 The next item of business is debate on motion 15184, in the name of Ben Macpherson, on the contribution of EU citizens to Scotland. May I ask those who wish to speak in the debate, to press requests to speak buttons, and I call on Ben Macpherson to speak to you and move the motion for up to nine minutes, please minister. It is a great privilege to begin this important debate and in doing so to recognise and emphasise on behalf of the Scottish Government and I know many others of the huge contribution that EU citizens have made to Scotland and are making so today. The day after international migrants day and just hours after the UK Government has finally published its highly concerning wrong-headed immigration white paper, this debate today is an opportunity for us as a Parliament to reaffirm our support for our friends, neighbours, colleagues and loved ones who have chosen to make Scotland their home and to focus on their wellbeing and to recognise the huge contribution that they make to modern Scotland. I would hope that every member of this chamber would want to say to the people who have come to study at and enhance our world-class colleges and universities. I hope that we would want to say to the people who have worked hard in businesses and public services right across the country supporting their families and their communities and to the people brought up here, born here even, who speak with a Scottish accent but have another European passport. Let us say to them, and this cannot be said enough. Scotland is your home, you are welcome here, we want you to stay and together we are stronger in diversity. Because European migration has been good for Scots and for Scotland, this Parliament knows the challenges that Scotland faces through long-term demographic trends with an ageing population and not enough working-age people coming through to replace those leaving the labour market, despite more people coming to Scotland from the rest of the UK in recent years. EU migration has helped to sustain the working-age population and has boosted our economic growth. That is why today's debate is important. It is also why the UK Government's white paper that was launched this afternoon is so concerning and wrong-headed and is deeply worrying for businesses and many others. Even the UK Government's key advisers on migration are clear about this. The positive impact of EU citizens has been immense. The UK Government's Migration Advisory Committee, its key advisers, state that there is no evidence that EAA migration has reduced employment opportunities for UK citizens. There is no evidence that EAA migration has reduced wages for UK-born workers and there is no evidence that migration has reduced the training opportunities available to British people. It is important that we tackle and address any misnomers around those points. On the other hand, the key advisers to the UK Government also emphasise that EAA migrants pay more in taxes than they receive in welfare benefits and consume in public services. The EAA migrants contribute much more to the health service and the provision of social care in financial resources and through work than they consume in services. The position on the positive impact of migration in evidential terms, as well as in principle, is clear, even from the UK Government's Migration Advisory Committee. Kezia Dugdale said that he thought that there was no reason to think that cutting down immigration would harm the economy. What is his response to that? Minister, did you hear all of that question when Mr Dugdale's mic was not on initially? I did, thank you for that important intervention. I was going to say later, but I will make the point now that Mr Javid's comments are erroneous and inaccurate. Our modelling estimates that taking into account of what has been proposed in the White Paper for Scotland in itself would cost Scotland around 6.2 per cent by 2040 in our GDP. That is an equivalent fall of almost 6.8 billion a year in GDP by 2040. We would have a significantly detrimental impact. That leads to the point that I wanted to make, which is that our Scottish Government analysis has shown—and many will know this—that each EU citizen contributes £34,400 in GDP per year and £10,400 in taxation, so that contribution is massive. Scottish Government analysis also shows that, because of the important part EU citizens have played in our population turnaround, EU migration is relatively more important to Scotland than other parts of the UK. I see that in my constituency of Edinburgh, Northern and Leith, one of the most multicultural and vibrant places in Scotland. We see it across Scotland, in our cities, our towns and in our rural communities. That is why it is so important for Scotland that, in the face of the current turmoil at Westminster and the two and a half years of uncertainty and anxiety that the UK Government has caused for EU citizens, despite all of that, we need to support EU citizens here in Scotland and make sure that they know they are welcome and feel welcome. As part of that responsibility, I was pleased to announce yesterday, as many will be aware of, that we in the Scottish Government will deliver an advice service for EU citizens in Scotland in partnership with Citizens Advice Scotland and their network of Citizens Advice bureaus across the country. That will be over and above anything that the UK Government has planned, which has not been forthcoming. To be frank, I do not think that the UK Government is doing enough. There is an urgent need for clear and trusted information about how people will be affected by changes in the immigration rules as a result of Brexit. The geographical footprint of Citizens Advice Scotland, together with its trusted status and existing network of advisers, will allow the service that we are funding to be delivered quickly across Scotland. That service is a practical step that we can take to ensure that EU-EA citizens in Scotland feel welcome, supported and valued. I am sure that Parliament will agree that it is the right thing to do. I wish that this was not necessary and that people who have done us the honour of making Scotland their home did not need to apply to retain their rights that they already have. Faced with that situation as a result of Brexit, I hope that, amid the uncertainty, our commitment to provide support gives some comfort and surety. Since 2016, in the Scottish Government, we have been clear that the Scottish Government will do all that it can to help EU citizens through the process of obtaining settled status. That is why we have also made a clear commitment to pay the fees for EU citizens working in our devolved public services, including doctors, nurses and other public sector workers on whom we all rely. However, the Scottish Government is also absolutely clear that EU citizens should certainly not be being asked to apply to retain the rights that they are already enjoying and have and have had for some time. They certainly should not be charged a fee for that application. Parliament should be aware that I have raised this issue with the UK Government and, most recently, with the UK immigration minister this morning. We will continue to make the case that there should be no fee, because, frankly, it is insulting for the UK Government to ask EU citizen relatives, friends, neighbours and colleagues to pay a fee to keep making such a huge contribution to Scotland. It is not just the Scottish Government that is calling for the fees to be scrapped. The overwhelming message that I have spoken to, whether that is businesses, third sector organisations or EU citizens themselves, is that it is unfair that people have to pay and apply simply to keep their existing rights to live, work and study in Scotland—a fee that not only applies just to adults but to children as well. Very quickly. Does the minister not accept that the fee to be charged is less than the fee that either he or I would have to pay to renew our passports? I thought that Adam Tomkins would raise that example. I have to say that the comparison is completely inappropriate and wrong-headed. When we buy a passport, we are not paying for our rights. To ask people who contribute the huge amounts in GDP and taxation that those individuals do is insulting and wrong-headed. I think that the Conservatives should really think hard about their proposition, because they are losing that argument. You can come to a close. I will come to a close. I will talk more in my concluding remarks about the fee position and the disastrous white paper that has been put forward. Let me be clear, Presiding Officer. Let me state again that the people of Scotland should be at the heart of the issue. The people of Scotland, of course, includes the EU citizens who have done us the compliment of making their home here. I hope that this Parliament will say today with one voice, that maybe I am being too hopeful with that, to our friends, neighbours, colleagues and loved ones. Scotland is your home, you are welcome here, we really want you to stay. I move the motion in my name. I now call on Adam Tomkins to speak to and move amendment 15184.2 for up to six minutes. With those closing remarks, I am sure that the whole of the Parliament will speak with one voice. There are tens of thousands of European citizens living in Glasgow, the city I represent, and more than 220,000 across Scotland as a whole. The minister is absolutely right to say—and I agree with him—that they are our friends, our colleagues, our partners, our neighbours. They work in education, in health, in banking, in finance, in manufacturing, in hospitality and in construction. They enrich our universities, our workplaces and our communities. Ever since the June 2016 referendum, the United Kingdom Government has been absolutely clear how important it is to secure the rights of EU citizens in the United Kingdom and UK nationals in EU member states. That has indeed been