 I'm pleased to have the opportunity to turn Parliament's attention to Scotland's population needs and migration policy. Our discussion paper of that title sets out in stark relief how crucial it is that Scotland has the powers it needs to deliver a migration system tailored to the challenges that we face, challenges that are very different from the rest of Looking at the two amendments, I think that we can have a constructive debate this afternoon. I think that there is common ground. Like the Liberal Democrats, we think that there are parts of the overall UK system that have to change and we set that out in our paper. Like the Conservatives, we understand that any variable migration scheme would need to be developed in partnership with the UK Government. We acknowledge the concerns about variation but also the support that we have from business groups for tailor-made variation. A growing population and especially growth in the number of people who are working age is vital for a growing economy. Population growth has been the most significant driver of economic growth in both Scotland and the UK in recent years ahead of productivity and labour market participation. That has been sustained by people choosing to come here from other countries to live and work. The evidence is overwhelming but it is not new. Indeed, I recall Kenneth Gibson MSP championing the needs to address Scotland's population challenges back in the very first term of this Parliament. The National Records of Scotland and the Office of National Statistics's joint projections tell us that, for each of the next 25 years, there will be more deaths than births in Scotland. Over a third of Scotland's local authorities face depopulation over the 25-year projection and the age profile of the population will also change. The proportion of the population of state pension age will increase by 25 per cent as the baby boomer generation reaches retirement. People aged 75 and over will be the fastest growing age group that is increasing by 79 per cent in 25 years. While 18 populations present a challenge across the UK, Scotland's situation is particularly acute given that our working age population will grow only marginally compared to the rest of the UK. The number of children being born in Scotland will decline. Unlike the rest of the UK, all of the projected increase in Scotland's population over the next 10 years is due to net migration. Let me be very clear that the fact that people are living longer, healthier lives is an achievement to be applauded. However, as our population ages and the proportion of those who work decreases, it is incumbent upon us as a Government and as a just society to ensure that we are able to maintain public services for those in their later years who have paid into that system all their working lives. Those are long-term and enduring demographic issues that all developed countries will have to address eventually. Scotland needs to address them now. Children and families are essential to this, and we have a comprehensive package of support for families. We are making sure that children born today have every opportunity to lead productive lives. The importance of quality early learning and childcare cannot be overestimated. We are expanding the childcare offer and we have the best start grant. We are also developing skills in the workforce and promoting innovation. Just as the population is a key driver for growth, so is productivity, and we have closed the productivity gap with the rest of the UK. However, groundbreaking does not fully address the impact of an ageing society, and the weight of evidence is clear and cannot be ignored. Migration is a crucial component in Scotland's current and long-term economic and demographic sustainability. Scotland faces different challenges in relation to population, demography and rurality from the rest of the UK. The Scottish Parliament and Government must have devolved powers that need to address those challenges and with the urgency that they require. We are not alone voice here. A consensus has been growing for some time. With every major party now seeing the need for a differential approach to migration, only last year Ruth Davidson wrote that post-study work visas should be reintroduced, questioned the target to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands and whether that is correct and said that, including students in the net migration target, it was distorted, counterproductive and sends entirely the wrong signals. I understand and I support initiatives on the post-study work visa, but does she not recognise that that scheme and other small schemes like that will not tackle the demographic challenges that we face both north and south of the border? I am not sure whether Willie Rennie has had a chance to read the document that we produced, but it is extensive evidence-based and it is exactly what we are saying that we actually need to have the opportunities to decide ourselves right across Scotland what we can do in terms of the choices that we can make. I would encourage him to read the document. The consensus that we are building is growing. A recent report that the Westminster Home Affairs Committee produced stated that the one-size-fits-all UK system is no longer appropriate and that a different approach is necessary. The Institute of Public Policy Research found that the UK immigration system does not cater for Scotland's unique needs. The Westminster all-party parliamentary group and social integration said in a report last year that responsibility for immigration should be devolved. We are asking, like many others and for many other political parties in Scotland and the UK, that the arbitrary and damaging net migration target be abolished and that the very least migration to Scotland would not be counted within it. The case for that could not be clearer. Scotland depends on immigration to grow its population, but it is UK policy to reduce net migration across the whole of the UK. The two contrary goals simply cannot coexist. Scotland's long-term settlement of working-age people who raise families here. The net migration target forces the UK Government to focus on short-term work visas solely to address skills shortages. That does not work for Scotland. Indeed, the fact that Britain has hit its cap on skilled non-European workers for an unprecedented third month in a row was a salary requirement leaping from £30,000 to £50,000 for February. That means that the UK is already turning away health workers, software development workers and teachers. That is even before the UK leaves the EU. The situation of Sheena Hath-Perry is another example of the current system just not meeting the needs of Scotland. She is a Canadian teacher willing to move from Nova Scotia to Mull to Teach and to Teach Gallic in a primary school that has struggled to recruit for that post. However, the Home Office told her and her sponsor, Argyll and Bute Council, that our certificate of sponsorship was rejected as I didn't meet the required points for the tier 2 visa. The short-term nature of the UK visas does not address an ageing society. That is why we are also calling for the ability to take a different approach to family migration so that we can improve the rights of people in Scotland to bring their close family with them. We need families, we need children, we want people to stay, to settle and to contribute. We also want people who have moved away from Scotland to build their skills and experience but who now want to return to be able to do so. The current rules on family migration and that system means that many UK citizens are unable to bring their family with them if those family members were born outside the EU. That cannot be right. That was a point that was made by the UK Labour Party only yesterday in a speech by the Shadow Home Secretary, who described the net migration target as false and unworkable, with Tory migration policy leading to the break-up of families, going against fair and reasonable values, discouraging people choosing to live in this country at a time when we need them most. We are calling for measures that will tackle some of the barriers to business, such as the immigration skills charge, for that to be reviewed. We are firmly of the view that businesses should not be penalised for simply employing the skilled staff that they need. To Lib Dems, I would say that it is not an either or of trying to influence UK-wide changes instead of pursuing tailor-made approaches to Scotland. It is both. I hope that the Lib Dems will not ignore the fact that Scotland needs that tailor-made policy, as we are suggesting. Of course, it is telling, Presiding Officer, that the Scottish Ministers have no say in the only existing measure designed to address Scotland's specific needs, and that is the Scotland shortage occupation list. It is vital that the Scottish Ministers have a say in what jobs are included on that list. There is some speculation that UK might increasingly move to an even more sector-focused approach to migration, and narrow central solutions will not work for Scotland. That is a whole economy, whole workforce, whole society issue. I hope that the UK will take a broader view. I also want to touch on some of the issues of the posterity work visa that have been beneficial. It is to the credit of this Parliament and the previous Labour-Lib Dem coalition that it addressed that specific need. It was indeed mainstreamed into the UK immigration system before its withdrawal in 2012. The Smith commission had, with all the well-measured party support, called on the UK Government to reintroduce the visa, but we have had no response and indeed indifference. We need to make sure that we can try and develop an evidence-based argument that brings the consensus from Scotland together to make sure that we can persuade the United Kingdom Government of the need for this change. The UK Government cannot argue that it can have a differentiated system on one part when we had the posterity work visa but not do it now, particularly when employers are crying out for the flexibility to make sure that they can tackle some of the challenges that they have in their economy and recruitment. The immigration system as it exists right now is already over complicated. We want to, I think, argue the case for reducing complexity and have simpler rules. It is also why, in terms of what we can do, we need to make sure that, for example, we use examples that exist already. Within the common travel area, the UK and Ireland operate their own migration systems with separate visas, but that does not compromise the principle of free movement within the common travel area. We are suggesting that there is a new route that allows people to live and work here and the condition that they remain in Scotland. It would not cut off or replace any other routes within the UK-wide system for people or employers. We now have separate tax codes for Scottish income taxpayers. I am in my last moments. I have been cut in terms of my speech time as well. It is possible that we can have a differentiated system and we have the tools that we can use if we so choose. Let us try to make sure that we can work together to try to deliver that. It is of concern that the UK Government's white paper will not be published until autumn. What we have done is set out a credible, well-reasoned, evidence-based case in our discussion paper. We will continue to engage with businesses, trade unions and universities and other bodies with an interest in attracting international talent to Scotland. We will build on the significant knowledge and experience in this area to shape that policy for Scotland. We believe that people who have chosen to call Scotland their home are vital to us, not just because of their significant contribution to our economic growth, but because they have enriched our lives and our communities, because Scotland is and wishes to remain an inclusive, progressive and outward-looking nation. I invite everyone in this chamber to look at the distinctive needs that we have in Scotland. We need a tailor-made immigration system for Scotland that recognises our needs. There are examples around the world of nations who have adopted such a differential system. There are no practical reasons why such a system would not work for Scotland. Presiding Officer, this is about political will, and that will is most likely to succeed if we can have a united approach when we come to decision time. I move the motion. I now call Jackson Carlaw to speak to and move amendment 10571.3, Mr Jackson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Beautifully crafty speeches are being truncated this afternoon, so if that seems a bit lumpy, that is obviously why. Your speeches are always beautiful, no matter how truncated they are. I begin by proposing the amendment in my name. Almost 60 years ago, I was born in my Eastwood constituency, Eastwood, where I have lived the vast majority of the years since, is a community that has proved to be home for many who have migrated to Scotland from the rest of the UK, the rest of the world and from Europe. Let me tackle directly some of the myths that are often repeated to me as an MSP. Myths founded in concerns that migration is responsible alone for the pressures on our infrastructure and public services. It is simply not true. Yes, we have a housing shortage, but this is not because of migration. We have seen radical shifts in the way that we choose to live, with far more single home occupancy and with longer life expectancy. Homes that might have been expected to appear in the open market two decades ago are now still happily occupied. Yes, we have busy hospitals and GP surgeries, but not because of migration. We have a population living longer but not always well. Even in the lifetime of this Parliament, we have seen new issues not envisaged when we first met, such as dementia and diabetes arising from obesity, present enormous strategic and budgetary challenges to the NHS. Yes, we have busy schools, colleges and universities, but not because of migration. Far more of our young people stay longer at school and proceed into further education of whatever kind. The suggestion that migration is at the heart of the stresses in our public life and services is a fantasy and a malicious and self-deceiving one at that. Let me be absolutely clear, both personally and on behalf of Scottish Conservatives, migration, immigration and from wherever is good, necessary and desirable thing. There is a strong, powerful and unarguable case for migration to Scotland and we are on its side. Willy Rennie? Has he made that case to his cabinet in the UK and do they agree with him? Can I allow myself to develop the argument, Mr Rennie? Yes, that is an argument that I make vociferously on behalf of the Scottish Conservative Party whenever I get the chance. Let me now turn to the Scottish Government's discussion paper, Scotland's population needs. There is much in the analysis of the changing demographics of Scotland laid starkly for all to see in this paper, with which we wholeheartedly agree. Scotland's demographic over little more than a century has changed extraordinarily. While 100 years ago it would be unusual to see a pensioner let alone an octogenarian on our streets, over the next 25 years, those aged 75 and over will increase by 79 per cent. It was described to me most vividly as being a demographic population pyramid that will