 Rydw i'r next item of business, which is topical questions. We'll start with question number one from Gordon MacDonald. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the recent Migration Advisory Committee report and its implications for Scotland. Minister Ben Macpherson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As this is my first time speaking as Minister, I first wish to draw members' attention to my voluntary register of interests for transparency. I refer the chamber to that voluntary interest that my partner is employed by Christian Aid in Scotland. Also, before coming directly to Gordon MacDonald's question in relevance to it, I think that it's important to say as new minister that inward migration is crucial to Scotland's growth and prosperity. People who choose to make Scotland their home provide a vital contribution to our country's economy, enhance our collective social and cultural wellbeing and help to make Scotland the open and forward-looking nation that it is today. Since the Brexit vote, the Scottish Government has been consistently clear that we unequivocally value and welcome the positive contribution that migrants make to our country. As new minister, I want to make that information absolutely clearly today. The report from the Migration Advisory Committee, or MAC, that was published earlier this morning, will be of deep disappointment to businesses and employers across Scotland. Employers wanted a system that recognised the importance of EAA citizens, which was simple and low-cost, which met the needs of their sectors. Furthermore, as the report from British Futures showed yesterday, people across Scotland also want a system that gives more responsibility to the Scottish Government, none of which was acknowledged in today's report. Therefore, going forward, this Government will continue to listen to business, and we will also need to ensure that we have enough healthcare professionals and teachers and other professionals working here in Scotland, that we have the workers for a thriving rural economy and that our universities are able to attract and retain talent from around the world. The Migration Advisory Committee was not asked to consider those issues, nor did it fully consider the social and cultural benefits that come from being an open, connected European nation. Therefore, this Government will consider whether to commission further research and independent expert advice where necessary to ensure that Scotland's needs are taken into account. Gordon MacDonald Do the recommendations made in the report not completely misunderstand much of the Scottish context to this? For example, that Scotland's demographic issues, our ageing population of working age, can be solved by raising the age of retirement. Surely there are simpler, more effective ways than that to tackle a shortfall of workers in our public services, for example by attracting more migrants of working age to live here? Gordon MacDonald raised important points around demographics that were not considered appropriately or fully in the MAC report. All of our population increase here in Scotland over the next 25 years is due to come from migration, according to official statistics. However, the Migration Advisory Committee's report this morning does little to consider Scotland's needs. Instead, it suggests that increasing the pension age, quite remarkably, would be a preferential approach to managing demographic change—a completely unsustainable position and one that many across Scotland would reject, and we in the Scottish Government do too. As we saw yesterday from the British Futures report based on ICM polling, there is clear public support for an approach here in Scotland that would give more powers to the Scottish Government, accountable to this Parliament, to develop a tailored approach to migration that meets Scotland's distinct needs, and an approach that would be endorsed by this Parliament. Gordon MacDonald The report acknowledges that the devolution of immigration power is ultimately a political choice. The Scottish Government's outward-looking, welcoming, positive approach to immigration could not be further removed from the right-wing rhetoric emanating from the UK Government in the Brexit context. Indeed, yesterday's poll in the Herald showed that two-thirds of Scots want immigration powers devolved. Is it not at high time that Westminster listened to those demands? Gordon MacDonald Absolutely. It is important to reiterate that the report acknowledges at 7.72 that the devolution of immigration powers is ultimately a political choice. The Scottish Government's outward-looking, welcoming, positive approach to immigration could not be further removed from the right-wing rhetoric emanating from the UK Government. Gordon MacDonald is absolutely right to say that. The report, a year ago from the migration observatory that it published, specifically considered a regional migration system. It concluded that the arguments against a regional visa system were not about practicalities but about politics. As has been mentioned already today, the report from the British Future published yesterday provided some very clear messages. First, people do not trust the UK Government to manage immigration. That was made abundantly clear in the report, with only 15 per cent of people surveyed by ICM thinking that the UK Government had managed immigration into the UK competently or fairly. To quote the British Futures report, the current immigration system does not command public trust and support. Secondly, and also very importantly to us here in this Parliament, people were also clear when polled by ICM about the sort of change that they want to see. 64 per cent of people in Scotland agree that the Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should