the first priority in bilateral negotiations between the UK and the EU, a priority repeatedly stated by the Prime Minister. For example, in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017, Theresa May said this, we will continue to attract the brightest and the best to work and study in Britain. Indeed, openness to international talent must remain one of this country's most distinctive assets, but that process must be managed properly so that our immigration system serves the national interest. Let me just finish the quotation and then I'll happily give way. The Prime Minister went on to say this, Britain is an open and tolerant country. We will always want immigration, especially high-skilled immigration. We will always want immigration from Europe, and we will always welcome individual migrants as friends on that issue. I hope that every member of this Parliament would agree. I am happy to give way to Gillian Martin. Gillian Martin, I thank Adam Tomkins very much for taking my intervention. You mentioned about talent attracting talent. Do you believe that talent is only something that you have if you are earning more than £30,000 a year? Is it rooted as being the threshold? Always through the chair please, Adam Tomkins. I think the member for that question. No, I don't think that talent is something that begins only at £30,000 a year. That's a proposition, as I understand it, which is to be put out to public consultation today. I would urge every member of this Parliament and indeed the Scottish Government to take part in that public consultation and to express their views forthrightly and robustly. The Prime Minister said in her Florence speech in September 2017 that, I quote, I want to repeat to all EU citizens who have made their lives in our country, we want you to stay, we value you and we thank you for your contribution to our national life. Mr McPherson didn't say this in his speech but when he used those words he was of course quoting the United Kingdom Prime Minister. The UK Government more recently in November just last month said, and I quote again, EU citizens are valued members of their communities and play an integral part in the economic, cultural and social fabric of the UK as do UK nationals living in the EU who are equally valued by their host countries and communities. I am happy to give way to the minister. Ben MacPherson, on those points, and I think that they are important ones, does Mr Thomson regret the fact that the Prime Minister stated that EU citizens had been skipping the queue in coming to make the contribution that they do to the UK? Adam Thomson. I think that the Prime Minister herself has distanced herself from those remarks and has apologised for them. I want to move on to the withdrawal agreement. The withdrawal agreement, successfully negotiated by the Prime Minister and her team with the European Union, provides that all EU citizens lawfully residing in the UK at the end of the implementation period will be able to stay in the UK. It also makes extensive, detailed and welcome provision for family members, children and dependents. This is what, of course, SNP ministers called for. So the question is why are SNP MPs now set to vote against this deal when it provides for what they called for. The withdrawal agreement provides that EU citizens who have been living lawfully in the UK for five years—I have already given way twice—the withdrawal agreement provides that EU citizens who have been living lawfully in the UK for five years at the end of the implementation period will have the right permanently to reside in the UK. Again, this is what the SNP demanded. In my view, they were right to demand it, but it is what the withdrawal agreement provides, so why is the SNP now minded to vote against it? The withdrawal agreement protects existing rights. Perhaps the minister can respond to those points when he winds up the debate, Mr Arthur. The withdrawal agreement protects existing rights to equal treatment and non-discrimination for EU citizens residing or working in the UK and their family members. Broadly speaking, they will have the same entitlements to work, to study and to access public services and benefits as they do now, subject only to any future domestic policy changes that would apply equally to UK nationals. I ask again, perhaps the minister can respond to this when he winds up at the end of the debate. Given that this is what the SNP rightly called for, why is the SNP now minded to vote against this agreement when it delivers exactly what the SNP said that it wanted? We agree, Presiding Officer, with the first half of the Scottish Government's motion today, but where we do not agree is with what I have to say, with respect to the minister, is rather empty virtue signalling about fees. EU nationals with indefinite leave to remain will not have to pay a fee and those who do pay will pay £65 if they are over £16 and £32.50 if they are under £16, which is significantly less than a British citizen would pay for a passport. Nor do we agree that the United Kingdom needs a differentiated or devolved immigration system. Experts have warned that increased deviation is not helpful for the economy. A report published, for example, by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, stated that it is not clear that significant regional variation would lead to a better match between policy and regional economic needs. At the same time, regionalisation has an economic drawback, the report said, which is that a more complex immigration system would increase administrative burdens for its users, not just employers but migrant labourers as well. The director of the CBI Scotland has said the same. The Food and Drink Federation Scotland has said the same. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce has said the same as have NFU Scotland. To conclude, Presiding Officer, let me just say this. Brexit, whether we voted for it or not, has facilitated the biggest change in our immigration system in more than four decades. The new system will be based on an individual's skills on what they can bring to this country, not their nationality, not on where they were born or where they come from. That means that, as we continue to grow the UK economy, we can seek out people with the correct skills and asking them to make Great Britain their home. I should say that I move the amendment in my name. I now call on Clare Baker to speak to her and move amendment 15184.1. Five minutes please. I am very much welcome this afternoon's debate, which recognises the value of EU citizens to Scotland and makes it clear that they are welcome here. At this time of continuing indecision and uncertainty, even chaos and conflict within British politics, we must not lose sight of the impact of the political debate on people, both people who are born and raised in the UK and those who choose to come here to contribute to our society, invest in our economy and enrich our culture. The debate is often framed in terms of economic growth, and that is an essential part of the contribution made by EU citizens. However, we cannot ignore the importance of the diversity that they bring to our culture and our society and its ability to enrich and enliven our everyday lives. It is depressing to look back over recent years at some of the reasons why we find ourselves in this fairly desperate situation, facing the possibility of leaving a union in ways that will make us poorer, less diverse and more isolated in international trade and relationships. The negative trail of migrants in the right-wing media was deplorable and goes some way to explaining support for a leave vote in areas that had low levels of migration. We have all had conversations on the doorstep when constituents who are concerned about their own jobs and their own housing needs tell us that they are migrants who are causing those problems. I always, politely as possible, explain that it is not the case and that migrants put more into our society than they take out. At the problems that they identify are more about a need for investment in our public services and our economy, but those views do still exist. I am very short of time. Tom Arthur I welcome Claire Baker's remarks. Can she confirm that the Scottish Labour Party supports freedom of movement for EU nationals and UK citizens across the European Union? As you see in the speech, I will recognise the value of freedom of movement. I was hoping that today could be a consensual debate. Obviously, the white paper has been published today and we will respond to the white paper during that process. Last week, I was at launch of the forthcoming report into Brexit on EU citizens living in Scotland, which focuses on their experiences, concerns and support needs since the EU referendum. As co-convener of the cross-party group on Poland, we had a discussion about the early stages on the research earlier this year. The final report of the EU citizens rights project Scotland with support from the Scottish Government is due to be published soon. It is a detailed piece of work that draws on conversations with EU citizens across Scotland after the EU referendum. At this stage, I will move the amendment as it recognises its work. People report feeling stressed by the lack of reliable and sufficiently detailed information on the EU settlement scheme, and a lack of awareness among applying for settled status is reported, particularly among vulnerable groups, perhaps those who are isolated or have a poor knowledge of English. The challenges of completing applications for those with little understanding of English, low computer skills and access and the ability to meet the application fee were identified. It is an announcement from the minister to address some of the concerns, along with his advice, as welcome. The decision to leave the EU will remove the existing rights of EU citizens living in Scotland, many of whom might have been