be inverted in the next 25 years, and that is the least of it. As Scotland leaves the industrial revolution and becomes embedded in the early years of the successor technological revolution, all manner of change lies ahead, again vividly described to me by characterising the change over the next 30 years, as being every bit as complete and profound as all the change the world has seen since the battle of Waterloo in 1815. A constant through will be our need to have as entrepreneurial economy as possible with an engaged and productive workforce capable of sustaining our public services both financially and with people, and bluntly our natural population growth will not meet the task. We need to ask, though, why is it that currently only 5.9 per cent of the UK's EU citizens settle in Scotland when our population should equate to an 8.1 per cent share? After all, we have taxpayer funded university tuition, we have taxpayer funded taxpayer funded care for the elderly, we have taxpayer funded universal prescriptions. It is surely not that we offer a less attractive standard of social provision, nor is it as a result of Brexit, it long predates Brexit, even if Brexit does undoubtedly compound the challenge. We have to face up to the fact that, in the words of the SNP, we have to have a mature discussion on why do people leave Scotland, why a smaller percentage choose to come to Scotland and what over the next two or three decades do we need to do to change that? Where we do agree with others is in regard to the advantages of the post study work visa, and I welcome the support of others, which led to underpin the agreement that is now allowed Glasgow and Edinburgh to be included in the pilot arrangements. We and Michael Gove also accept the need for a seasonal workers scheme embracing agriculture and hospitality, which my colleague Peter Chapman will speak to later. However, the SNP invest heavily in proposals that either remove all the existing restrictions and then devolve migration to Hollywood, where it would apparently establish a unique system for Scotland. The discussion paper does its best to make that case, but I do not believe that, at this case, it convinces. Removing all existing controls to create a carte blanche regiments is frankly reckless, and while the demographic challenge may well be marginally more acute, it is a challenge nonetheless for the whole UK. While the potential sectoral employment shortfall and capacity is undeniable, it is undeniable in those employment sectors across the UK, too, and the public accept this. That is why Professor Sir John Curtis's report just 15 months ago, What Scotland is Making of Brexit, 63 per cent of Scots said that they do not believe that Scotland should have an easier migration system than elsewhere in the UK, and some 59 per cent of Scots believe that EU migrants should have no greater or lesser status than migrants from the rest of the world. The Scottish Government has spent the last 18 months making the alternative argument, but it has failed to convince Scotland. I will give you the time back. Yes, we are not saying that it is easier. We think that it should be controlled. We are not saying that it is taking away the whole system, and the question that Professor Curtis will have asked will have been about a whole replacement system. We are talking about a tailor-made system. I want to come directly to that point as well. Let me be clear that the UK must have a future migration system designed by the UK to meet the needs of the UK, and that system most certainly needs to ensure that, as a nation, we have the population that we require to meet the sectoral employment needs that we face, to ensure that the democratic challenges are met, and also, unimportantly, that we continue to allow migration to influence and enrich the shape and tone of our national life. Indeed, let me be generous again to the discussion paper and argue that the seven principles that are detailed on page 19, as being the characteristics of policy and systems on future migration, are on an equally sound basis for a policy across the UK as they are for Scotland. If I had the time, I would detail them, but I directly address some of the points that the cabinet secretary made, which are challenges to the UK and which I also support. My final point of argument today concerns the willingness of Scotland and Scots to enforce any variable or unique system. The paper rather coily suggests that, while the Scottish Government would set the policy, it would leave it to the UK Home Office to enforce the policy. I have to ask, because I think that this is a question that others will. When has any SNP, MSP or MP, and I mean ever, supported a Home Office decision to remove anyone from Scotland? I cannot recall such an occasion. Unless a policy, such as the demographic that bespoke differentiated policy for Scotland as envisaged, has an enforcement action underpinning it, it is simply not practical and I do not believe that it could be implemented. Presiding Office, I say that I am now out of time, but against the background of unprecedented change, the emergence of a world of wholly different styles and patterns of work, of social engagement and integration, of transport and communications, we cannot yet foresee, but which most of us here will live to see, against all this we need to recognise just how much Scotland will have to change and how much harder we will have to work to make Scotland the destination of choice, for entrepreneurs, for skilled workers, for talent and all its representation, and even in an age of increasingly populated by drones, acknowledge and accept that our social and public services will continue to need ever more dedicated individuals to sustain them. That is why my amendment encourages us all to seek, to identify and to agree upon here in Scotland and across the UK Isles and is this ambition behind which we will put our support tonight. Thank you very much. I call Willie Rennie to speak and move amendment 10571.2. Mr Rennie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that we all agree in this chamber, by the sounds of it, that immigration enriches our lives. It is disappointing though, however, that the Conservative Party as a whole do not support that position. Jackson Carlaw is a minority view in this. I am glad that he is making the case, but he really needs to make that case to people like Boris Johnson, who made the case during the referendum that 80,000 Turks were going to come over the border and flood the United Kingdom of Nigel Farage, who stood up on that breaking point poster saying that all those immigrants were going to come into this country. Those are the people that he needs to make the case to. Those are the people that he needs to persuade that they are wrong, and so far he is not succeeding. The Conservative Party is a minority voice in the Conservative Party. We are facing twin challenges on immigration. One is on the demographics, which we have heard quite a lot about, the 10,000 more deaths and births by 2041. We are also facing the challenge on the economy, where we have a shortage of workers in key sectors. On the demographics, we need to accept that immigrants are not a burden, they are an asset to the country. They tend to be healthier, they tend not to have families here, and often many of them go back home once they have done their job. They are not a burden to our society. In fact, the Government figures through the Government paper showed that the revenue to the Government on an annual basis is around £10,500 and they contribute about £34,500 to GDP. Therefore, we need to continue to have immigration in order to deal with that demographic challenge faced by 2041, where we will not have population growth but a population decline. Therefore, they are boosting taxes and they are paying for the public services that we all rely on. In terms of the economic challenges with the workers in the key sectors, we not only face problems with the NHS and social care, but we also face issues such as the agricultural sector, where there are thousands. In fact, about 10,000 workers in the food and drink sector have led to that sector growing to £14 billion within the past few years, and it is expected to double by 2030. The exchange rate, already as a result of Brexit, is driving some of those people away, so we are already struggling to get the workers that we need in order for that sector to thrive. It will not grow if we cannot get the workers in this country. On the university sector, where in my patch 20 per cent of the staff at St Andrew's University are from the European Union and about 10 per cent of the students, they are already being repelled by the Brexit vote and the message that we sent out on the back of the Brexit vote, pioneered by many Conservatives. Cabinet Secretary, are you aware of today's figures that show that we are now seeing a situation where non-EU migration is now larger than EU net migration, and a lot of the issues that he has raised are already being realised in the current immigration figures that came out today? Yes, and what is interesting about that is that Anton Moskatelli, when he made his comments last year in that regard, said that the vote on Brexit is not just repelling people from the European Union, but sending a message to the rest of the world that Britain is not a country that welcomes immigration and that it creates their uncertainty because of the lack of access, potentially, to the European research area, it is deterring people from it. I know many examples of academics who are choosing not to come here because they do not see this as part of the European research area and they do not see it as a country that is welcoming foreigners. That is the case in which the Conservative Government is pioneering with its hard Brexit. The real problem with that is that, during the referendum, people were promised that immigration would go down. People were promised that there would be fewer foreigners in our country. That was the aim of Boris Johnson's claims and that was the aim of Nigel Farage's poster to get people on site on the back of immigration. Now we know the real cost, potentially, to the economy of cutting immigration, and Jackson Carlaw agrees with that. However, now we know the real price of that, then there is a real risk that we will be facing a choice of meeting the aspirations of people who voted for Brexit and damaging our economy or the other way round. That is what is potentially dangerous about that. That is why we need a proper debate about it across the United Kingdom. It is a UK-wide issue. I disagree with Fiona Hyslop on that issue. Across the UK, the farm sector needs about 80,000 agricultural workers, the pickers at seasonal times of the year. In Scotland it is between 10,000 and 13,000. The dependence on those people is quite significant, both north and south of the border. If you look at the NHS, large numbers of people are leaving the NHS not just in Scotland but across the United Kingdom because of the Brexit vote that they are going back home. The dependence ratio is growing faster in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. However, the end point of the dependence ratio that is predicted is still at 67. In Scotland it goes up from 58 to 67 and in the UK it goes up from 61 to 67. The problems are similar north and south of the border. It depresses me that every time we face a problem in the chamber, the SNP comes forward with the answer that we need more powers for this Parliament. We need to lead the debate across the United Kingdom to tackle the problem across the United Kingdom. Just by cutting ourselves off and looking after our own problems will not solve the wider issues across the United Kingdom. That is why I oppose the SNP's motion today. Let's lead the debate across the UK to make the change across the UK in order to get the immigration system that works for the whole of the UK. I welcome today's debate. Migration always has the potential to be open to misinformation and exploitation. We must deal with the facts of migration, talk about its importance to Scotland, face the reality of population decline and the impact that this would have on our economy, our public services and our society. Although there are amendments before us, both the Liberals and the Conservatives seem to recognise the significance of the problem that we face. It would be a positive move if the Parliament could reach a consensus on the need to put a more honest debate about migration and a mature approach towards how we resolve it. That includes working with the UK Government and finding solutions that maintain the cohesion of the UK. There may be suspicions over others' motives, but there is a degree of common ground in the Parliament. I believe that the motion before us gives us an opportunity to reflect that. I do not agree with every conclusion of the Government's document, but I agree that if we do nothing, we are going to experience significant challenges in maintaining, never mind growing, our population. At the end of last year, IPPR published a migration strategy for the UK. It was a helpful contribution to the debate, and it highlights that immigration policy has too often been driven by political ideology, playing to prejudices and easy assumptions. The IPPR set out options for addressing geographical imbalances, but crucially, it argues that the Home Office would retain responsibility for issuing visas and non-labour migration would remain under the purview of central government. That is the nub of the debate if we are to reach agreement. How do we maintain a UK-wide system that provides the necessary flexibility for the UK nations and regions? The reality in Scotland is that we need people. Population decline would have a serious impact on our economy, our society, our public services, and we need people to settle in Scotland to boost our population. 