have the power to decide how many visas are issued to people who want to work in those parts of the UK, and they agreed to that proposal. There is a clear and building and growing consensus that, in order to meet the economic and demographic needs of Scotland, we need more powers to this Parliament in order to create tailored solutions. It is time for the UK Government to listen to the calls from business, civic society and universities across civic society, and to listen to the people of Scotland who, by two thirds, believe that more powers should come to this Parliament in order to manage our migration system in a more humane and forward-looking manner. Pauline McNeill Thank you, Presiding Officer. Does the minister agree that we should end the discrimination against EU workers referred to in the report? The report said that they were not convinced that the route for low-skilled workers was one that should be created, and the minister will be aware of the two-tier visa currents that apply to a list of occupations where there is a shortage, such as cyber security, pediatrics, game designs and so on. I agree that Scotland should have a say in the immigration policy that should be fit for the whole of the UK and have argued this consistently. However, I would like to know what list of occupations have the Scottish Government put forward for that two-tier visa, and what precise dialogue have ministers had to make the case for Scotland's interests to be addressed in that list of occupations? Should there be a case put for low-skilled workers to be on that list? Thank you, Pauline McNeill, for that important question. The interesting balance that there is between high-skilled and low-skilled workers and the way that the report preferences some above the others is disappointing and will be disappointing to industries across Scotland such as tourism, hospitality, the agricultural sector and social care that rely on low-skilled workers. Although we welcome the fact that the report states and argues for a lifting of the cap for tier 2, that will not be a substantial enough change in order to bring the amount of workers that we need to the Scottish economy to fulfil the demands that there are in the public and private sectors. With regard to the occupation list, there is reference to this at 7.73 of the report where there is an acknowledgement that there is a difference between what the short occupation list could be in Scotland or other devolved areas compared with the UK. That is a matter that I have pressed the UK Government on as minister. I met with Caroline Noakes, the immigration minister in the summer, and pressed her on this point. She gave me an undertaking that the UK Government would look at how there could be Scottish Government input and potentially wider from Scottish civic society and business into the occupation list in order to make sure that it was fit for purpose. I am pursuing a follow-up meeting with the minister in order to continue to press this point. We will also be meeting the chairman of the MAC report and we will be taking this matter up with him in due course. Neil Findlay I have to say to you minister that social care workers are not low-skilled, in my opinion, but social attitudes in Scotland on immigration are very similar to those across the rest of the UK. Does he agree that putting limits on the number of people migrating to the UK is arbitrary, and what we need is a fair, humane and non-discriminatory policy that meets the needs of the nations and regions of the UK in an inclusive way? Neil Findlay I thank Neil Findlay for that important question and share much of the sentiment in it. First of all, I absolutely value all skills in our economy. The point that I was making is that one of the problems with the MAC is that it gives a hierarchy towards some skills more than the other and deeply value the commitment of social care workers throughout Scotland and in my constituency. That is the view of other Government ministers. It is a highly regarded sector, and we want those who are working in our social care sector to stay and continue to contribute and take care of the people that we know, our neighbours and friends and those in our communities. On the wider point that Neil Findlay was absolutely right to bring up around the UK Government's arbitrary, insensitive, unhelpful, inflexible, unworkable commitment to bring migration down to the tens of thousands, he is absolutely right to point out the wrongheadedness of the approach, both logically and in principle. The fact that the report has asked for a lifting of the cap for tier 2 suggests that there should be a shift in thinking on that point across the board. I share the sentiment that he put forward in his question on that point. 2. Jamie Greene To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that £45 million has been loaned to Ferguson Marine and whether that is related to the provision of two new ferries being built under contract to CMAL. Scottish shipbuilding has a proud history and a bright future. That is why this Government will continue to support the industry to thrive and reach its full potential. I advised the Finance and Constitution Committee earlier this year that ministers had approved commercial loan facilities of up to £45 million for Ferguson Marine. The loan facilities were reported to Audit Scotland and the expenditure will be recorded in the Scottish Government's consolidated accounts. The delayed delivery of the two new CalMac vessels is disappointing, but the commercial loan facilities provided to Ferguson's will support delivery of those vessels and help the business to diversify. Unfortunately, it took a number of FOIs and press reports for the Government to come to the chamber and tell