living here for a number of years. They have children at school, they have jobs and they run businesses, they are part of community councils and they are elected to local councils. Their connections to this country run deep. Their status is changing through no decision of their own, but surely we do want them to stay and continue contributing to our society. It is then unjustifiable to make them pay to retain their rights, which can be significant if a family all needs to apply or difficult for someone to meet out of the cost of a minimum wage salary or a zero-hours contract. Professor Manning, the chair of the Migration Advisory Committee, gave evidence to the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee recently. I have to say that committee members were astonished by his analysis of the Scottish economy. I support his express desire for a high-skill, high-wage economy, but I cannot support the analysis that this was the result of the free movement of EU citizens, or that their jobs are unskilled and thus can be redundant to our economy. We do not know where the Brexit negotiations are going to end up, what the outcome will be, but the white paper published today will have a very different immigration policy. Unless we see a policy that recognises the needs of different parts of the UK, there will become greater and greater calls for flexibility. Scotland faces significant demographic challenges in the coming years. Our population is ageing and our birth rate is not meeting predicted demands on our economy and our society. We face skills shortages in specific areas, and we have at the moment EU citizens working in many sectors across Scotland in education, in our health service, in creating businesses and providing employment. As part of the European Union, they were free to do that, and the UK would feel like an extension of their home country. That is all about to change, so we must redouble our efforts to make migrants feel welcome in Scotland, to be clear that they are a valuable part of our society, to recognise and value the contribution that they make and to be clear that they are welcome to settle here, not just to be here to meet an economic need and then require to go once that is fulfilled, but to live here, to raise a family here and to be part of our community. Their contribution is valued and they want to see it continued. The three opening speeches have all had overtime. That has a knock-on effect to their colleagues who participate in the open debates, so tight timings please. Ross Greer, four minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Greens join our colleagues from the SNP and Labour in paying respect to the contribution of EU citizens and indeed to all people who choose to come and make Scotland their home. They have made Scotland a better place, culturally, socially and economically. We have had cause to debate the issues facing European citizens repeatedly in recent months, and each time I have talked about the benefits that free movement has brought to our education sector in particular. I have highlighted how West College Scotland takes part in Erasmus Plus, allowing students from Scotland to develop their skills in Denmark and Finland and vice versa. How UWS works with Dundalk Institute of Technology and Queen's University Belfast to conduct award-winning research. It is not just EU funding or the Erasmus scheme that has driven those opportunities, it is free movement. Free movement has allowed our universities, colleges and schools and research centres to benefit from thousands of talented staff from across Europe. Almost a quarter of the research staff at our world-class universities are EU citizens, as are 20,000 students. If we want to enjoy the full benefits of that, we need a system that is welcoming and attractive, one that attracts and retains workers, one that allows students to stay here after their studies. That is certainly what I believe is the instinctive desire of a majority of people in Scotland and certainly a majority in this Parliament. All across our society, we see the benefits that EU citizens have made in education, in health and social care, in hospitality, in tourism and construction and in every other sector of our economy. All of that is endangered by the crude racism of the UK's Conservative Government. EU citizens who want to come here after Brexit, if we do not stop it, will be subjected to the same degrading and inhumane hostile environment that those in the rest of the world currently face. Despite scandal after scandal from the Windrush generation to EU citizens themselves being sent letters ordering them to leave the country, the situation is only getting worse. The Tory's Home Secretary may prefer a new term, the compliant environment, as if that does not sound sinister enough to have come from the pages of 1984. The same policies and practices of humiliation and callousness remain. Employers, landlords, the NHS, charities, banks and other services are expected to act like border force officials, carrying out immigration checks. The Tory's priority is to deport first and let appeals happen later, as we saw with Windrush and elsewhere. There was a woman not that long ago, originally from Singapore, married to a British citizen for 27 years, for whom she is his primary carer. She is a grandmother, a mother of two British children, and she was torn from her home and put on a flight. That woman has finally been granted a UK visa over £55,000 later. She was fortunate to have raised that through public funding, but no amount of money will undo the trauma of being forced from your home and deported. We cannot crowdfund for everyone's basic rights. That is a system that is cruel by design, but it also has a shocking level of incompetence, almost baked into it. The UK Government's new procedure for offering settled status to EU citizens is meant to allow applications via a smartphone, but it only works on one operating system, so no luck if you have an iPhone, the most popular handset in the country. If you cannot use the smartphone app, you can go to one of the Government's locations that offer ID documents scanning, but there is only one office in Scotland in Edinburgh, so it is not much use to any EU citizen in Alipw, Strumnes or Stronar. You need to pay for the privilege, as Mr Tom can say, that even children will be charged. The UK Government will not let EU citizens in our public sector have their employer, the Scottish Government, pay for them. That is an ideology of hostility. No wonder there is no faith in the Home Office to administer settled status. It is no surprise to see the latest decision to impose a £30,000 minimum income threshold for migrants, including European citizens, after Brexit, and to restrict worse guild migration to single-year visas, only compounding the problem of precarious work. That is the kind of crass, cat-handed intervention that tears people's lives apart. It undermines our culture and our society, and it hammers our economy. Many European citizens in Scotland today will first arrive— It is just closing. Many European citizens in Scotland today will first arrive during far less than £30,000, or with no job at all. I earned far less than £30,000 before I had this job. That is going to cause a decline in our working-age population and undermine our economy for absolutely no good reason. It is clear that this Parliament must have the powers to set our own migration policy, one that is humane and one that meets the needs of this country. Willie Rennie, four minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I listened carefully to what Adam Tomkin said earlier on this afternoon. It is a rare thing that I do listen to Adam Tomkins, but it did happen this afternoon. I am sure that he is sincere with what he talks about in terms of immigration and being a welcoming country. However, it would be better if he had more influence over his colleagues in Westminster. He says from a sedentary position that he wishes to have more influence as well. I agree with him on that. If we did, we might not have the immigration paper that was published today, because there is no doubt that it is going to be damaging for our country. The CBI said very clearly earlier on today that this would be a sucker punch for many firms. The Federation of Small Businesses said that the proposals do not meet our needs. It will be nigh impossible to access non-UK labour with the skills that are required. The British retail consortium said that it will put pressure on prices of goods and services, so the impact on the economy will be significant from this white paper today. Charging EU citizens to keep the rights that they already have is rather an insult to them and the contribution that they have made to our country. To even qualify for this settled status, you need to have lived in this country for five years in a row. If you have contributed to the country for that long, paying that much tax, contributing to your community, undertaking important roles, perhaps in the public service or in businesses, then you should not be thanked with an invoice for £65. Of course, the simplest way to abolish this charge would be to abolish Brexit. That would get rid of all this problem when one fell swoop. I am sure that many in the chamber would agree with that sentiment, and that is what I am determined to continue to pursue. We know that immigration can be good for the country. Many have said that this afternoon already. It helps with the demographic challenges. The real challenge of the ageing population and a shrinking workforce relative to that population means that we are finding it more difficult to raise the taxes that we need to pay for the services that are growing and evermore demanding. We also know that many of those workers that come from Europe are providing a fantastic service for many local firms, including the fruit and veg firms in my constituency. They are