20 years ago Scotland was facing real difficulties, and without positive migration Scotland's population would be in decline. People aged 7 to 5 and over are projected to be the fastest growing age group in Scotland, presenting huge challenges for our working-age population. For example, Audit Scotland last year published a report into NHS workforce planning. It is an increasingly ageing workforce with 38% of NHS staff aged over 50 compared to 34% in 2012. That is common across many sectors. However, we have had recent population growth purely attributed to positive migration. Whatever migration system we decide on, we must continue efforts to attract people to come here. We will be competing in an international market for skilled labour, and we need to make sure that Scotland is attractive, welcoming and rewarding. I understand the caution that some express around a differentiated system. Any additional powers must be justified and there must be a demonstrated need for any change to the migration powers of this Parliament. We could make progress on how the occupational shortage list operates, our representation on the Migration Advisory Committee, tailoring current visa arrangements to support our economy. Crucially, any changes must maintain the cohesion of a UK migration system. They must maintain free movement within the UK and be compatible with the UK system. That cannot be about disrupting the UK migration system. That may sound challenging to achieve, but I believe that there is much that we can do to tailor and make the current system more responsible to Scotland's needs without additional powers, although I accept that there is an argument for looking at some more flexibility. The fresh talent initiative demonstrates how that could be done, but the frustration of a cross-party group of MSPs that we felt and have been unable to advance that under the coalition UK Government, who did not fully engage with the issues or would have understood that our proposals would not have impacted negatively on the UK system, shows that we need to consider greater flexibility in the system to respond to the pressures that we face in skill shortages and population decline. An evidence-based, robust case that is reasonable and stresses the Parliament's on-going commitment to a UK-wide system could lead us all to an agreement. However, our greater challenge is how we navigate a future UK-wide system of migration post Brexit. We are still waiting for a UK immigration bill that looks to restrict migration further and is likely to focus on EU migrants. If the UK leaves the EU without a single market agreement, freedom of movement will come to an end. That is a very different landscape from the one that we are currently operating in. I have concerns that if we move to an exclusively sectoral approach or one that is overly restrictive, it does not recognise the benefits of people coming here to work but then settling here, raising a family, being part of a community—important parts of addressing Scotland's demographic challenges. We need to be alert to future challenges and recognise the need for flexibility, although so much is currently unknown. It is important that the Parliament is prepared to deal with this serious challenge. Thank you very much. Open debate, speeches of five minutes. Marie Gougeon followed by Jamie Greene. Ms Gougeon, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would just like to start by picking up on some of the other comments, because it felt like Willie Rennie's contribution was kind of going well towards the end until we got to the end. If that is not leading the debate on immigration, then what is it? There is only so much that you can do when you have started the conversation and you do not get anything back from the other side. I find that really frustrating, because Scotland needs inward migration. It is just as simple as that. We know from the recently published Scotland's Place in Europe, People, Jobs and Investment, we know about the demographic challenges that Scotland faces and the predictions that we will see more deaths than births every year for the next 25 years. We have an ageing population and, without migration, we are going to struggle to grow our own working-age population. We need an immigration system that looks at all the constituent parts of the UK, rather than looking at the UK as a whole, because we can see the increasing pressure on key sectors in Scotland and what the impact of a bad immigration policy will do. It will impact our agriculture, public services and our wider economy, and it is expected to cost us over £10 billion by 2040. That is where I would like to highlight. I wish that Ross Greer's amendment had been taken today and had been allowed, because that is also a valuable point that he tried to make about migration providing significant social, educational and cultural enrichment to society, because all too often we think about the facts and figures without looking at the wider picture of what that represents. What do we need? In Scotland, we need a differentiated system that recognises our distinct needs. The effects of Brexit and the restrictions of free movement are already being felt in spite of the fact that we have not even left the EU yet. We are seeing that in key sectors of our economy, such as agriculture, which I know that other colleagues will talk about today, and in other areas where Scotland takes the lead. Dun Diff, for example, is one of Europe's leading digital economies. Chris Van Dicule, the head of 4J Studios, which is a video games company that has helped to develop that very status, illustrated the issues that they are facing just now. He said that it is happening already. When we talk to people about the impact of Brexit, they are already getting nervous about coming here. It really is starting to impact some company's ability to hire, which is important because in a global business it is all about attracting the best talent. It is short-sighted not to address this issue in a way that has been shown to be achievable in other countries. Dr Eve Hepburn and her report to the Culture, Tourism, European External Relations Committee on options for differentiating the UK's immigration system explored some of the systems that are already in operation elsewhere. In Canada, two systems exist. They have the Canada-Quebec Accord, which uses responsibility for immigration in the hands of the Quebec Government. It can decide the total volume of migrants, the selection of potential candidates and the management of sponsorship arrangements. Quebec's situation is very like that of Scotland, as it historically had a declining population with low fertility rates and outward migration. It is a system that has been proven to work there. Quebec has seen an increase in its population by 200,000 between 2011 and 2016, from £7.9 million to £8.1 million, and that has all been resulting from immigration. Spain has two systems in place for Catalonia and the Basque country. Catalonia, after being granted a statute of autonomy to delineate powers of immigration, authorises its own working visas for migrants employed there, with the Spanish Government making the final decision on permits. The second system covers the Basque country. Australia has a number of regional migration schemes that are broken down into subclasses that include regional sponsored migration schemes, the skilled nominated visa, the skilled regional state territory sponsored business owner visa and the working holiday visa. In Switzerland, individual cantons have separate policies, for example Vaux. An example of a canton, which, like Scotland, welcomes migration and the benefits that it brings to the economy and to the region as a whole. Differentiated systems are proving to work in other countries and they can work here. We have had a taste of that in Scotland already with the fresh talent scheme. This was a successful post-study work scheme that ran for three years when it was mainstreamed in the UK immigration system and then dropped by the UK Government in 2012. University Scotland estimated that the ending of that policy costed Scotland £254 million up to 2015 and lost us 5,400 students. It claimed that the UK now has one of the least competitive policies on post-study work in the English-speaking world. While the Smith commission recommended that that be reviewed, the only thing standing in the way of that is the UK Government and the political will to make it happen. The only current means within existing legislation where there is any consideration of the needs of Scotland is the Scotland shortage occupation list. While the Scottish Government can contribute to that list, there are essentially no more than consultees, given that they have no formal role in the determination of what those occupations consider to be in shortage. Right now, we are at a critical stage in discussing this, while the immigration bill is being drafted. Scotland is more dependent on migrants for growth than other parts of the UK, but the UK policy is to reduce net migration. You must know that you must conclude that time is absolutely tight. I am going to, Presiding Officer, and simply to say that we need any new system to recognise our needs in Scotland. More importantly, we need the political will on both sides of that. That is it. Thank you very much. I have to be, I am sorry, I have to be quite hard on members because the statement took a lot of the time out with virtually no time in hand, so you have all been warned. Try to cut your speeches down to five minutes. I know that you are all capable of it. Jamie Greene, followed by Graeme Dey, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will try to cut as I go, so apologies for the clunkiness of some of my comments, but I would like to bring some personal experiences to the debate today, because this is about migration and immigration, and it is really about people and where they choose to live and work and travel to. I come from a family that is largely emigrated to Canada, starting in the 1950s. The first of them went over on a boat in search of a new and better life. Many of them never come back. In fact, our clan is as strong as ever over there. I, too, was one of the many thousands who left Scotland as a young man and headed for Pastors New. In my short 37 years, I have lived and worked in many places, towns, cities and countries—London, Bristol, Spain, Sydney, Ontario and even King's Lynn at one point. Much of the rationale for differentiated immigration systems comes from the previous speech, where they cite the examples of Canada and Australia, so I would like to think that having lived and worked in both those countries, I can bring some first-hand experience and actually put to bed some of the myths around how these systems work. When my visa ran out when I lived in Australia, I recall being given just three days' notice to leave by officials. I had to pack up my life, quit my job, empty my apartment, leave my friends and a relationship and get on an airplane and come home never to return. I accept that packing up your things and moving countries is a big deal to people. It's a huge risk, and people do it for a variety of reasons—economic, social, cultural, adventure and sometimes just curiosity. That's certainly what drove me to move overseas and set up a new life. The debate around the ability of a country to be able to choose what skills it needs and what economy it wants to create is an important one. I try to intervene on the cabinet secretary in the opening remarks. I appreciate that time is tight, but from her opening remarks I'm still entirely unclear if it is the SNP's view that there should be no cap on immigration at all or there should be no migration targets. I do want to press that point because I'd like the cabinet secretary to state that if that is the case then surely a tailored system and the whole point of a tailored system is that it inherently comes with the ability to choose the type of skills that you want to enter your country by having control over these. The debate is around the suggestion that within the UK there could be differentials in policy, and I think it's fair to have this debate because whilst many are opposed to Brexit in principle it does open up these types of discussions, and future immigration policy certainly is one of them. The cabinet secretary also opened by saying that there is consensus on the issue of a tailored system, but the definition of consensus is just as subjective as a subject that is debating. So I'd like to draw on some of the other comments that have been made by business and academia, who I value and trust. The FSB expressed some concerns around the effects of such a differential scheme on businesses themselves, the cost of managing and operating such a scheme. The NFU, who represent our Scotland's farming communities, also seemed to prefer a UK-wide solution, whilst taking into account the needs and asks of Scotland as well. The Food and Drink Federation, who I suspect many of its members largely rely on a large migrant workforce, were also worried about companies that work across the UK, and how those visas might be implemented if they are brief. Minister? I'm a member for giving way. Without trading examples, only this morning, the member should be aware that I met the SCDI, who urged me and indeed this Parliament more widely to lobby for a differentiated solution. Will he join me in doing so? Jamie Greene I think that the devil is really in the detail of what this differentiated solution would look like. It raises far more questions than answers at the moment in terms of how on earth we would enforce such a solution. If there was a Scottish work visa north of Berwick, how would that work in practice for people who enter the UK south of the border and vice versa, if they only have a permit to work in Scotland? It does raise substantial questions. We simply don't have time to go into detail. We should have the debate, we should do the research, we should have the argument but do it properly and not just jump on the bandwagens of asking for it for the sake of it. I appreciate that there is desire for change too. I come from a part of the world that was once the home of the electronics industry—IBM, national semiconductors, anyone who knows that part of the world will remember those businesses—but those sites now lie empty. Where do young Scots go when they want to fulfil their ambitions? Do they do what I did? I haven't really got time to apologise. No, I'm afraid not. Members have said this last bit. Do they up sticks and move south of the border or overseas or are we providing them enough highly skilled jobs as it is here? Let me say this in my final moments. Let's future proof a Scottish workforce so that the jobs of tomorrow can be filled as industry changes. We don't need a new migration policy to do that. We can do that today at school with the right skills and the right teachers to teach those skills. Let's start with the basics. Let's protect our single market, the UK, and let's ensure that Scotland is an existing attractive place to come and work and live. Let's have the debate, but let's have it for the right reasons and with the right motors. Thank you. Thank you. I call Graeme Dey to be followed by Jackie Baillie, Mr Dey, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It does feel a wee bit like Groundhog Day, the best part of two years on from that fateful Brexit vote. Still, we have no resolution of what migration post-leaving the EU will look like. Personally, I find myself rising yet again in this chamber to highlight the implications that that has for a key economic contributor in my constituency, namely the soft-fruit sector. All the time, since I first raised this matter back in late June 2016, little has changed. A part that is from the growing evidence of the negative impact Brexit and the accompanying uncertainties is having. Despite the lobbying from the sector and this Government supporting its efforts to have Westminster recognised in those that it has to access a seasonal migrant workforce, we are no further forward. Michael Gove may have promised Scots fruit farmers news on a way forward by the end of next month, but then he went in front of the English NFUS at NFU rather and admitted that the decision was out with his control. Farms in my constituency are utterly dependent on people coming from other countries to pick the fruit that they grow, many of whom come back year after year. However, the anti-immigration rhetoric that characterised the Brexit debate, coupled with the value of the pound, has already led regular returnese either to opt for pastors new or draw up plans for a future away from Scotland. As noted in the Scottish Government's discussion paper that was launched before recess, many businesses have expressed concerns about the impact already in Scotland, concerns rightly shared by this Government, and the evidence of the impact goes beyond the anecdotal. As I laid out