Parliament the more information about those loans. Can I read the opening line of the FOI response? It says that the Scottish Government does not hold detailed information on all public funding provided to private companies in Scotland. I am sorry, Presiding Officer. I find that absolutely incredulous. Why does it not hold those details? Let me ask some specific questions to allow the cabinet secretary to clarify this money. First of all, the £15 million loan, what was its purpose? What due diligence was done on the firm before the loan was made? What analysis has been done on how that money has been spent? Secondly, the additional £30 million loan facility was explicitly not to go towards the sea malferries or to pay for budget overruns in those contracts, but instead it was designed to win new business opportunities in contrast to what the cabinet secretary has just said. Can the minister clarify for the record that none of the money that has currently been loaned to Ferguson has not and will not be used on the existing troubled ferry contracts? That is quite an incredible position for the Conservatives to hold. They clearly do not speak to each other. It is just not true to say that I have not informed Parliament of those loans when, in fact, as I referenced in my initial answer, I have informed Parliament, particularly the Finance and Constitution Committee. I did so on April 24 and on June 27. I am under no obligation to present the information to Parliament that I did. I went beyond the expectation in the spirit of transparency to offer that information to the Finance and Constitution Committee, and I think that that is the appropriate thing to do. I have to say that most members of Parliament understand the issues of commercial confidentiality, certainly members of the Finance and Constitution Committee, including the responsible Conservative members of the Finance and Constitution Committee, understand what commercial confidentiality is, and there are some matters that do stay private. Of course, we have fulfilled our obligations under freedom of information again. On support for Ferguson's, I think that it is incredible from a member that seeks to be elected in the west of Scotland trying to undermine Ferguson's in the fashion that he is. However, the financial support for Ferguson's is to ensure, of course, the delivery of the viability, the on-going continuation of work for the yard, to ensure that they had work in capital. That was the specifics around the request. Of course, we want the delivery of the new vessels as well, so I think that it is good for a Government to engage to ensure that we can support Scottish shipbuilding in the fashion that we have. I say again, Presiding Officer, that without any obligation to do so, I wrote and informed the Finance and Constitution Committee of the loans that the Scottish Government was providing. Jimmy Greene That is not about whether the Government should or should not support the marine industry. That is about accountability, transparency from this Government and good governance, none of which I have heard today from the cabinet secretary. The project is already a year delayed, by at least a year, and already tens of millions of pounds over budget. There is also talk of a dispute between the yard owners, the Government and CMAL over project management and where the liability of these financial overruns lie. Can the cabinet secretary tell us in very simple terms, delays cost money? Who will pick up the tab for this dispute? Is it Ferguson Marine or the Scottish Taxpayer? Let me be very clear on Ferry's investment. This Government has invested over a billion pounds in terms of ferry services since 2007. We have deployed new ferries for the network, and that has been an enhancement of the CalMac fleet. Does the Conservatives not even welcome the fact that we are trying to support Scottish shipbuilding? What is so wrong with that position that the Scottish Government is trying to support Scottish shipbuilding? 400 jobs at Ferguson's is that not to be welcomed by the Conservatives and others in the chamber, including new apprentices as well. Of course, the delays are not welcomed. They are unfortunate, but it is still the Government that is committed to that investment for those new vessels. I say again that Jamie Greene might not be familiar with issues of commercial confidentiality, but due diligence has been conducted. That was a question that was posed to me by the member that now seems more interested in other matters. Of course due diligence was undertaken in relation to those commercial loans. Those are commercial loans with commercial terms and bound by commercial confidentiality. Is the member seriously suggesting that we now shouldn't respect that and not respect the fact that the Government's interventions ensure not only have we helped to save the yard but that we are delivering 400 jobs in that part of Scotland, the vessels will absolutely be delivered and the working capital issue that was raised by Ferguson's, we have provided support through those loans. I say again that the more responsible members of the Conservative Party who are on the finance committee were alerted to the loans over and above the expectations of transparency on me as cabinet secretary. In fact, it was to be fully transparent that I offered that information in terms of the loans to the committee who respected that. Finally, I am aware that a committee that Jamie Greene is a member of was invited out to the yard to find out more about the vessels and I do not think that he has yet visited the yard despite that offer having been made. The Government will do the right thing by Scottish industry and Scottish jobs and if that means that a Scottish shipbuilder is building vessels for our