part of a growing food and drink sector that hopes to double in value by 2030. With the new technology, we can extend the growing season, but that means that we need more workers for those businesses. Yet, with the exchange rate change and the impact of Brexit, fewer of them are coming to this country, so we have rotting veg and fruit in our fields as a result. The new seasonal scheme for non-EU workers is a step in the right direction, but it fails to make up for the losses of EU workers. We were always going to require to look beyond the EU for more workers. That was true, but the Brexit scenario has crushed the situation into a very short period, and we will have to deal with the consequences of Brexit by bringing even more people in to make up for the loss of people from the European Union. The Conservative Government is showing no signs of understanding the real needs of businesses, and that is another thing that Adam Tomkins should be saying to his colleagues at Westminster. However, it does not just apply to seasonal workers. It also applies to processing plants such as kettle produce and marine harvest in Fife, which require large numbers of people all year round. There is one thing to be sure about. If we insist that people should have assets of £30,000 before they can stay in this country, that will repel an awful lot more people from the European Union. It is much easier to go to France or to Germany where those requirements are not in place. Many of the workers come from Europe. We should be welcoming them to this country rather than repelling them. We now move to the open debate. As I said, timing is tight. Four-minute speeches, please. No more than that. Gillian Martin, followed by Alexander Stewart. According to a recent report, the local authority with the highest proportion of its EU nationalism in employment is Aberdeinshire. I cannot understate how much of a contribution people from across the EU make to my home in the north-east, and what life they have injected back into some of our sectors, in particular who struggled to compete with the oil industry to recruit sectors such as nursery care, fish processing, healthcare, public administration, higher education, transport hospitality and the various skilled trades that are involved in construction. The message needs to be emphasised continually, loudly and clearly that more than 95 per cent of EU nationals of working age are in employment, and their tax revenue helps us fund the services that care for us, our ageing population and our children. EU nationals who have made the north-east their home are colleagues, friends, children's teachers, nurses and doctors, and in the case of councillor Anook Kluppert, a Dutch national and adopted scott, and former MSP and now Aberdein city councillor Christian Alard, French national and adopted scott. They are serving as elected representatives, and I am sure that my colleagues in Glasgow would proudly name-check Provost Eva Ballander, originally a Swedish national and Airshire councillor, Joy Brahim, originally from the Netherlands. I also want to pay tribute to the many, many students that I have taught as a college lecturer from other EU countries. Our classrooms and lecture halls have been all the richer places for their presence there. A great many of the people whom we call neighbours, colleagues and friends who came to Scotland from other EU countries would have found it impossible in the proposed immigration system that the UK Government is set to adopt post Brexit, and with a £30,000 income cap and skill migrants being proposed. I genuinely also do not know what is proposed for students and those who want to stay and work and contribute post study here. £30,000 may be a pittance to the likes of Theresa May or Satjeev Javid, but it is not for most of our citizens. I have spoken many times in this chamber, but the detrimental impact we will have on university research. Most post-graduates and doctoral researchers are not on salaries above £30,000, yet it is their work that has helped to lead to breakthrough research in many fields. The Scottish Government has made it clear that we want EU and EEA citizens and their families to continue to make their lives in Scotland, and we know only too well that our Government does not have the powers over immigration. I agree with Ross Greer that we desperately need those powers, particularly after what has been released today. This time last year, Naveen Aziz, a dentist with a practice in my constituency and a number of others around the north-east in the highlands, raised concerns with me about how he was going to fill vacancies. Mr Aziz told me that, since the Brexit vote, the interest in EU-trained candidates in vacancies has completely fallen away. He said that problems were made worse with the changes in visa rules, which limits the number of visas available for dentists outside the EU. At the time, we checked with the Home Office about the amount of visas available for dentists, and they were the same number available to ballet dancers. I am not making that up. Changes in NHS dentistry by the Scottish Government meant an end to people queuing all along the street for precious NHS places, ensuring easy access to oral health. However, we cannot staff the vacancies with Scottish-born graduates alone. Replicate that story across all areas of healthcare and we have a looming crisis. None of this was our making. The last sentence that I want to say in this chamber in this year of particular Brexit mismanagement is this. Scotland did not vote to leave the EU, yet it is we who are paying the highest price. Alexander Stewart, to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. I am pleased to be able to take part in today's debate on the contribution of EU citizens to Scotland. The contribution has been beneficial and positive economically, socially and culturally. The UK Government has always recognised that as an important fact. It has been quite clear from the very start of the negotiations on a withdrawal from the European Union that securing the status of EU nationals currently living in the UK was a priority. At the same time, it wanted to ensure that protection of rights for those UK nationals currently living in other parts of the EU. Indeed, the rights of EU citizens are protected by the proposed withdrawal agreement that has been negotiated. The arrangements demonstrate that there is a clear willingness and commitment on both sides to guarantee the rights of EU and UK citizens and their families who make their current contribution and have been doing that through the freedom of movement prior to our withdrawal to the European Union. I commend him for the words that he said, but is he therefore just a tad embarrassed by the UK immigration paper published today? Alexander Stewart. The paper today sets out many priorities and we will have plenty of time to discuss that in the future, I have no doubt. People voted to leave for many different reasons. For some, it was a question of sovereignty. For others, it was about economic opportunity. Yes, for some, it was about greater control over immigration, but it was not about rejecting immigration altogether. A vote to leave the European Union has often been misconstructed by that. That simply was not the case. The fact that public polling has consistently shown that the majority of people in the UK are in favour of no restrictions on skilled migration, but that they want to see elements of controls on unskilled migration. That is a reasonable and considerable and a mainstream position. I would like to make some more progress as time is tight. Having the ability to reconsider the approaches of migration in the UK will allow us to make systems fairer for those who wish to stay. The approach that has been set up by the UK Government is indeed a sensible one, which takes the needs of all sectors of the economy into account. For example, those who remain to demand an unskilled labour outside the UK would work in particular sectors and particular times of the year, as fruit and veg farmers have already been discussed. The UK Government has recognised that and is trialling a scheme that will allow farmers to employ migrant workers for seasonal work-up to six months at a job shortage during peak production periods. However, we must also remember the significance of migration in Scotland from the rest of the UK. That is very important. Although 33,000 people moved to Scotland from overseas in 1617, 48,000 people came to Scotland from the rest of the UK. Just as trade, we trade four times as much with the rest of the UK as we do with the EU. The most important single market of labour to Scotland is the United Kingdom. That is exactly why we are calling for—individuals who are calling for—a distinct migration system for Scotland are mistaken. Concerns have been raised by representatives from important organisations of our economy, including CBI Scotland, the Food and Drink Federation Scotland, the Scottish Chamber of Commerce and NFU Scotland. It would create unnecessary additional bureaucracy, particularly for firms that operate on both sides in Scotland and the rest of the UK. It is unlikely to address a wider problem in Scotland's poor economic performance. In conclusion, we all value the important contribution that is made to life in Scotland by those who have moved here from the rest of the EU and look forward to the contributions that they will make from the future migrants who will come here. The UK Government is tackling this in a sensible proportionate way for the future migration and we should all welcome the opportunity, shape of a new fairer immigration system. I support the amendment and I am in Tomkins' name. It is a great honour to be speaking in this debate today. It is fair to say that the minister and other colleagues, including Gillian Martin, have articulated well the benefits EU citizens have on their economy, their