here in a previous debate back in November, the Angus Growers Co-operate, which is largely based in my constituency, needs 4,100 workers annually. Last year, 347 seasonal employees either did not arrive or left early. As a direct consequence, those farms took a combined £660,000 hit, and Angus Growers in the wider sector is bracing itself, the 2018 season is fast approaching. Next month is when the EU workforce returns. Last year set a trend, no-one seriously expects to see it reversed. Let me share some bang-up-to-date supporting evidence from the major farm in the Growers Collective. On this particular farm in 2016, 296 of its workforce out in the field were returnese from the previous year. In 2017, that number dropped to 267. The total confirmed for the coming year stands at 212, a drop of almost 19 per cent in just 12 months. That simply cannot be allowed to go and check, not for Angus, not for Scotland, not indeed for the rest of the UK. A recent report on the Guardian revealed that a soft-root farmer in Herfordshire was to move some of his company's raspberry and blueberry growing to China. That will lead to 200 seasonal jobs being lost. Citing the lack of clarity from the Prime Minister on the UK Government's immigration policy, Angus Davidson said, we are already out of time. Mr Davidson has written to Theresa May saying, and I quote, unless a seasonal workers scheme is put in place, we must expect to see the steep decline of the significant rural employer and source of food. Do we want to have to import food that can be readily grown on these islands from China oing to the UK Government being unwilling to recognise the needs of an industry? Is that to be one of the achievements of Brexit? Of course, migration concerns are not restricted to agriculture or seasonal workers. The Scottish Government's analysis paper estimates that Scotland's GDP will decrease by 4.5 per cent by 2040 if migration levels are reduced to the UK Government's target levels. That is equivalent to a fall of almost £5 billion in GDP. Across the UK, the impact would be smaller, with a 3.7 per cent reduction. If the UK Government was to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands, as some have suggested, Scotland's fall in GDP would be 9.3 per cent, could be at 7.6 per cent for the rest of the UK. I welcome the Scottish Government having developed proposals, a bespoke solution for Scotland to seek to address that. That is a sensible and necessary move, given the inertia at the UK level. There is an indisputable need to plan for the UK Government failing to come up with a sensible UK-wide migration policy as increasingly looks likely. As MSPs, we need to come together and pursue what is in Scotland's best interest, because is not that what we were, all of us, elected to do? Thank you very much. I call Jackie Baillie to be followed by Jolene Mark. Presiding Officer, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss migration in the chamber and welcome the Scottish Government's analysis paper and approach. I have told the chamber before that my mother emigrated from Glasgow to Hong Kong, where I was born, and I made the journey in reverse, so it could be said that I am a migrant to Scotland. Scots are, of course, to be found in every corner of the world, and we in turn welcome people to this country from across the world. However, there is no doubt that Brexit has huge implications for all of us. In some areas, we can only begin to estimate the impact on our economy and individuals. Although there is a huge time of uncertainty, we can be clear about the impact that Brexit will have on the labour market in Scotland. Some 181,000 EU nationals live in Scotland. A majority of them are Polish, followed in succession by the Irish and Spanish nationals, and I want to speak about specific sectors in a moment. However, we know that Scotland's population is projected to decline if we do nothing. We are also, unfortunately, aging. Indeed, we are a more rapidly aging population than the population elsewhere in the UK, so we absolutely depend on inward migration to meet our population growth target. If that migration is absent and EU nationals are not able to come here, our population will inevitably decline but with quite severe negative impacts that will be visited on our economy. It will lead to labour shortages in key industry sectors and in public services that we hold dear. Let me touch on some of the most affected sectors. We have heard already about the soft fruit industry. It relies on seasonal labour, and the majority of its employees come from the EU. That industry has grown substantially in the past 20 years, and it contributes over a billion to the UK economy. We simply cannot afford to lose it. That applies to farming more generally. It is not only a concern for our fruit growers, but the other concern is how we deliver that fruit so adding to our exports. In what is already a very constrained sector, where Scotland is short of 11,000 lorry drivers, the impact of losing foreign driving capacity that partly fills that gap will be severe. The hospitality sector would experience a double whammy in losing employees from the EU who make up a significant element of the workforce and also losing visitors from the EU to this country. That will have a material effect not just on the industry but on this country's GDP. If we consider universities alone, we see that EU nationals comprise 9 per cent of students, almost 25 per cent of research staff. We risk losing talented European staff and academics, and nobody can tell me that that would not be bad for the education sector and the economy. The impact on our NHS will also be immense. There has been a 96 per cent drop in nurses who want to come to Scotland. Vacancy rates are up. One in five doctors are thinking about leaving. Brexit and the lack of response from the Tories on migration are contributing to driving doctors and many other essential professionals out of the country. Let me turn briefly to what we can do. We should have a differentiated immigration system that can be linked to specific centres. I take Clare Baker's point that it needs to be flexible and wider. We have had a differentiated system before with a fresh talent scheme introduced by Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition, and we can do so again. I agree with the seven principles that are set out in the Scottish Government's paper, but, frankly, we need to get on with it. We need to deliver practical action with a degree more urgency. Brexit is round the corner, and I very much welcome the tone and tenor of Jackson Carlaw's approach, but I would absolutely urge him to use the influence that he has on the UK Government to bring them to the table, to create a differentiated migration system that actually works for all of Scotland and to do it soon. Last February, around this time, I gave a speech on the potential impact of Brexit on Scotland's economy. As I was preparing for today's debate, I gave it a cursory look, and I could have recycled it. I could have delivered it again word for word without any fear of any of the asks and questions that I had in that speech for the UK Government contained within it being irrelevant or out of date. I rarely quote to Theresa May, but the phrase, nothing has changed seems particularly relevant here. We are still in the dark as to what will happen to our labour market as a result of Brexit and what plans there are to protect it. I say that coming straight from the, frankly, odd experience of viewing the UK Government's Brexit papers that the Scottish Office has finally delivered to this place for MSPs to view in a secure room. It would not be fair to say that I know any more now than I did before I went into the room, except that it looks like the UK Government officials, at least, are owning up to Brexit being an economic disaster. I say owning up, but I cannot prove it, because we cannot reveal any detail when they have signed a pledge to say that it will not divulge anything that we just read, so the public still knows nothing of what is in the report, scant, as it is. Back to immigration matters, Scotland has benefited enormously from migration, whether permanent or temporary, whether EU citizens. I am in no doubt that the ending free movement will have a detrimental effect on our economy, society, individuals and families. I represent a constituency that depends on that migration to sustain our agriculture, tourism, fishing, hospitality, health and care sectors. In particular, we have been fortunate in the north-east to have so many Polish, Lithuanian and Estonian people settling. Due to the fortunate position that we find ourselves in as the energy capital of Europe, some other sectors have found it difficult to compete for workers. I was reminded that Billy Connolly tells the story of the Glasgow schools opening their gates and everyone just leaving and going straight into the shipyard. He tells that story in one of his stand-up routines. Much the same way that happens in Aberdeenshire schools, they open their gates and everyone goes straight offshore or into oil service jobs, but that means that more traditional north-east sectors such as farming and fish processing have often struggled to recruit. That was certainly the case in Mintlaw, which saw its fish processing factory have to close its doors a few decades ago due to the inability to recruit locally. However, now, because so many Eastern European people have come to work and settle in the town, McDuff shellfish is thriving and exporting millions of pounds of shellfish all over the world. A couple of weeks ago, myself and Ross Greer, with the education committee, met around 10 female students from other EU countries at the Peterhead campus of Nescol. There were women trained to be mechanics, accountants and nursery teachers, all settled in Peterhead for years and wanted to continue to contribute to Peterhead life, but many of us are telling us that family of friends that we are hoping to join them are changing their minds. In rural areas like mine, we are more reliant on the European economic area workers than on rural areas. Without migrant workers, the international report by the National Council of Rural Advisers said that many businesses would be, quote, unviable. In the SRC report this week, it echoed that. My colleague Graham Day has mentioned about the soft-fruit sector. I asked for soft-fruit in my area as well around Old Meldrum. I was particularly struck by the evidence given by Angus Soft Fruits and the Economy and Fair Work Committee last year. It said that we could scale right back and match our production to local labour, or we could simply move abroad. Here in Graham Day's speech, which has more up-to-date information from the soft-fruit growers in Angus, it looks like their worst fears have already been realised, and Brexit has not even happened yet. Imagine no Scottish-grown summer strawberries and raspberries. I am aside from the huge impact on local economy, but I cannot say that I am excited about buying forced-growing imported strawberries that taste like neeps. The needs of Scotland are completely different to the UK as a whole, and it is time that we had an immigration policy that reflects that. After reviewing the Brexit documents in the Queen'sbury house an hour ago, I am clear on one other thing. We all know the team that the Scottish Office has been increasing in the past two years. Like many, I am at a loss as to what on earth they will find for their civil servants to do, since we have already got a Scottish Government. Here is an idea. Why do they use their army or civil servants to carry out a regional, a true Scottish regional breakdown of EU migration in Scotland so that we can understand more fully the potential shortfall and get a fit for purpose differentiated immigrant strategy in place that takes specific needs of regions of Scotland into account? It is not just necessary, it is urgent. The paper by the Scottish Government is a welcome contribution to the debate on migration and population in Scotland. It recognises the economic contribution that migrants make to Scotland in particular and how migration has shaped our country's history. The contribution of migrants to Scotland cannot be reduced to just economics, as the unselected Green amendment mentions and the paper itself is able to address it. People who choose to come and live in this country contribute in so many ways, including socially and culturally. Large numbers of migrants to Scotland from the EU and further afield work in areas as varied as the creative industries, agriculture and higher education. More than one in three of the staff at some national performing companies are EU citizens, EU 27 citizens and almost a quarter of university research staff. Without their contributions, would our university sector still be world-leading? Would Edinburgh remain a global cultural centre? Migration also speaks to the kind of society that we want to be, to our collective identity and our values. We have thankfully not witnessed a political race to appear tougher on migration in Scotland, stamping controls on immigration on mugs or chiseling it into stones. The contrast between the political debate here and at Westminster is a stark one. I ask members who know that their party colleagues in Parliament and in Government at Westminster take a very different approach. What are you really doing to challenge that? Standing here and challenging it is one thing, challenging it directly within your party and actually making changes on other. At Westminster, we have seen a Government deliberately set out to create a hostile environment, their own words, for migrants. They have created an inhumane system in pursuit of statistical goals that are ultimately detrimental to the country as a whole. It is policy making at its absolute worst. Employers, public services and even landlords have been turned into the enforcement arm of the Home Office, obliged to run immigration status checks on people. That is not only risk migrants being turned away from housing or employment due to concerns over remaining legally compliant. It also gives free reign to races to justify discriminating against others, as we have seen evidence of already with housing in particular. Several months ago, I met with the EU citizens here in Scotland at the language hub in Glasgow. They told me about the fear and anxiety that they experienced since the European referendum, because they did not know what their future status would be. They have had to disclose their nationality to access the NHS. They have seen things like flat ads with no EU nationals on them, but they do not even face the worst of UK immigration policy. Just yesterday, a long-running investigation by Buzzfeed exposed insights into the human suffering in misery created by the Tory's hostile environment. They found that efforts to tackle modern slavery are being undermined by the Government's aggressive obsession with deportation. They revealed that a case where a victim of child sex trafficking, now in his 40s but trafficked into the UK as a child, had been finally granted official recognition as a victim of slavery, but was still slated for deportation. Only one in ten recognised victims of slavery are granted leave to remain in the UK. It is incredible. That is only the most recent revelation of the harsh reality of the UK Government's immigration and asylum system. There are many