It is no real surprise that economic migration is causing pressure on services in almost every UK region. But some of the coverage of the report from the Home Office's Migration Impacts Forum has been misleading. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch UK, said the report showed the "huge impact" of migration has "little economic justification" and called for a cut in the number of migrants from non-EU countries. In fact, the considered and balanced report does not paint a picture of collapsing public services under catastrophic strain.

It examines the impact of migrant workers arriving from EU accession countries, but much of the evidence it is based on is anecdotal, though it comes from housing, health, education and police services themselves. It does point out that coping with large numbers of new arrivals causes problems for social services. Of course we know, particularly in Scotland, that many vital areas of life would experience difficulties without them. These include provision of cleaning, catering, manual trades, and health and social care.

The report notes that migration has been seen as a key way of maintaining population in Scotland and that at a UK level some services and industries such as tourism and agriculture are now heavily reliant on migrant workers. While migrants can pose problems for the NHS, for example, by turning up at A&E rather than at a GP, migrants make up more than one-tenth of NHS staff in some areas, and are predominantly young and healthy themselves. Services will overcome some of the short-term pressures - for instance, the need for more translation services. However, it is clear that many public-sector agencies are effectively flying blind over migration.

Local authorities and social services complain that they have almost no accurate information with which to plan. The government's Worker Registration Scheme provides almost all the data we have. It's not enough, they told the forum. The gaps in our knowledge are major. We don't know how many migrants subsequently leave the UK, or move within UK borders. We don't know about those who don't register to work (including the self-employed, students and dependants). The system doesn't account for those who live in one area and work in another.

Services lack information about the long-term plans of migrants, and about their children.

Gaps work both ways, too. Migrants have a lack of knowledge about laws that might protect them. Many are vulnerable to exploitation by landlords and employers but do not know of the rules which might help them or where to complain. But the fundamental need is for much better information on the size, scale and distribution of inward migration to Scotland and the UK. As a people who have historically sought new homes and opportunities around the world, Scots are ill-placed to object to the principle of free movement and the benefits of cultural exchange. Scotland should reject calls for quotas and limitations on migration. But there is nothing wrong with arguing that we need much more information to enable public services to plan effectively for new and existing arrivals.