population levels, their businesses, their public sector and their culture and their very sense of identity. Those are our family and our friends and we should do everything in our power to make sure that their rights are respected. However, it will not surprise you that I am going to focus my remarks on the local impact in my constituency. Just two weeks ago, I held a surgery for EU nationals living in Colbridge and Crescent. I let every EU national across the constituency to let them know about the day and that I am there to support them. I took those steps as it became very clear to me through casework that the Brexit vote and current discussions, if we can actually call it that, have caused a lot of concern among EU nationals who call Scotland their home. The event was very well attended. Normally this would be something to boast about for an MSP, but in this case I think it was very well attended because people are simply so worried. We have our citizens from all over the EU, Spain, France, Greece, Poland, Romania, Portugal, Germany, all valued members of our society frightened that they would not be able to stay where they have made their home. It is very clear that there is a lot of confusion and I was asked by people there that day for example how much it would cost for them to stay, what would happen to their homes they had bought, what rights their children who were born here had, where they stood with their permanent jobs they were committed to and the pensions they had contributed to, what access they would have to healthcare and much more. Sadly, as others have articulated, there is not a straight answer because Theresa May's Tory Government cannot come to any kind of agreement about how we move forward through this mess. This is not just simply party politics, this is real people's lives and an insult to the hard-working, indispensable and skilled EU nationals who call Scotland their home. That is why I have been glad to see some of the steps taken by the Scottish Government outlined by Ben Macpherson, including, as released yesterday, the £800,000 to the Citizens Advice Bureau to help EU citizens. At this point, I would like to personally thank Maria, who supported the event two weeks ago from my constituency, a Polish EU national who, as I said, supported the event and provided a translation service. She was absolutely invaluable and if the minister could use her advice and services at any point I would be happy to pass her contact details. I want to finish by talking about the proposed EU settled stays, the fee of £60. The more I think about this, the more I think that this is some sort of joke. $60 might not sound a lot to the Tories to my left here, but to some of the folk at that EU surgery a couple of weeks ago is one barrier to many. People are struggling to find secure employment or having to negotiate the welfare system, including universal credit, to bring up their families and make ends meet. However, there is another issue here, as others have said, the principle of the matter. We are asking people who have lived here sometimes for a long time to pay for the right to do so. Just think about that. How inhumane is that? I spoke to two people in particular, both who have been here many decades and made Scotland their home. I hear that there is huffing there, but they might want to listen to this. They brought up their families here and have paid taxes through their employment. One of those people told me that although through her work she could afford the settlement fee, she did not any longer feel welcome. In the 1990s, we are talking about how she has been here since and she has been really upset by this. The other individual felt the same. That is the issue for me. The rhetoric around Brexit has led to an uncaring and cold UK Government trying to appease the far right of its ranks, but on the ground this is the actual effect. People in tears at MSP surgeries feel that they are not welcome in their own homes. That is not on, and I ask others for the immediate scrapping of those fees. If they will not allow us to do that from the UK Government, they will let us take a different path in Scotland. I would like to echo the minister's message to all EU nationals in my constituency and across Scotland. This is your home, you are valued, and I will support you and fight for your rights. I start by commending Fulton MacGregor on the initiative of holding a surgery in his constituency for EU nationals. That is a hugely positive step. I am sure that colleagues across the chamber who have constituencies might likely replicate that, having heard your work in that regard. I support the motion in front of us. I have a bone to pick with the title of it, because he has entitled it, The Contribution of EU Citizens to Scotland. I am an EU citizen. We are all EU citizens, and it is to my great regret that I am going to lose that part of my identity come next March. I hope that there is a glimmer of possibility that we might yet stay, but the reality is that from March next year there will be two types of people in Scotland—EU, migrants and secondary, because of what the UK Government is about to do to them. That is something that I deeply regret. I also say to the minister and to the chamber that the Labour Party that I joined was passionately pro-European. It did not just support the concept of the European Union, it defended it and all four freedoms that came with it. The fact that the Labour Party no longer supports the free movement of people to me is also something that I deeply regret. It is something that I find very hard to reconcile not only with my own principles but with the economic and social needs of this country. I cannot believe that we have a Labour Party today, and I have said this before, that it is more comfortable with talking about the free movement of widgets than it is the free movement of people. I would encourage more of my colleagues to speak up in that regard. What I want to talk about today is the remarks of Sagi Javid and the policy that has been announced by the UK Government. Before I do that, I want to take a moment to thank the 39,000 EU nationals that live and work in this city that I am proud to represent. I want to thank them not just for their work but for choosing to make their life in this city. That is something that I do not think gets recognised enough. It enriches this city and it enriches the lives of all the citizens within it and our collective culture. The last time I spoke in this chamber, I spoke about the social care crisis in this city and how I feel about that. I know that that is going to be compounded by the impact of leaving the European Union because so many of the care workers in this city are EU nationals, its self-inflicted pain. Moving on to what Sagi Javid said today, first of all he said that there was no reason to think that his plans to reduce immigration would harm the economy. I find that astonishing because every bit of evidence that I have seen points to the exact opposite. It then got worse because when he was asked what level of immigration he thought the level should be set at, he said that it should be set at a level that meets first our economic need but at the same time is not too high a burden on our communities or our infrastructure. Let us call that out for what it is, which is dog whistle anti-immigration sentiment. The idea that immigrants are somehow a burden on our communities or on infrastructure is what has got us here in the first place. It is not immigration which is a burden, it is austerity which is the burden, that is what is compounding the problems facing our housing, facing our NHS. I have heard in the last few hours that some people and some trade union leaders call this metropolitan moralising, trying to discount the reasons why people are pro-immigration. I do not accept that. I think that it is a failure upon all of us for decades to defend the benefits of immigration. I take my own responsibility for that but I am damn sure that I am going to do it now. In the final 20 seconds that I have, I say to the minister that I commend him for the stance that he is taking on trying to ensure that no public sector workers have to pay a fee in order to stay and work here after we leave the European Union. In his closing remarks, can I ask him if such a commitment extends as far as to perhaps operating a grant system to EU nationals working in the public sector so that they get that money in advance and then they choose how they use that if they want to stay and I very much hope that they do stay and continue to contribute to our economy and our country. Thank you. I call Stuart McMillan to be full by Rachel Hamilton. Thank you very much. I am pleased to be speaking in this debate today but I am also frustrated that the debate needs to take place. Surely every member of the chamber would have understood and also appreciated how important immigration is to Scotland's economy and the Scotland society. Surely every member would welcome the contribution of EU nationals to our country. Unfortunately not is the clear answer that we have heard this afternoon, as is the one that the Tories once again set out on their crusade to defend the undefensible. I find that the settled status fee being implemented by the UK Government to be nothing short of appalling. I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to meet the fee for the EU citizens working in devolved public services as well as providing them with the information and advice. I generally welcome the £800,000 project that the minister spoke of earlier on, but it is somewhat unfortunate that EU citizens need to pay to retain the rights that they already hold, if only there was a way to fix that problem. The economic modelling shows that on average every additional EU citizen working in Scotland contributes some £34,400 in GDP and that is £10,400 in Government revenue. With a total contribution by