more examples of families torn apart, child refugees deported as soon as they hit 18. It is imperative that Scotland is devolved powers over migration and asylum where possible, not just for the sake of our economy, though it is vital, but also to ensure that those who make their lives here are treated with the most basic dignity and compassion that we believe they deserve. We need to stop the harm done to vulnerable people and the damage being done to our economy, our society and our culture. We need to ensure that the needs of Scotland are met. Our Gail and Bute in my region is identified as one of the most fragile areas with an ageing and declining population. Between 2014 and 2049, its population is projected to decline by 8 per cent. Scotland's migration strategy needs to encourage people to settle in those areas to bring the benefits of migration to them to ensure that many rural communities can continue to exist at all. We know that devolved approaches to migration work, as the motion highlights the fresh talent scheme operated in Scotland with great success. At the time, the scheme worked in co-operation with the Home Office, which was much more open to progressive migration policies than the one that we face now. We know of examples from other countries. The European External Affairs Committee took evidence on devolved migration systems, highlighting the success of examples of extensive devolution in Australia, Canada and particular, as well as various other schemes across the world, such as in Switzerland that Mary Gougeon mentioned. Action should be taken by the UK Government on this and now. Given the profound risk that the current Government's Brexit plan poses to Scotland, action really must be taken now. Though there are actions that we can take here, with the competencies that we already have immediately, it is great to see the Scottish Government consult on the electoral franchise, for example. The right to vote must be expanded to all those who live in Scotland, including all migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Your right to vote should be based on residency, not nationality, and I look forward to making that case as the consultation moves on. We say it often, but it cannot be said enough. Scotland is a welcoming country. We are an outward looking and internationalist country, but we need the powers to make that aspiration a reality. It is time for the UK Government to listen. The call for clear hockey to be followed by Graham Simpson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Despite the best attempts of some populist parties and some sections of Eric Press in trying to frame public opinion against immigration, it is heartening that we as politicians have united today to talk up the positives of immigration rather than build upon the anti-migrant rhetoric that seems to be ever more prevalent. The progressive narrative of today's debate is entirely understandable. There can be few of us in this chamber who are not descendants of migrants ourselves. Indeed, I can trace my own ancestry back to both Ireland and to Russia. Presiding Officer, Scotland and the wider UK for that matter have benefited massively from immigration. Migrants originating from within the EU and outwith are making a vital contribution to our economy, to our culture, and they are ensuring that we have the workers to meet the needs of our businesses and our public sector. In my constituency of Rutherglen, we are fortunate to have friends and neighbours from across the globe, from Poland, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Ireland, Germany and Italy to name but a few. However, our EU migrant workforce is under severe threat with Brexit and the associated curtailment on freedom of movement. The economic impact of Brexit-driven reduction in migration is estimated to result in a decline in Government revenue of 3.5 per cent in Scotland, but by 2.7 per cent in the rest of the UK. From those figures, we can conclude that Brexit will disproportionately affect Scotland. Therefore, one could argue that we require a different arrangement to protect our economy, which is so heavily, heavily reliant on inward migration. At this point, I wish to refer members to my entry in the register of interests in that I am a registered mental health nurse and currently hold anordinary contract with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Through my profession, I know first-hand how my colleagues in mental health and the workers in our hospitals and A&E services, and those in our GP surgeries all play a vital role in supporting the health needs of our population. Sadly, the UK Government's position, or lack thereof, on guaranteeing EU citizens' rights, is already having a detrimental impact on flows of inward migration, especially on our NHS. No matter what Ruth Davidson may have said on television at the weekend, no deal has yet been struck on securing those rights. Figures collated by the Nursing and Medwifery Council show that the number of new nursing applications from the EU fell by 96 per cent since the Brexit vote in 2016, from 1,304 in July 2016 to a mere 46 in April 2017. That is before we begin to take into account the effect of ending freedom of movement when we leave the EU. The Tories are quick to argue that an exodus of EU health workers is yet to take place, however I would remind them that neither has Brexit. We must maintain inward migration to Scotland, including the existing free movement with its EU neighbours, to help to increase Scotland's population and to keep our NHS from reaching crisis point. As Janet Davis, the chief executive and general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing said, if there is a Brexit cliff edge in migration, it will be the NHS going over it. Presiding Officer, while immigration policy remains reserved, the Scottish Government will advocate for an attempt to influence change in the UK migration system to ensure Scotland's needs are met and as far as they can be within UK policy. For example, as we have heard, the Scottish Government will advocate the reintroduction of the post-study work visa, the scrapping of the arbitrary net migration target and the ending the scandal and heartbreak of Skype families by improving the rights of people in Scotland to bring close family members into the country with them. Those changes at UK level would greatly benefit Scotland, however there is an overwhelming case for the Scottish Government to be given the power to tailor its own immigration policy. The UK Government's one-size-fits-all approach to migration is no longer appropriate. Scotland is a different country with different needs, so it is time for a different approach. Expert after expert, study after study, committee after committee, we are consistently told of the benefits of Scotland having its own distinct immigration policy. From this Parliament's own culture, tourism of Europe and external relations committee and the subsequent report by Dr Eve Hepburn to the UK Parliament's Scottish Affairs Committee, the evidence shows that reforming our immigration system would better reflect the diverse make-up of the different parts of the UK. Presiding Officer, it is clear that the need to address disparities between the UK-wide immigration system and the different labour and skills shortages in the constituent parts of the UK will become even more pressing after Brexit. If the Tory Government won't accept our specific population needs and if they do not make the necessary changes to address those needs, they should think about giving those powers to the Scottish SNP Government who will. Graham Simpson, followed by Ben Macpherson. Scotland is a progressive outward-looking nation. Migration strengthens our society and our nation benefits from the skills, the experience and the expertise of those individuals who have chosen to live, work and study in Scotland. Future migration systems should ensure that Scotland can welcome people within Europe and from elsewhere who want to study, live, work and raise their families here. Presiding Officer, those were the opening words of the Scottish Government's migration paper, and they are words that none of us would disagree with. Scotland needs immigration, but so does the rest of the UK. The movement of people enriches societies and enriches those who do it. Migration is good, but clearly cannot be free for all. It can fill labour gaps. Jamie Halcro Johnston will touch on that. In my own subject area, housing, I hear all the time that there is a skills shortage, that builders are getting older and not enough young people are taking up their trades. Attracting people from abroad can help, but we should be training youngsters from here to be brickies, plumbers and electricians. We should be doing something to attract them to become architects, surveyors and planners. There is much in the Scottish Government document to agree with. The seven principles in the paper, for example, that migration policy should address the needs of all Scotland, attract the best talent, protect workers' rights, enable families to be together, focus on what people can contribute, not what they can afford and be controlled. The second and last points are particularly important. Scotland needs to be attractive. Just saying that it is attractive is not enough. We have to make it so. Wacking up taxes on middle earners does not do that, and we will see the results in years to come. The last point is also crucial. Migration should be controlled. The question is at what level of government. The Scottish Government paper was written through the prism of Brexit and the yellow lens of nationalism with the intention of driving a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the UK. It was to be expected, but it is not sensible and mature government. Should Scotland have its own immigration policy, you might as well ask, should Newcastle have its own, should Merseyside have its own, the West Midlands, or why not break it down within Scotland and ask, should Glasgow, Aberdeen or Dundee have their own? It is difficult to see how applying different immigration rules to different parts of the UK would not complicate the immigration system, how it would not harm its integrity and cause difficulties for employers with a presence in more than one part of the UK. Anyway, Scotland's issues are not unique. As Dr Madeleine Sumption of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford told the Scottish Affairs Select Committee last month, there are other areas of the UK that are experiencing population decline or would be experiencing population decline if it was not for migration. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce told the Scottish Parliament's Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee's inquiry on immigration that devolution of immigration powers to Scotland is not necessary, but that we should look at sectoral and geographical issues. We should be able to find solutions. The Law Society's briefing came up with a useful idea. It said that Scottish representation on the Migration Advisory Committee would be beneficial. Active review of the Scottish shortage occupation list would also be welcome to ensure that the list genuinely reflects skills shortages in Scotland and can be updated and amended as necessary to meet the needs of the Scottish economy. We should look at that. The SNP might think that they speak for Scotland in everything, but they do not. They are out of tune with the country on this. The people do not want a different immigration system here. As Jackson Carlaw mentioned, polling by Natsyn found that 63 per cent of Scots did not believe that it should be easier for EU migrants to come to Scotland compared to the rest of the UK, while only 24 per cent agreed it should. We need migration. Migration is good. I back the amendment in Jackson Carlaw's name. Ben Macpherson, followed by Pauline McNeill. As a passionate internationalist, I am proud that Scotland has for centuries been an international nation. Today, international links are as important as they have ever been to high-tech industries, to manufacturing, to food and drink, to social care and so many other sectors of our economy. It is vital for the Scotland of today, for the Scotland of tomorrow and for the challenges that we face together. What is also vital is an openness to attract skilled labour and motivated individuals. Free movement of labour is absolutely paramount to this, to our present and to our future, to our economy and to our society. For centuries, leeth in particular has been one of Scotland's gateways to the world, from Roman times to recent times. That is why I hope one day to see a migration museum in leeth at the old customs house. Edinburgh Northern and Leeth has one of the highest migration levels in Scotland. From new leethers selling products 100 years ago to migrant programmers driving Edinburgh's FinTech boom here in the 21st century, from hospitality to culture, from public services to commerce, leeth demonstrates a truth that prevails across Scotland, a truth that not only do we benefit from migration in Scotland but we require migration to support our everyday lives and the standard of living that we have become accustomed to. For example, in the NHS, medical professionals from around the globe have played a vital role and are highly valued in terms of the labour that we require for our NHS and have been for decades. The creative industries, artists from around the world choose Scotland to create their performances, their music, their installations and pieces of literature, and we all benefit from that. Over 12 per cent of those employed in the food and drink sector, 10,000 people are EU nationals, 13 per cent of those employed in the tourism sector, 24,000 are EU nationals. As has been touched on in the construction industry, attracting workers to come here from elsewhere is absolutely vital to tackle the housing shortages that we currently have. That is why, to me, we need flexibility to set different policies here in Scotland. Let us be clear that UK immigration policies for many years have failed Scotland by focusing, perhaps understandably, on the south-east of England, and Brexit is undoubtedly, in all the analysis, going to make this worse. There will be labour shortages, there will be negative economic impact, because each EU citizen in Scotland contributes an average of over 10,000 in tax revenue. By 2040, lower migration alone would reduce our GDP by 4.5 per cent, equivalent to a fall of almost £5 billion. In terms of our population, the number of deaths expected in the years to 2040 will vastly outnumber the number of births, so action is required to maintain and grow Scotland's working age population to help support the welcome fact that people are living longer. It is clear that the UK Government's plans to reduce migration would not support Scotland's economy or our population needs. That is factual analysis. Remember, all of Scotland's population growth over the next 25 years is projected to come from migration, and we are reliant on it. Therefore, for the sake of Scotland's economic security and considering Scotland's population projections, there is an overwhelming case for Scotland to have the power to tailor migration policy differently. It has been insinuated that Scotland is not a place that is attractive. It is. Edinburgh was rated second in the world for quality of life. The problem, one of the main barriers, is current immigration law and policy, and Brexit is going to make it worse. The Scottish Government's proposals to give our Parliament a greater say on UK migration policy to support our needs are sensible and increasingly necessary. There has been no clarity from the UK Government on what migration policy will be post Brexit. That is astonishing. If Westminster does not want to provide adequate vision or values when it comes to migration, then it should give this Parliament the powers to do something more effective and ethical, to keep our country internationalist and outward looking, secure and competitive, and to take our people forward. It must come to a close. Pauline McNeill followed by Stuart McMillan. Presiding Officer, I am going to begin my contribution by cutting straight to the chase. The anyone who thinks that you can plug the gap by only upskilling the existing population is not looking at the facts, because every single other person, apart from Graham Simpson, it would seem perhaps not quite sure what Jamie Greene is saying. EU migration has been a positive story for Scotland, but that is not what I come to say today. I know that that is the case in terms of cultural enrichment, but it is because of our economic success. Whether you are for or against increased or liberal EU migration, the facts show that it is essential that we deal with the issue. Like Gillian Martin, I could recycle another speech just for today, but I have consistently argued that we need a differentiated policy on immigration, not a separate policy. We need a differentiation policy that recognises that the facts on the ground in Scotland are different. They may be different in Newcastle, for all I know, and they may be different in other regions. However, if we are one united kingdom and I still believe in that, then there has to be a policy that recognises the needs of every part of the UK. 5 per cent of the workforce, as we know, are EU migrants and are key to certain sectors. Modelling by the Scottish Government shows that EU immigration enhances our GDP by £34,000, not to mention what others have said about the population being younger than the rest of the population. It is a lot to lose if you do not recognise the facts on the ground. 