CalMac fleet then surely that should be welcomed. Stuart McMillan Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that it is the height of utter hypocrisy of a Conservative MSP, particularly one with a Port Glasgow connection, to come to this chamber, talking down shipbuilding my constituency, talking down high-quality and skilled jobs, bearing in mind the absolute devastation that his party did to shipbuilding in 1979 when they shut the yards, paid off thousands and devastated communities, including our own? I agree with Stuart McMillan in that regard. It has been important that the Scottish Government, not just for shipbuilding but for industrial interventions across Scotland, has taken bold decisions to support Scottish industry. I think that that is a good example of that. The Tory is not satisfied in devastating Scottish industry even now in opposition are undermining and attacking our efforts to support the Scottish economy. Yes, it is surprising when it comes from a member who proclaims to be for jobs in the west of Scotland and Inverclyde to try to undermine those efforts from the Scottish Government here in the chamber today. Colin Smyth I know that the cabinet secretary will be aware that the costs for the completion of the two ferries being built by Ferguson's to serve the Clyde and Hebrides network are rising in the company I've claimed. That is due to insufficient design work by CML prior to them issuing the invitation to tender. Ferguson's have described discussions with CML as frustrate. Does the cabinet secretary therefore not agree that it is time to get CML, the Government and Ferguson's, round the table, to resolve those issues and get those ferries completed as soon as possible at a fair price that delivers for increasingly frustrated passengers but helps to secure the future of this important shipyard and their workforce? Colin Smyth I thank the member for the way in which he's raised that particular issue. I think that's a far more helpful contribution than simply the Tories trying to undermine the loan support that we've given to the company. I am clearly, as finance secretary, interested in procurement right across the public sector, and I think that there is something to be said for ensuring that all parties here do continue to talk to get round the table to ensure that we can make the necessary progress. However, in essence, this question was about the commercial loan that's been offered and I think that I've been able to show that I've absolutely complied with the expectation of Parliament going above and beyond in terms of offering that information to the Finance Committee as to further work in relation to CML, who of course are the procuring authority here, and FML then, yes, I think that we can have further discussion in that regard. Edward Mountain Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member of the Wreck Committee, I've heard how important new ferries are for Scotland. We've heard that we need a new one to be ordered every year for the next 10 years, so I don't dispute that. What I'm asking the cabinet secretary is does he think that due diligence has been correctly done in this case when the company that the loan has been made to haven't submitted audited accounts since 2015, which actually raises the question of whether it is diligent to lend them that money? Just asking the question, where's your due diligence, cabinet secretary? Well, any offer of a loan, of course, we would expect due diligence to be complied with. It has been. There has been external consultants working in that regard as well as finance officials as well. Again, members would expect me to appreciate and abide with commercial confidentiality, but I can certainly give the reassurance to the chamber that due diligence was carried out. This is a commercial loan with commercial terms. Clearly, the benefits to Scotland and Scottish Shipbuilding are clear, but I am surprised that now the Conservatives are turning on the company involved in the fashion that they are. I think that maybe Edward Mountain might want to engage with—Oh, the Tory seems quite agitated this afternoon. It's your question, I have to say. The Conservatives might want to talk to your colleagues who, of course, are represented on the finance committee in terms of the information that was raised. I have pointed out to Mr Greene, I am sure that Edward Mountain, if he remembers the same committee, would have been given the invitation to visit the yard as well. I have been quite happy to engage in questions that have been asked or any FOI. Further to that, if the finance committee wants further information, I will engage positively with them. I remind the chamber once again that, without any obligation to do so, I volunteered the issue of the loan to the committee. I think that that was a responsible thing to do. Rather than being dragged to the chamber, I have been quite forthcoming in the information that I have presented. We will add the further information that I referred to in my opening answer. Jackie Baillie Thank you very much. I wonder whether I could invite the cabinet secretary to continue to be forthcoming. Does he not consider that the problem here is seamal and not Ferguson's, and when is he going to sort that out? I am sure that Jackie Baillie well understands that, in relation to any procurement issue or dispute, it would not be appropriate for me in the chamber to take sides in that regard. I have referred to her colleague earlier on to say that, if there is anything further, I can do in terms of procurement responsibility. Of course, I will engage in that. I will be genuinely happy to engage with Jackie Baillie on that and any other matter. Thank you very much to the member and to ministers. That concludes topical questions.