EU citizens working in Scotland at approximately £4.42 billion per annum, I for one know that our economy, but also our society will be much poorer as Westminster drives people away. Today's white paper by the UK Government is clearly a pathway for the rich but a closed door for the public sector. NHS provider's deputy chief executive, Saffron Caldery, is quoted as saying that we are deeply concerned about what is going to happen. High skills does not equal high pay. It is not just health workers, it is social care as well. Claire Baker mentioned the migration advisory committee and the culture committee session that we had with Professor Manning a few weeks ago. I asked some questions regarding the social sector. To say that I was unimpressed by Professor Manning's contribution is an understatement, particularly his comments regarding care providers. His suggestion was that care providers should just pay more wages to their staff. I think that everyone would accept that paying more wages is a good thing, but that is not always feasible. The lack of appreciation about Scotland's tourism sector was also fully inshowed by Professor Manning. Certain issues raised by my colleagues Kenneth Gibson and Taby Scott clearly highlighted that there has been no economic modelling done by the immigration advisory committee about Scotland. Migration is normal and the contribution from EU citizens to our economy and society is rich beyond any financial analysis. Scotland's tartan is rich in colour and is vibrant in its culture. Our tartan is not just white with a bit of ginger on the fringes, it is white, it is black, it is yellow, it is blue, it is red, it is green, it is orange, it is brown. It is every single colour and every single creed. Growing up in Port Glasgow, I knew people from many different backgrounds. Some people from Ireland, some from Australia, New Zealand, China, Kenya and Pakistan. Every person I have met has made my life and also my community and our country the richer. I want Scotland to continue to welcome more Fabiannes, more Allards and more Acmids to Scotland. They are all welcome, but unfortunately the rhetoric from this UK Government has not lived up to that. Let us not forget the UK Government's comments a number of months ago in terms of the Brexit agreement. Nothing is agreed until it is all agreed. In conclusion, EU citizens are scared about what is going on at the moment, and no matter what is said today in London, that is not going to make the situation any better for them. I call Richard Hamilton to be followed by Willie Coffey. We know that EU workers make a fantastic contribution to Scotland's economy, especially in the hospitality and tourism industry. We must continue to make the Scottish hospitality and tourism industry a welcoming and attractive sector in which to work for both EU nationals and those born and bred here. On that note, I refer members to my register of interests. Currently, there are two main points that I must address in this debate. Firstly, that the Prime Minister has made it clear that EU citizens' rights are protected post Brexit. Secondly, that immigration policy divergence in Scotland would not be beneficial for our economy, which is both agreed by the Food and Drink Scotland and the Scottish Chamber of Commerce. Presiding Officer, I hope to raise some points of accord within this chamber today, and on that point turning to the findings of the UK Hospitality Workforce Commission 2030 report, UK hospitality eloquently set out recommendations aimed at ensuring that our hospitality industry is fit for the future. They highlight that an immigration policy must be evidence-based, tailored to hospitality workforce needs, moreover that the industry should achieve greater workforce diversity, both EU and non-EU, and that Government support for workforce upskilling to encourage older workers into the sector or back into employment. I do not think that I can. I have a lot of points to make. I am sorry to the member. UK hospitality noted that, and I quote, MPs and witnesses suggested developing temporary visas for seasonal work, similar to those called by the agricultural industry, to support the hospitality industry post Brexit. As we all know, there is a large demand in the summer months for hospitality staff, especially in the Highlands and Islands and with a dip over the winter months. That is the case across the UK, in Pembrokeshire and in Cornwall, and in London in particular. Industry has already welcomed those ideas. For example, the boss of Costa Coffee owner Whitbread is welcoming so-called barista visas. It is now our opportunity to inform a 12-month consultation on the white paper. We need to look closely at the current immigration tier system, as the MAC report suggests, and make reforms accordingly. It argues that we need to make changes to the tier 2 visa system, scrapping the cap for high-skilled workers, widening the range of jobs permitted, and reducing bureaucracy. There needs to be a better understanding of what is low and medium-skilled jobs, particularly when it comes to chefs and sommeliers. The white paper is not final, and we have the opportunity to contribute to the consultation. I hope that each and every one of us will do that. One important fact remains. For too long, we have rested on our laurels with a plentiful supply of labour. The Scottish Tourism Alliance has warned for years that we will have a skill shortage in the hospitality industry. That has been going on for a decade, long before Brexit. I do not want to take away from the debate today, but it is the failure of this Government to ensure that we tackle that skills gap effectively. Mark Ruffill from the SCA had reiterated those concerns, and yet it took until September for the First Minister to announce in Arran that she will commit to developing a specific campaign to promote tourism as a career choice. In conclusion, it is vital that we absolutely recognise the contribution that EU workers make in Scotland. In doing so, we recognise that we need action on ensuring that we have an immigration system that reflects the needs of the economy, of those sectors, particularly the tourism hospitality sector. Just to remind members that around 27,000 EU workers currently work within that sector, we absolutely welcome EU workers. Despite what the SNP likes to spin, the number of EU migrants in Scotland has continued to increase in the wake of Brexit, with 4,000 more moving to Scotland compared to in 2017. Again, that does not take away from the debate today. We must realise that the first priority of the UK Government in the process of leaving the UK has always been to secure the status of EU citizens living here, and the UK nationals living in the EU. The motion rightly highlights the valuable contribution to Scotland that was made by our European Union friends over so many years, and rightly calls out the UK Government for its disgraceful treatment of people who call this place home. Can you imagine how it must feel to live your life with your family and friends in Scotland, making a huge contribution to what defines us as a nation of just being a part of this place, when suddenly being made to feel unwelcome and that you will have to apply to keep rights that you thought were yours for so long? That one act has caused so much damage to those relationships built up over so many years. The fee is not the important issue here, although yet again Scotland has stepped in and offered to pay it. It is the principle that is wrong. It sends out a message that our European friends are suddenly no longer part of us, separate and to be treated as applicants in a new process that reeks of division and brings credit to no one. Ending freedom of movement might appeal to right-wing Tories, but it is a disgraceful policy that smacks of racism and xenophobia. It will seriously impact on our ability to grow our economy, but it also damages our country's reputation too. Scotland will fight this and reverse it as soon as we possibly can. Just take a look around the complex of our Parliament here in Edinburgh. Many of our wonderful staff have come from all parts of Europe to live and work here with us. The UK Government should not be treating it in this way and this application process should not proceed. Of course, it is not the only example of how badly the UK Government is treating its people. I mentioned last week here in the chamber the case of my constituent Laura Nanny, who, despite living in Scotland for 34 years from the age of four, is now being told that she cannot demonstrate that she is habitually resident in the UK and has been denied access to the most basic assistance through the universal credit system—an absolute disgrace. She has provided all the evidence that she can—employment information, family registrations, with all her children, all born in Scotland, GP, dental records, tax and national insurance, stretching back years and years. She has attended college and university, but still to no avail. What else does she have to do? She and her family and hundreds of thousands like her have paid tax, national insurance, VAT for decades, with no questions asked by the UK Government until now. That is a shocking way to treat a person who is as Scottish as you and me. It is a symptom of the same treatment being meted out to our European friends under the guise of taking back control of borders. The UK Government's white paper on immigration issued today makes matters even worse. It could mean a reduction of 85 per cent in the number of EEA workers being allowed to work in Scotland. I pray that I pay tribute to Laura's family, Italian dad Enrico and Scottish mum Rita, who decided to make Scotland their home in 1984. Like so many other Italian people coming to Asia, local families such as the Tignini's, Varani's, Bordoni's, Sinfariani's, Pideani's and Giusti's—to mention only a few—have shaped our communities for generations now