63 per cent of Scots would need to accept freedom of movement in order to get a trade deal that they think was beneficial for Scotland. However, I recognise that that does not mean that there is no public concern about immigration. I think that it would be wrong not to acknowledge that. However, as politicians, it is our job to ensure that people see the positive impact of immigration and the economic needs of our country, depending on it. It was the IPPR who said that net migration targets published by the Home Office has forced the Government to crudely drive down the overall numbers, often in contradiction to the objectives of other UK departments. I know that today's figures have been announced as for the first time being under £100,000. However, we are in a new context now because a new immigration policy for a Britain outside of the European Union needs to be designed to address some of the country's core weaknesses. Those weaknesses are not just here in Scotland but across the UK. That includes addressing geographical imbalances that exist across the nations and regions. Geographical flexibility is a necessity to address the distinct and differentiated problems that Scotland faces. Like others, I took time out this week to read the analysis, the sector analysis of the impact of Brexit by going to the Donald Dure Room and trying to take in as much of reading the 19-page document as I could if all the grass that accompanied it. However, the central message for me was pretty clear, and that is that, whichever deal you look at, there is a bleaker picture for the country that we need to address. On the university sector alone, currently there are 21,000 students—I am not reading from the document, by the way, in case you think I stole it. If I had my mobile phone taken off me, so you couldn't do that. Particularly concerned is the impact of Brexit on the university sector. Currently, there are 20,000 students from the EU and a quarter of research staff come from EU countries. Last month, the Scottish Affairs Committee was told that Brexit would have a significant impact on Scotland's universities, and that it will result in a huge drop in EU numbers. Professor Andrea Nolan, a convener of the University of Scotland, said that Scotland would lose a pretty big time. She recommended that there should be a much longer transition period to deal with that, but that is perhaps for another day. In my opinion, the harder the Brexit, the tougher it will be on Scotland's economy and Scotland's population. The current migration policy does not address Scotland's needs, and particularly the growth in population. It would be wrong to expect Scotland to rely on a system that might only serve London and the south-east. It is not just because we are a progressive country that we believe in it, but because I think that there is an economic imperative. The Tory motion in substance seems okay, but the use of the word any variable migration scheme for Scotland must be developed in close cooperation with the UK Government suggests to me that it is not supporting a differentiated position. I like others with Irish of Scottish stories who have played a constructive role in the Brexit negotiations so far. I think that you really need to speak loudly to the UK Government for a differentiated position for Scotland, and that would serve the country well. I think that it is rather fitting that we have the granddaughter of an Italian immigrant sitting in the chair at this particular part of the session. Before Linda Fabiani took the chair, we had Christine Grahame. Christine Grahame is also someone who was not born in Scotland. I am one of those yellow nationalists that you tried to demean in your contribution earlier on, but I am a proud nationalist, but I am also a proud internationalist. English born is something that I am very proud of when it comes to the debate about immigration and also immigration. To Jamie Greene, who has unfortunately left the chamber, Mr Greene was actually incorrect in his contribution earlier on when he spoke about IBM and also National Semiconductor. He was correct about National Semiconductor that it is no longer there, but it was actually bought over by Texas Instruments. The last time I looked, they still employed just around 200 people on that particular site, not an empty site that Mr Greene was asserting. To Willie Rennie's contribution earlier on, I think that Mr Rennie was rather disingenuous. This Parliament and this Scottish Government has been attempting to lead the debate on immigration and also immigration, but also on the issue regarding the whole issue of Brexit. However, Mr Rennie unfortunately needs to have a UK Government who is prepared to listen, and also prepared to talk to the Scottish Government when it comes to Brexit matters and also matters about population. I think that this debate has generally welcomed the publication of the Scottish Government's paper. As we do hirtle ever faster towards this inevitable car crash that is Brexit, it is time for wider Scotland to fully engage in this debate about immigration and immigration. It is clear that a differential migration policy for Scotland is absolutely crucial. Migration, if considered, for the sake solely of this debate is solely relating to the movement of people for employment purposes as pertinent to the development of Scotland as an inclusive, fair, prosperous and innovative nation as we benefit from having a diverse workforce. It is therefore essential to our economic prospects and also our demographic sustainability. The University of Oxford has projected that Scotland's population to fall in the coming decades and that Scotland continues to attract the level and nature of migration that it needs. There has been a long history of immigration to Scotland, which has shaped our country and its people from overseas who have come to Scotland to live, work, study, help, strengthen our society and we welcome them. I am sure that my constituents have given a number quite. We have got an example of both immigration and migration. The introduction of the fresh talent initiative in 2005 was certainly something that has been commented on so far in this debate, and it is certainly something that was welcomed. Unfortunately, the UK Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition Government ended the scheme in 2012 as part of a series of changes to the immigration system intended to limit the abuse and created a hostile environment for illegal migrants. Ironically, the year of this year marks the year of young people, and yet it is ultimately our young people's future that is actually at stake here. Their right to live, work and study across Europe is at risk of being removed through a process that few of them had ever said. The Scottish Government has repeatedly stated that it wishes to remain in the single market and custom union post-Brexit. Thankfully, Jeremy Corbyn now seems to be finally warming to after frequent calls to stand up to the Brexit years from the SNP and even his Labour counterparts in Scotland and Wales. Unfortunately, that has shown the terrible situation that Labour has approached the Brexit mess thus far. The consensus that we saw regarding the fresh talent that we should have introduced in Scotland also exists today. To see it reintroduced as reflected in the Smith commission but also the cross-party work that has taken place since then. Scotland is a progressive, outward-looking nation, and I do not want to lose that. I want Scotland to still be that welcoming nation. I want Scotland to be a country that people want to choose to come to live here and also to choose to go and experience other countries but then, hopefully, come back. I also think that we need to create as much certainty as possible and also reduce the uncertainty that Brexit is actually creating. Certainly, for all Scots, whether it is new Scots or those who are born here, we need to have that differentiated system. Peter Chapman, followed by Christina McKelvie. I refer members to my register of interests in relation to farming. For months, industry leaders and the Scottish Conservative group have been asking the Government to drop its persistent desire of creating a different immigration system for Scotland from that of the rest of the UK. A number of speakers have spoken about food production, so my comments will be mainly about the need for agriculture and food processing workers. Many experts and industry figures see the SNP's plans for a differentiated system as unnecessary at best and damaging at worst. We fully realise that farming and the food and drink industries are highly reliant on EU workers. Without their skill and hard work, we would not have seen our food and drink industry grow into the multi-billion-pound industry that is today. At any time in Scotland, between 5,000 and 15,000 non-UK seasonal workers are employed within Scottish agriculture, but it is not just a Scottish problem. The Labour needs of a daffodil grower in Devon are exactly the same as a strawberry producer in Angus. Fiona Hyslop denied that there will not be challenges in different sectors in the rest of the UK, but the fundamental difference is that, between now and 2041, the natural change, the difference between births and deaths, the natural change in Scotland will be negative. In England, there will be a natural change that will contribute to a 39 per cent growth of their population. That is the basic differences. Does he acknowledge that? Maybe the SNP needs to look at some of the other policies and see why people don't want to come to this country to work. The Labour needs of a daffodil grower in Devon are the same as a strawberry producer in Angus, and very often it will be the same people who do both jobs as they move around the country following the work as the season progresses. Scotland's soft fruit and vegetable sectors rely on seasonal workers from the EU, and then there are those employed full-time. 50 per cent of staff in our Scottish red meat processing sector are non-UK. A third of the staff in the dairy sector are non-UK, and over 80 per cent of the vets in our slaughterhouses are from the EU. However, the status of those long-term workers is now secure and settled. The Prime Minister made it abundantly clear in her open letter to EU citizens who are currently living in the UK that the Government fully supports their rights to stay. Those who have settled here work hard and pay their taxes have made a huge contribution to our economy. They have always been welcome and they are welcome now. I have met Michael Gove, the Deputy Secretary of State, on several occasions, and I have always impressed on him our need for foreign labour. He, in turn, has always expressed an understanding of our needs for labour, and he is working hard to ensure that a seasonal agricultural worker scheme is in place for 2018. Mr Gove's words were that the need is compelling. Brexit will see us... No, not now. Brexit will see us control our borders, not close them. Instead of working on a separate system for Scotland, driving more wedges between us and the rest of the UK, the SNP Government should be working with the UK Government, ensuring that the new system fits the needs of both Scottish and UK agriculture and food processing. In response to the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Select Committee, the NFU of Scotland agreed that simple UK-wide systems for the recruitment of seasonal workers was the best way forward, whilst also avoiding problems at the border. The Food and Drink Federation Scotland also criticised the extra red tape that a separate immigration system would lead to for both attracting workers and allowing them to follow the work around the country. How can Scotland have an open border with the EU if the rest of the UK wants a controlled border without some method of stopping immigrants simply flowing from Scotland into England? The potential damage to our internal single market, which is Scotland's best and most important market, then becomes obvious. By far the biggest market for Scotland's top quality produce is the rest of the UK. 61 per cent of all trade was with the rest of the UK in 2016, worth £45 billion. Compared to only 17 per cent or £12.7 billion with the whole of the EU, we want to maintain the same trading opportunities post Brexit with our EU partners, but our internal market is key. There is no doubt that immigration and open borders were a big issue during the Brexit referendum, especially in England and Wales. We understand that Scotland does have a need for continued immigration, but why is it that only 5.9 per cent of immigrants settled in Scotland? When our population share, she suggested that it should be 8.1. The last of the open debate speakers is Christina McKelvie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. If I have ever heard a speech full of awe, it is absolutely not even worth having a conversation about that last speech, to be honest, because it is just full of total inaccuracy and silliness, in my opinion. It is the reason why I am incredibly concerned about the bickering and the bigotry surrounding the immigration debate, the disturbing images, the