immigration the public are willing to engage with the trade-offs and find common ground between different positions. There is rarely someone who is 100% pro-migration or 100% anti-migration; they are much more open to persuasion. Does the Chair of the Committee agree that the report shows economic migration is a tool of economic policy, but that we struggle to talk about it because it is occluded by discussions on the small boats? Does she agree that the public are willing to engage with complexity and the trade-offs involved, and that they are far more thoughtful and engaged than social media and the press would have us think?