and we are all the better for it. The welcome that is received was warm and their contribution has been immense. However, to now cast doubt over this enduring relationship surely has to be the lowest of the low. It is the start of second-class citizen status. Kezia Dugdale mentioned that earlier and it is being introduced by the Tories. Scotland needs a healthy migrant population to come here and work to help us to grow our economy. All of our expected population growth over the next decade will come only from migration, most of it from overseas. However, it is surely a bit more than economics. It is about citizenship, friendship, collaboration, shared values, sharing our cultures and traditions, living, working and studying together and, in Laura Nani's family's case, marrying and settling down to make Scotland their home. We must not and shouldn't put a price tag in any of that. Grazie per Askel Tarmie. EU citizens are welcome here. They are valued, they are wanted and this country would not be the country that is without them. It does need to be said and there does need to be a consensus in the chamber of all the parties, because EU citizens need to know that that is the all-out consensus of all the political parties in the Scottish Parliament, because they have had a long wait to learn of their fate and how they will be treated. It might be common sense, it might be philosophical to support EU migration, but the fact on the ground is that we need it, our economy needs it, we need the skills and we need it to grow our population. EU citizens made their homes here and they made it in good faith. They did not know that David Cameron was going to call a referendum and some of them have voted in that referendum and did not know that their lives would be severely impacted on. Others have said that the language used in this debate is deeply concerning and I know that the Prime Minister has apologised, but it is unfortunate that she used that phrase of cue jumping. I do not think that it is a phrase that will be forgotten about for a long time to come. Alas, we have some clarity, at least for EU citizens living lawfully. They will have some understanding of what their rights are, but the fee that they have been asked to pay is not a passport. It seems to me that they have been asked to pay for what they thought was existing rights that they already have. In actual fact, if you look at the arithmetic, it looks as if they are paying the administration costs to confirm that they have the right to settle. It is a wrong decision, a bad decision. Of course, the scheme is going to be hugely complex and a very tight timescale to boot. It has the potential to go seriously wrong. The registration scheme has been built from scratch and you wonder what happens for those who do not register by June 2021. Even if 5 per cent do not register, that is a lot of EU citizens out of that fee and a half million. To deal with the announcement that we had today, there might be a consensus on the chamber that establishing a criteria that a high-skill is someone who earns above £30,000 is something that is deeply concerning. There is often no correlation between high skills and high wages. Early career researchers and technicians in many professions will fall below that figure. It is not just members in the chamber saying that. It is said by the University of Scotland, it is said by NHS and so on. UK immigration policy post Brexit will make it more difficult to attract talent according to the University of Scotland. We have had the minister today set out the policy in immigration. As Kezia Dugdale said earlier, Sabah Jabot has said that there is no reason to think that the plans would harm the economy seriously. Wherever you think of the scheme that we are looking at today, it is utterly flawed to identify that highly skilled people will always be earning above £30,000. I have to say to Rachael Hamilton and Alexander Stewart, who have talked in this chamber in many occasions very eloquently about the problems of the hospitality industry. You are completely underplaying the problem if you think that asking people to come here for a six-month visa with no right to stay or live is going to solve the problem. You really need to challenge your own Government to stand up for the sector that you have so brilliantly. It is just not going to work. On conclusion, Scotland needs a regional immigration policy. 48 per cent of people voted to remain and support freedom of movement. Scotland needs to grow its population and we need the UK Government in the interests of the union to recognise the should be a regional variation on the question of immigration. I have appreciated the majority of the tone of this afternoon's debate, especially on a subject like migration. I think that there is a consensus in the Parliament on the overall premise that migration from other countries contributes immensely to meeting the unfulfilled needs of our employment sectors, but also equally and just as importantly adds to the richness of our society. I think that the contribution from those who have made Scotland their home is overwhelmingly positive. No one on these benches have disagreed with that. As somebody who has travelled, lived and worked to myself in other countries both within and out with the EU, I understand what migration means to live and work in someone else's country to adapt to new customs, new languages and new cultures. The majority of people embrace that with both hands. However, just as we focus on this debate around the 223,000 people from the EU who have made Scotland their home, we should not forget about the contribution of the 135,000 people from outside of the EU who have also chosen to settle in this country and make it their home. In the short time I have, I would like to make a few points that I thought are important in the debate today. The first of all was made at the right of the beginning, the outset of this debate, that ensuring the rights of EU citizens who are currently in the UK should be guaranteed whatever the outcome of Brexit it was and remains in my view the right thing to do. Many people were calling for guaranteed rights of EU citizens and their families to remain in the UK. Many people were calling for the rights of those citizens, including their entitlements to work, study and access public services or benefits, should remain regardless of what happens with Brexit. The rights of UK citizens, including many Scots who have chosen to make other countries their home, should all be protected. The withdrawal agreement does that as a matter of priority. If we strip away some of the political heaving and hoeing around deal or no deal, I think that there remains a serious point. If the deal that is on the table does do that, a deal that was mutually agreed between the UK and the EU 27, it remains a mystery to me why we would oppose that settlement. If it is very brief, Mr McMillan. I thank Jamie Greene for taking the intervention. I agree with Jamie Greene that the reason why the SNP MPs do not want to support the failing deal that is on the table is because it will have an adverse effect on Scotland's economy. It will put Scotland at an economic disadvantage. Is that what Mr Greene actually wants? The withdrawal agreement deals with our departure from the EU and sets out the premise of the next steps in the negotiation of future trade relationships. The future trade relationship will be for another debate when we have much more time to debate that. What it does do, and what is relevant to this debate, is that it guarantees the rights of EU citizens in the UK. I want to do that and I am surprised that Mr McMillan and his benches do not. It is a mystery. I can also make another point that controlled immigration does not mean no immigration. Very few, indeed, of any countries in the world have unrestricted immigration. We will continue to, and we will have to, continue to welcome people into this country. I have looked through the white paper and I think that there are a number of key points in it that I think that we have not talked about. There has been a lot of negative views on it and it is a complex issue. First of all, the important point to point out is that the cap on tier 2 workers will be lifted. Gillian Martin, in her speech, is concerned about the number of dentists in the north-east and, rightfully so, just as I am concerned about the number of medical consultants at Crosshouse hospital. Surely the removal of that cap would be a welcome move. The current system gives suitably qualified doctors in Madrid more preference than one from Manila. That is a by-product of the status quo, but if the status quo is changing—if I could finish—the status quo is changing, therefore the visa system must change, too, to deal with that change in circumstances. Tier 2 workers make up around 40 per cent of healthcare workers. It is not an insignificant number. Scotland has a skills shortage across a wide range of areas, and I could go into them in great detail. However, if the new system addresses some of those skills shortages, I welcome it. In conclusion, as we have made clear today, there is very little to disagree with the many points that are made right across the chamber. As Stuart McMillan said, immigration is normal. I do not disagree with that. Perhaps it is for the very reason that we have been too afraid to talk about it, as led to where we are today. If we wash away all the political dogma, if we have a sensible evidence-based debate about immigration, there are surprising amounts of consensus. Whatever happens with Brexit, if you have chosen to make Scotland your home, you are welcome, and I hope that we all agree on that. To all who have contributed to the debate about the 223,000 EU citizens from elsewhere in the EU, who have done us the privilege of making Scotland their home, I welcome the supportive statements and valuable contributions. Indeed, moving