disturbing rhetoric and some of the incredibly dangerous words and actions that we have heard from members of that UK Government that he seems to be so proud of, the former of the member who just spoke. If left unchecked, that will completely wipe out the fantastic gains and the positive outcomes that we as a nation have absorbed here from people who have chosen Scotland as their home. The Scottish Government analysis paper for me is taking the lead, in my opinion. It is something that we can all get behind, although most of us. As our population ages, the continued availability of labour from across Europe is essential to meet our economic and social needs and to address the potential skill shortages in all sectors of the labour market. Since the year to mid 2007, Scotland has relied on positive net migration for population growth more than any other constituent part of the UK. Over that period, 88 per cent of the population growth in Scotland came from migration, with only 9 per cent coming from natural change and more births and deaths. In contrast, for the UK as a whole, 53 per cent of the population growth came from net migration, with 45 per cent from natural change. That is the difference between Scotland and the rest of the UK. All projected population increases for Scotland over the next decade are due to net in migration. If there were no future EU migration, Scotland's working aid population would decline by 3 per cent over the next 25 years. While the number of pensioners would increase by a quarter, that spells disaster for the Scottish economy and our ability to fund and staff quality public services. Just for instance, in this city, the city of Edinburgh, 8 per cent of the population are EU nationals. If 8 per cent of Edinburgh's population disappeared overnight, we would see a huge, huge problem developing. Immigration policy and practice needs to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and that argument has already been won. The UK model, as it is operated to date, leads to a stalemate and helps no one—we have heard many examples of that—not to the people who choose Scotland as their home, not to businesses, not to the economy. What is the point of an international student at university here being forced to leave once she has qualified? The reintroduction of fresh talent and the post-study work visa initiative is one way of encouraging well-qualified people to stay for at least a couple of years to get themselves established in the career ladder and, hopefully, they will stay for good. However, while treason may let the Scottish Government tinker around the edges of a reserved matter, that is simply not enough. We need to have the power to decide upon a framework that meets our particular needs, of which we have heard a lot of this afternoon from across many great speeches in the chamber. In the run-up to the EU referendum, senior figures in the leave campaign, such as Michael Gove, promised increased powers over immigration, would come to Scotland should the UK vote to leave the EU. Those pledges, like many others that were made in that campaign, including those on the sides of buses, have been predictably quickly forgotten. Ross Greer highlighted a very serious problem, the horrifying decisions that were made by the Home Office. I urge members to read the destitution and asylum status report by a committee of this Parliament, the equality and human rights committee, and you will see how horrifying some of those Home Office decisions are. A first priority has to be to get assurances, not vague suggestions, from treason may. There needs to be clear and certain security for EU citizens, who move here prior to 2019, March 2019. The increase in EU nationals being detained for spurious reasons shames us all, and hunger strikes at Yarrow's Wood Detention Centre today should worry us greatly. That is the impact of Home Office decisions. The impact is a bit closer for Home for me. DFDS, in my constituency, handles the bulk of fish and seafood product transport across the EU. It is incredibly worried. It is so worried that they are meeting with Scottish Government ministers next week to discuss it. We need and we want immigrants to be treated fairly in Scotland, with the same access to jobs and public services as everybody else living here, whether they are indigenous or not, because we know that they already contribute more. We want people who want to be part of this wonderful nation, who want to help us all move on in this world to extend and develop our skills and have friends from across the globe. I want Scotland to say to those people that they are welcome. I now move to the closing speeches, and we are really pushed for time, so we will have a strict five minutes, please. Okay, thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Stuart McMillan referred to the fact that the chair is of Italian origin, Jackie Baillie from Hong Kong, Jamie Greene from Canada. Claire Hocky is Russian, apparently, and I can trace my family back to Australia. It seems only Jackson Carlaw is a true Scot in this chamber this afternoon, but I want to read you a section from a briefing that I received from the Red Cross. Today, adult refugees have a legal right under UK and international law to be reunited with their children and partner if they are still overseas, but children over 18 cannot join their parents in the UK and the refugee children are not allowed to sponsor their parents to join them in the UK. This is having a huge and dramatic and traumatic effect on families. What we need to do today is to send a message to the UK Government. They need to be much more sympathetic to bringing families together through the immigration system. It would reduce that trauma and it would make for happier families and good people in this country, so I hope that we can send that message. We have been good to hear Jackson Carlaw increasingly alone voice, including in this chamber among the Conservatives, but he is a welcome voice nonetheless, and I hope that he continues to make the case at a UK level. Christine McKelvie was right about the dangerous images that were used during the referendum campaign from Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson. That is why immigration is at the heart of the Brexit debate. It is the unspoken tension at the heart of Brexit. If we follow through in the promise that was made to the Brexit-ears, to the leave voters, then we are going to damage the economy. If we do not follow through on that promise to reduce immigration, we will protect the economy, but we will break the trust with those very voters who backed leave. It is the tension, I believe, at the heart of the Brexit vote, and I think that it is the tension that we need to expose. That is why I want that UK-wide debate, because we have a chance not just of reversing the damaging trend on immigration in this country, but of course of the damaging trend towards Brexit. I hope that we will speak up in a united way to make that case. That is why I am opposed to what the SNP is proposing today. Of course, I support schemes such as the Fresh Talent scheme. We did that in government, but what the SNP is proposing today is something of a much bigger scale. It is the principle of a different immigration policy for Scotland. That is something that I cannot support because McLear-Hawke and Gillian Martin, among others, were repeatedly saying that Scotland is particularly unique. We have special needs. I disagree. I have looked to the figures as well. The demands on the NHS, the demands on the farming sector, the food and drink sector, the university sector and the demographic challenges are there across the United Kingdom. We are an ageing society across the UK. That is what we need to try and tackle. That is why it is important to reverse the trend on the immigration debate. If we do not do that, we will end up with problems not just in Scotland but in the rest of the UK. I believe in the integrity of the United Kingdom. I think that we need to protect the single market. That is incredibly important. What depresses me is that every single argument in the chamber by the SNP is to reduce the one about the constitution. I reject that. I think that that is much bigger than the constitution. That is about immigration. That is about saying, what kind of country are we? I accept your argument about what you say, but we do not lead the debate by cutting ourselves off from the debate and looking after our own solutions in our own way. We need to engage fully in the UK debate. I am afraid that we are not doing that when we reduce it to an issue of the constitution. That is what I get depressed about. Graham Day, who is trying to make an intervention—I am sorry, I am not going to accept because I have a short amount of time—makes a powerful case in support of that. He talked about the English farmer who was talking about shutting up shop and sending his business over to China to grow his soft fruit. He made my case for me. He made the case, which is that this is a UK-wide problem. If we are going to grow the food and drink sector, not just in Scotland but across the UK, we need to deal with the problem across the UK. There has been significant investment. I have seen it in the farms in North East Fife, with the heated poly tunnels that have extended the season and produced a huge amount of economic growth for our country. I have seen it there, and that is replicated right across the country. That is why I want a UK-wide scheme. Small schemes such as the fresh talent scheme will not solve our demographics. What we need to do to solve our demographics is to change the mind of Jackson Carlaw's leadership in the UK Government. That is the way to change it, and that is what I am going to do. Neil Findlay, five minutes please, Mr Findlay. Presiding Officer, we have had many excellent speeches today and contributions, and then we had Peter Chapman and Graham Simpson. Will there be any speech there? I am a bit confused, because there is a Federalist Party. I thought that he would have understood that you can have that variation, but maybe he can explain that another day. The demographic problems have been well documented Scottish demographic problems, age and population, fewer younger taxpayers and more, older pensioners, low population growth and low productivity, all causing economic concern. The reliance on inward migration to meet the Government's population growth targets require 9,000 people a year. With Brexit approaching or here, that level may be difficult to maintain without a clear understanding of the system that is going to replace the existing one. As the negotiations head for the next phase, those talks must make rapid progress to ensure that our friends, neighbours and colleagues who have come to Scotland and the UK live and work have their rights secured and protected just as we must see the rights and security of UK citizens across the EU, respected and protected too. I thank Neil Findlay for taking the intervention. He is asking there about rapid progress, but how confident is he for any rapid progress bearing in mind that the delayed tactics and the delayed tactics of the UK Government thus far? Neil Findlay is not confident at all. 1.3 million UK citizens live abroad and they require their rights protected as well. The talks need to make rapid progress for workers in a whole range of sectors for our NHS and social care system that both have major skills shortages as it is if we combine failings of workforce planning with a further drain on people because of Brexit, then we will have an even greater problem on our hands. Graham Day and others mentioned the agriculture and food sectors, construction industry was mentioned, academia by Pauli McNeill, oil and gas and others too. We should never reduce the debate on immigration to the commodification of people seeing them just as an economic unit of production or cog in the wheel of profit generation. Those are human beings with families and skills and dreams and ambitions who should be treated by any system with respect and dignity, recognising their rights. We have a duty to make people feel welcomed and valued and Ross Greer touched on the issues within the asylum system that he was right to do so. Developing any new migration system should be the principles of dignity and respect and rights that should guide its development. In that new system, we could look to other nations as to where that flexibility could come in. Mary Gougeon explained how, in places such as Canada and Spain, there is the devolution, there are different priorities, Canada and Switzerland too. Those are places that we should be looking to look at how we develop the system in the future. Scottish Labour wants to see a fair and well-managed migration system that protects against the exploitation of Labour and safeguards human rights. The choice is not between freedom of movement or closed borders. That is simply not the case and, quite frankly, I hope that we have all had enough of the simplistic rhetoric around immigration. It is a complex issue with many considerations in the development of any new system. At the heart of our approach to Brexit, our jobs and workers rights, no race to the bottom, no deregulated sweatshop economy, no pulling up the drawbridge, but a fair and transparent immigration system that is administered as simply as possible. I have to say, and I have been surprised at that, that nobody has mentioned that all of this should not come at the cost of other countries. We cannot just speak about immigration purely in terms of how it benefits us, because that is not an internationalist perspective. What we should be addressing is our own population failure to grow, our own population here, via policies that developed that. There is population decline across Europe, so what we are in now is a competition for people. We do not want to see us having people come here at the expense of the development of other countries. I do not think that that is an internationalist perspective at all. Although this debate focuses on migration, I think that we should come back to the issue of how we increase our populations so that we are no longer completely reliant on trying to attract the skills and talent and young people of other nations to address our demographic problems. Maybe that is something that the minister might come back to with a future debate about how we address those issues in the whole, because that is a very serious issue. However, on this issue, in relation to immigration, we support the Government today. Throughout Scotland's history, there have been many periods of inward migration over the course of our centuries. Migration has helped to shape modern Scotland, and it is right that we recognise the contributions to our society, our economy and our communities of those who have chosen to make Scotland their home. We have also seen modern Scotland shaped by the movement of people within our own borders, from the country to the towns as we industrialised, from cities to the new towns as slums were cleared or the struggles of depopulation in my region, the highlands and islands. The UK is now approaching the end of the first half of our two-year journey of leaving the European Union with the associated implications for immigration. That requires a coherent political response that reflects both the outcome of the referendum in June 2016, as well as the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole and its constituent parts. During the debate on migration that I participated in back in November, we heard that it said that the Government benches Scotland's demographic profile was different from the rest of the UK, which is something that Clare Haughey repeated today. That, of course, obscures a wider point that those of us representing rural Scotland know well. Within Scotland, we have many distinct demographic profiles, just as within the rest of the UK. We have seen increasingly that issues are not primarily geographical and surprising in an integrated economy, but sectoral. We can identify a need in rural Scotland for seasonal—I would just like to push on if that is all right—but those needs are just as cleanly felt in parts of rural England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland. Increasingly, geographical distinctions within our economy are issues of scale, not of type. In my own region, we have seen a number of sectors such as the hospitality and tourism economy employ high levels of EU and non-EU migrant workers, but the Highlands and Islands are far from unique in that situation. Migration policy will not be crafted in my region, but I have little doubt that people there will judge future policy on the basis of what they see in their own communities. While welcoming the benefits of migration to Scotland, and there is little doubt that we will always welcome the best and the brightest to our shores, it is clear that it has been used for many years as an excuse to avoid considering the needs of our labour market in greater detail. No economy is immune from the skills gap in the short or medium term, but a successful economy can only be sustained if we educate and train people for the employment needs that exist and emerge. For too long, however, it seems that migration has been a sticking plaster to avoid matching some of the most necessary skills to our labour needs. Key public services such as the NHS have been reliant on trained nurses and doctors coming to Scotland to plug the gaps created by our apparent inability to train and retain staff here. As was mentioned, that obviously has an impact on the countries that people come from. In those circumstances, the Scottish Government looks to other countries and hopes that the relevant skills can be found, but we know the consequences for areas outside of the cities and the central belt, as well as seeing the lack of real planning for the future. I absolutely agree with the point that makes the importance of filling skills gaps, but will he not concede, however, that even if we had 100 per cent full employment in Scotland, we would still have a need for immigration? Nobody is denying, as my colleagues are saying to me, that there will be immigration to this country, but it will be controlled and it will be based on what we need in this country. I heard of a particular example when I was in the western Isles recently, where health and social care has presented a particular problem. Many older people on the islands are Gaelic speakers first. When they develop dementia or are associated conditions, they revert to their first language. Unlike many parts of Scotland, they cannot simply rely on migration to fill that skills gap, so they have looked instead at their own local population and adapted their skills policies accordingly. There have been a number of thoughtful and interesting contributions from around the chamber today. My colleague Jackson Carlaw spoke passionately about some of the myths around immigration and its recent and fascinating history in his own constituency. He also addressed the narrow nature of the Scottish Government's analysis and referenced some of John Curtis's analysis of public opinion, as well as the burden that higher taxation will place on businesses that are hoping to recruit from outside Scotland. In an increasing collaborative and mobile domestic economy, he addressed some of the concerns around enforcements, as well as the principle of creating restrictive second-class citizens within the UK. Claire Baker and Ross Greer spoke about the need to attract people to Scotland, and, certainly on that, I can agree with them. Jamie Greene, who we now know is formally of Kings Lynn, also echoed that point and made a number of important issues around economic growth as key to attracting people to Scotland. He also covered some of the reactions from businesses and other stakeholders to proposals for differentiated immigration structures within the UK, which the cabinet secretary Gillian Martin covered. He also spoke of the potential impact of the UK market and the complexities that differentiation could have. Graham Simpson made important points about skills and the role of the Scottish Government in attracting talented people to live and work here. He looked particularly at the construction industry in relation to housing, reminding us that there will be a number of sectors and an effective immigration framework that will have to reflect. Willie Rennie spoke about the needs of seasonal workers, and it is worth noting that NFU Scotland suggested that they wanted a UK-wide approach to immigration. Peter Chapman spoke about the numbers that have involved and the significance of non-UK workers in the agricultural sector and his engagement with DEFRA Secretary Michael Gove. He also addressed the key need for a UK-wide solution to the issues that are presented for Scottish agriculture and the threat of placing additional burdens on business while harming our UK single market. He made clear of the need for a focus on either aspects of Brexit, such as the future of agricultural support from the Scottish Government. Members from all sides of the chamber value the contribution of immigration to Scotland, and our interest in attracting skilled and able people to Scotland is best served by a controlled, transparent, efficient system that is points-based and reflects our needs. Not my words, but the words of the Scottish Government's own white paper on independence. There is scope for parties across this Parliament to work with the UK Government to seek a positive outcome as we leave the EU. But first, it will require a constructive approach from all that is involved and an acknowledgement that a unified UK solution is the way forward. I welcome the debate that we have had this afternoon and the contributions from members around the chamber, which, with one or two egregious exceptions, have been helpful. In November, the chamber discussed the evidence that the Scottish Government has provided to the Migration Advisory Committee. That evidence sets out very clearly, as many members have done today, the positive impact of EU citizens and the impact that they have made on Scotland's economy and communities and on filling some of the gaps that we have in our labour market. Parliament in November agreed that the current migration system needs, however, to change. I think that there was more consensus on that point than we often find in the chamber. To quote Jackie Baillie from November, although it was remarks that were echoed in what she had to say today, we should have a differentiated immigration system that can be linked to specific sectors. We have had a differentiated system before with the fresh talent scheme, and we can do so again. There is a consensus that goes back some way about the need to tailor solutions in this area for Scotland. In 2005, as we heard today, Labour and the Liberal Democrats recognised that Scotland had different needs and therefore that a different migration policy in some areas was the right thing. That was recognised by most people as the right thing today, too. The fresh talent scheme was both a recognition of the need for a differentiated solution to migration in Scotland and a demonstration that a differential approach is possible within a UK-wide system. It was certainly interesting that Jackson Carlaw, in a very considered contribution today, was an example of someone who had clearly read our paper and recognised that it is possible to achieve those things within the UK immigration system. A number of speakers seem to think that our paper was proposing an entirely new or separate immigration system for Scotland. Scotland does have different needs. Let me be clear about that, because there are some in the chamber today who have questioned that point. Of course, there are similarities between the challenges that are faced by specific sectors in Scotland and across the rest of the UK. I heard strawberries and affidols being compared at one point this afternoon to try to make that point. However, the most glaring difference is around demography. I have already made the point that, even if we had 100 per cent employment in Scotland, not only would we have skills gaps, but that our demography would still represent a problem for us. I hope that, although there may be differences in the position that I have and the differences that many on the Conservative benches have, there were enough positive contributions from the Conservative benches today to keep an intelligent and useful conversation going with the Conservatives, even if Mr Simpson has to be exempted from that conversation. As the minister for Europe mentioned demography, I do not know whether he has been to Georgia, but to encourage population growth in Georgia, the head of the Orthodox Church personally baptises every third child. I do not want to give Nicola Sturgeon any ideas, but does it not show that other countries are thinking innovatively about how they grow their own population? As the eldest of three children, I do not know how to answer that question. I will have a conversation with the Orthodox community in Scotland and see whether there is something that can be done, but that is so far off field perhaps that I am not going to answer it. A number of speakers today have made comments about Scotland's historic situation around migration and the fact that we have, for a couple of hundred years, been a country of massive out-migration rather than net immigration. People left Scotland to build futures in other parts of the world. That is changing and it has had a positive impact on our demography. Population projections show that, in a scenario where, however, there was 50 per cent less EU migration, the working age population in Scotland would decline by just under 1 per cent, and the comparable UK figures would be a 5.3 per cent growth in the working age population. Scotland faces unique challenges that are linked to our demography and our rurality. The facts are clear and Scotland's needs are different. The focus of the UK Government appears to be on short-term migration. Indeed, there were a number of points in the debate today where I felt that false oppositions were being set up between action in this place to solve our problems and policies that could be sorted at the UK level. For instance, there are a number of things to pick up on points that Mr Rennie made about leaving those matters to the UK Government. Of course, there are many things that the UK Government could indeed do now that could help to address our challenges. The UK Government could abolish, for instance, the net migration target, change the rules on family migration, abolish the immigration skills charge. There are a whole list of things that it could do and that we would argue that it should. However, that is not a reason for us not having a clear position in Scotland on what we would like to do here if we had the opportunity to do it. Current migration policy that is set out by the UK Government does not recognise Scotland's needs. Scotland depends on inward migration to grow our population, yet the UK policy is to drive down migration to an arbitrary target—a target that almost everyone, apart from the Prime Minister, recognises to be counterproductive and unhelpful. I also want to say that we have a long history of not only providing information on that issue but examining that information when it is provided. For instance, today we had some mention of statistics and any decisions on the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee wrestling with the Home Secretary. That evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee should be taken into account. Causola set out its concerns, noting that we have a long history in responding to the MEC and to date had little success in influencing the shortage occupation list for Scotland and for the rest of the UK. Our discussion paper takes account of some of those concerns and goes further than merely suggesting changes to UK Government policy. We also set out how a more regionalised approach could work with the devolution of certain aspects of migration within a UK framework. Developing a tailored migration system for Scotland is deliverable, Presiding Officer. The question is whether the political will exists to deliver it. I think that it is worth mentioning that, in this debate, there are many organisations who have given evidence. For instance, Mr Greene mentioned the FSB. The Federation of Small Businesses, in fact, in its evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee and others, have made clear to the Scottish Affairs Committee in the House of Commons that the Scottish Government put forward a very convincing case to show why Scotland's needs are different. The FSB has called for exploratory discussions between the UK and Scottish Governments on the feasibility of devolving aspects of the immigration system. I can tell that our discussions are coming to a close, but I want to end, perhaps, where I began by saying that this is an issue on which there is more consensus than one or two contributions we would give credit for. We need certain solutions to be taken at a UK level in the immediate future, but we also need aspects of immigration policy to be tailored to the needs of Scotland and the needs of Scotland's demography. I hope that all but one or two members will come away from today's debate having understood that. That concludes our debate on Scotland's population needs and migration policy. The next item of business is consideration of a legislative consent motion. I ask Keith Brown to move motion 10568 on the financial guidance and claims bill. We turn now to decision time. There are four questions. The first is that amendment 10571.3, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, seeks to amend motion 10571, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on Scotland's population needs and migration policy, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 10571.3, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, is yes, 26, no, 82. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 10571.2, in the name of Willie Rennie, who seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fiona Hyslop, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 10571.2, in the name of Willie Rennie, is yes, 4, no, 104. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 10571, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on Scotland's population needs and migration policy, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 10571, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, is yes, 78, no, 30. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. The final question is that motion 1058, in the name of Keith Brown, on the financial guidance and claims, will be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time, and I close this meeting.