stories from across the chamber and from across all of Scotland about the huge contributions that EU citizens and our communities make to the enhancement of our collective culture. I will not be able to respond to all the points that are made, but I will try my best. There are four key things that I would like to go through that were raised. First of all, the fact that we all welcome EU citizens here and some of the issues that were raised around that. Secondly, fees. Thirdly, the white paper and then fourthly, differentiated solutions. In terms of welcoming EU citizens, there was a consensus around the chamber of the contribution that was made by EU citizens, and I absolutely welcome that in good faith. However, I think that there is a conflation going on between guaranteeing those rights in terms of the Conservative contributions and the withdrawal agreement. The Conservative UK Government could have guaranteed the rights of EU citizens much earlier in this process and failed to do that. When they did make statements, they were reluctant to come forward with details, showing the underlying point that the Conservatives have, and they have admitted that, used EU citizens as a bargaining chip in the negotiations. Secondly, on fees. I think that there have been some important points made, but apart from the Conservatives, there seems to be a consensus around the chamber that to charge EU citizens a fee to continue to contribute the huge amount that they do to our society. To propose a fee for children, for goodness sake, it is just completely wrong-headed and makes no sense. To equate it with a passport fee is entirely a misnomer, and the justification for the UK Government on that is just without foundation. As members have said, the Scottish Government has been calling, along with many others, for the fee to be abolished. The overwhelming message from businesses, third sector organisations, EU citizens themselves and many others is that it is unfair for people to have to pay a fee to simply keep their existing rights to live, work and study in Scotland. In the chamber today and beyond, I urge as many individuals, businesses, organisations and others as possible to write to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to make this call on social media for the unfair charge to be scrapped and to make their voices heard to the UK Government. As members will know, the Scottish Government has committed to doing what it can to help to mitigate the hardship of the settled status scheme and to pay the fee for those in public services. We will come forward with more details on that point, but our clear position is that there should not be a fee. However, one of the other barriers that we are facing is that there is no way for the Scottish Government to pay the UK Government and no way for employers to do this, many of whom wish to do so, to pay the fee directly to the UK Government. That is a nonsensical position. What is also nonsensical is that, to pay EU citizens a refund on their fee, we need to include a tax element to it, because, unfortunately, the fee is quoted as a taxable benefit. I know that Adam Tomkins said earlier that he wished that he had more influence on his UK colleagues, but I call on him to help to make the case that if we cannot get rid of the fee, let us allow bulk payment and remove it being a taxable benefit. On the point of the white paper, it is important to emphasise that we in the Scottish Government were not adequately consulted on the white paper at all. We were given very little prior notice of it, which is why it is not referenced in the motion, but I am sure that we will come back and have another debate on that at another time. As I have emphasised, our analysis shows a significant drop in GDP by 2040 as a result of what is being proposed in the white paper, indeed a 6.2 per cent drop in real GDP, which is a value of almost £6.8 billion a year by 2040. It would have a devastating effect. The reaction to the white paper has been very, very concerning from business, from the Scottish Tourism Alliance, the Federation of Small Businesses, SCDI, CBI Scotland, FSB Scotland, all raising huge concerns about what is being proposed in the UK Government's white paper on immigration. Indeed, the UK hospitality industry was referenced by Conservative members. They are also deeply concerned about what is being proposed. Lastly, there was a dismissive approach by many members on the Conservative benches to a differentiated set of solutions for Scotland. I have to say that today's white paper has really brought many people to a place of much more open-mindedness about differentiated solutions for Scotland. The CBI, for example, has said that calls for devolved and regional immigration policies will only grow louder if there are not changes to what is being proposed in the white paper. The FSB has also stated that there is distinct demographic and employment needs in Scotland and that there would be a system in Scotland that would respond to particular needs of Scottish India, industry and demography, which would be potentially welcome. Importantly, SCDI has said that a more restrictive system means that the case for greater flexibility for Scotland increases. We have a position where not only is it important that we as a Parliament emphasise how important EU citizens make in their contribution to Scotland, but that we work together to seek solutions and be constructive in that manner to make a difference for Scotland. That is what we are in the Scottish Government, and indeed, in other parties, it would be good if the Scottish Conservatives could show some willingness towards that. Presiding Officer, let me conclude by reiterating once again how much this Government and I believe this Parliament have confidence in that from today. Indeed, Scotland as a whole welcomes and supports the many EU citizens who have built their lives here and call this their home. The story of Scotland's population has long been one of outward migration, of Scotland seeking opportunities abroad or being forced to leave their homeland. That is not our national story any more. In large part, we have people from other countries and especially those from other EU member states to thank for that. We are in a more positive place because of migration. EU citizens are a welcome and integral part of communities across the country and are valued employees and employers in key sectors such as health and social care, education, construction, tourism and hospitality, culture, rural industries, financial services, agriculture, aquaculture and, indeed, every other part of economy. They enrich our society, and so I say it again. Our friends, neighbours, colleagues and loved ones who are EU citizens, they make a huge contribution that benefits us all. They are welcome in Scotland and we want them to stay in a Scotland that looks out to Europe and to the world in a spirit of friendship, openness and solidarity. That concludes our debate on the contribution of EU citizens to Scotland. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 15192, in the name of Graeme Dey, setting out a business programme. Can I call on Graeme Dey to move the motion? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much and no one appears to wish to speak against the motion. The question therefore is that motion 15192 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The next item is consideration of business motion 15193, in the name of Graeme Dey, on a stage 2 timetable for a bill. Can I call on Graeme Dey to move the motion? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. The question is that motion 15193 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of business motion 15208, in the name of Graeme Dey, on a stage 2 timetable for a bill. Can I call on Graeme Dey to move the motion? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. The question therefore is that motion 15208 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of business motion 15195, on committee substitutions. Can I call on Graeme Dey to move the motion? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. We turn now to decision time. The first question is that amendment 15184.2, in the name of Adam Tomkins, which seeks to amend motion 15184, in the name of Ben Macpherson, on the contribution of EU citizens to Scotland to be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. We'll move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15184.2, in the name of Adam Tomkins, is yes, 27, no, 90. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 15184.1, in the name of Claire Baker, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Ben Macpherson, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. And the next question is that motion 15184, in the name of Ben Macpherson, as amended, on the contribution of EU citizens to Scotland to be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. We'll move to our vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 15184, in the name of Ben Macpherson, as amended, is yes, 90, no, 27. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. And the final question is that motion 15195, in the name of Graham Day, extending the stage 2 timetable of a bill. I'm not sure, is that one, actually? No, hang on a second. It is the contribution, yes? It's not amended. I'll try it here. It's not. It's not. It's a consideration of primary division of EU motion. There will be substitutions. Sorry. It is on committee substitutions. Okay, I'll put that one again. The question is that motion 15195, on committee substitutions be agreed. Are we all agreed? It's hugely controversial. That concludes decision time. We'll move now to members' business, in the name of Jackie Baillie. Thank you, Jackie. On the Scottish Government to penalise Scots for living alone, we'll just take a few moments for the member and the ministers to change seats and we'll resume.