 The public leaving the public area to do so quite less. The Parliament is still in session. The next item is a business-to-business debate on motion 1553 in the name of Annabelle Ewing on settled status scheme for EU citizens in Scotland. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, but I would ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons down a column on Annabelle Ewing to open the debate. Asgol, pepperw, I'm발 shine, indeed, to have the opportunity to debate my motion on the UK Government's EU settlement scheme. I thank the members who have added their names in support and have facilitated this bill today. On the outset, I Falchon Cymru on the UK Government's approach to EU nationals to being a ond yn credu unedwg amddangos yn y Graffaidd, a sorgio gynnig o'r Trifewd i gynnig kimbwriaeth o'u llai o'r UK? That is to say, Presiding Officer, that the UK Government is forcing EU citizens to apply for rights that they already have. It is, Presiding Officer, nothing less than the othering of EU citizens living in our country which othering policies that students of history will know are not without risk cohesion yw. Mae yw, er mwyn oherwydd gweithio cymhineidlau gyda'r unigfyrdd mwy pethol yn gallu teimlo cynutwyllu gyda'r unigfyrdd oherwydd i charfy o'u gennym. Mae UK yn gweithio cwrs wrth 1973, ond gweithio cymhineidlau cyflodynoid sy'n rhaid oherwydd cael 5233,000 oes ynector, ac 3.5 miliwn yn eu wneud i'i d reducing sy'n cael pechydigio our country for years and they have been contributing to the economic life of our country and to the social fabric of our country. They have paid taxes into the Exchequer and they have paid national insurance contributions. They have their physical homes in our country and they regard our country as home. EU nationals are our friends, they are our neighbours, they are our work colleagues, they are our fellow students and they are for many, in fact, family members. This week we heard of the heartbreaking story of Tovi MacDonald, further to an interview broadcast by SDV. Tovi MacDonald is 87 years old. She was born in Denmark and has lived in Scotland for almost 60 years. She has children and grandchildren in Scotland. She was married here, she has friends here and she has built her life here. However, the UK Government has written to Tovi MacDonald insisting that she apply in order to be able to stay in her own home. She described receiving this letter, thus, I quote, I got a letter to say that because of Brexit I had to register and I couldn't understand why. I thought that this couldn't be right because I've been here for so many years. I thought that it was absolutely crazy. It makes me feel very sad because this is my home and I feel more Scottish than Danish. I've got nowhere to go. This is my home. Who would ever have imagined that they would live to hear such a statement in 21st century Scotland? This is not who we are, Presiding Officer, and it is shaming for the UK Government and for Ruth Davidson's Tories in Scotland who are happily going along with it. Indeed, not one Tory MSP has seen fit to sign my motion. Presiding Officer, the UK Government must now bring this sorry saga to an end and scrap this policy. It is of dubious legality and it must be viewed as motivated by the anti-immigration factions that are now rife inside the Tory party right across the UK. It is an ugly, heartless policy and it is causing considerable uncertainty, anxiety and distress. Some weeks ago, the UK Prime Minister further to a concerted campaign by the SNP, by Scottish Labour, the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats, bowed to pressure to abolish the proposed settlement scheme fee, which was to be charged for each application. I would urge all those parties to keep up the pressure and to work with the Scottish Government to see the end of this truly grotesque policy. When doing so, it is worth highlighting that many concerns have been raised in any event about the mechanics of the scheme, including the unrealistic deadline for applications, the limited means by which applications can be made in general and the ability of the already dysfunctional UK Home Office to administer the scheme. Concerns have also been raised by the House of Lords EU justice sub-committee about the fact that there will be no physical piece of paper if applications are successful. Rather, there will be an electronic link only. Given the UK Government's record on IT and on competence in general, that will be a very chilling prospect for many people. Moreover, any delays in processing applications will have implications far beyond mere administrative issues. Indeed, they could result, as has been stated by the think tank British Future, in many thousands of EU citizens being left with an insecure immigration status or indeed no status at all. It should be noted in this regard that deportations have not been ruled out by the UK Prime Minister and her Tory party. It must be asked, therefore, whether the UK Government has willfully learned no lessons at all from the Windrush scandal, a point made by Baroness Helena Kennedy in the House of Lords recently. Here in Scotland, the Scottish Government is doing all that it can within the limited powers that we have, as far as immigration powers are concerned, to help our fellow EU citizens. Specifically, Citizens Advice Scotland has been funded to provide a new advice service on rights, entitlements and requirements, which will be available across their network with a slister-led helpline to be established for more difficult and complex cases. In Scotland, at this time of great uncertainty and anxiety, our Government is committed to doing all that it can to speak up for and support our EU citizens. The Westminster Government in London is forcing EU citizens to apply to retain the rights that they already have. What a contrast, Presiding Officer, a contrasting tale of two Governments that will not be lost on the people of Scotland. For we did not vote for this, we want no part of this and we will not put up with this. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, I would just wish to repeat what Scotland's First Minister said on the morning of the 2016 EU referendum result when speaking directly to citizens of other EU countries living in Scotland, she said and I quote, you remain welcome here, Scotland is your home and your contribution is valued. From my part, Presiding Officer, I would like to reiterate that message and I would like to take this opportunity today to say to my constituents in Cowdenbeath, to all those EU citizens living in Cowdenbeath constituency and to all those EU citizens living across Scotland, you remain welcome here, Scotland is your home and your contribution is valued. I call Tom Arthur to be followed by Alexander Stewart. I wish to begin by thanking Annabelle Ewing in recognising what was an excellent speech for it brilliantly and in a very measured way, which can be challenging in debates like this summarised the salient points. I also want to recognise the outstanding contribution of EU nationals in my constituency of Renfisher South, EU nationals in Barhead, Neustin, Uplemore and Johnston, Eldersley, Llynwood, Brookfield, Cobarkin, Howard, Lochwinnock, to those who volunteer in our third sector in Renfisher South, to those who work for Renfisher Council and East Renfisher Council, to those who work in our businesses and in our hospitality sector, to those in every area of our life, to our friends and our neighbours in Renfisher South, to the I want to recognise the EU nationals who work in this Parliament and make such an outstanding contribution. I want to recognise the contribution that all EU nationals across Scotland make, and I also want to make a point because I am not speaking about someone different than an EU national because I am an EU national. I am an EU citizen and I am proud to be an EU citizen. I will fight to my dying breath to ensure that we maintain our EU citizenship. At one day, we will see an independent Scotland as a full member of the European Union, where we are all European citizens. European citizenship is not some abstract, it is not some legalism. It was born out of the ashes of two calamities that befell the continent in the first half of the 20th century. The wisdom in EU citizenship, the wisdom in that shared identity came at the expense of the blood of countless millions of men and women and children across the continent. If we allow ourselves to lapse into a numb, unthinking, bureaucratic state of mind, that is a very dangerous place to get to because it allows the insidious creep of intolerance of the othering that Annabelle spoke about. I have to say, Presiding Officer, I staunchly, I so deeply regret that we are in this position today where we are having to debate this. First and foremost, we must recognise the contribution that our EU friends, our brothers, our sisters, our neighbours, our co-workers, our families make to this country in enriching us. It was one of Europe's great authors, Marcel Proust, who said that the real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes but in having new eyes. Within Europe, we see new landscapes. We have the opportunity through freedom of movement to travel, but through mixing, through engaging, through that cultural exchange we enhance ourselves, we develop ourselves and we also see with new eyes we become better people. Our EU citizenship enhances us and that is the great gift that the European Union, that freedom of movement and the ability for all EU citizens to live anywhere in this continent has bestowed upon us. However, there is something fundamentally different in a state of mind when you visit a country and go through passport control and know you have a mere three months where you can stay and you have a visitor. It is a fundamentally different state of mind for anyone in Scotland who can go to Paris, to Krakow, to Athens, to Madrid, to Lisbon, to any European capital, to any European city. I know that they do not have the right just to visit, but to settle there, to live there, to work there, that becomes a sense of collective ownership and responsibility, that binds our people together in this continent, that realises the vision of the founders of the European Union, which was to ensure that never again would this continent go to war. When we start to unpick that tapestry that we have woven, all that rich and ennobling tapestry that we have woven over the past six to years, then we risk further down the line another catastrophe befalling our continent. The reality is that the very practical reality for Scotland is that without EU nationals we will not be able to build the fairer, more prosperous, more equal country that we all seek. We know the challenges facing Scottish public finances as a consequence of the demographics. The reality is that, while we are in Scotland, our working-age population is just as productive as the working-age population, indeed more so than many other parts of the UK, our population overall is ageing. Without that freedom of movement, without sending that message to citizens in Europe and to across the world that they are welcome, we will not be able to build that better, Scotland. I want to conclude by thanking Annabelle Ewing for bringing forward this motion, for thanking all those who signed it, and to say that we will continue to fight for our fellow EU citizens and to ensure that their citizenship is restored in full as members of an independent Scotland within the European Union. Thank you, Mr Arthur. I call Alexander Stewart to be followed by Alec Rowley. Mr Stewart, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank you for allowing me to leave after my presentation and speech this afternoon as I have individuals to meet, and then I am coming back into the chamber to take the first question on real economy after. I am grateful for the opportunity to take part today, and I would like to acknowledge and congratulate Annabelle Ewing for bringing this member's business debate to the chamber. I very much value the significant contribution that migrants to Scotland make to our economy, our culture and our everyday parts of life. Deputy Presiding Officer, regarding the EU settlement scheme, recommendations will be taken on board, which is why the scheme is initially launched as a pilot. During this time, the procedures will go through the prototype stage, just as any initial would go through in this process. There will be strong enough options that particular procedures will the scheme, and the UK Government will listen to the options and act accordingly, if appropriate, which is precisely why that has been done and the withdrawing of the application fee has been dealt with. Any person who has already applied during the pilot scheme will also have their fee reimbursed. The decisions that have been made are clear. I hear that there is a pilot and that it is moving to a scheme, and the UK Government may listen to some things, but it may not. Who knows? The fact of the matter is that there will be the EU settlement scheme. Why should EU citizens, like Tove MacDonald, who has lived in this country for 60 years, be forced by the Tory Government to apply for rights that she already has? I acknowledge what Ms Ewing is saying, and I also acknowledge what the individual has made in her representation. I feel uncomfortable and I am not denying the fact about that situation. I think that that needs to be looked at, because it has to be looked upon in a process. I am sure and I continue that representation will be made. I have no doubt. Indeed, the nature of the permanent status of individuals and offering them the ability to come forward is vital and important. Indeed, as I said before, the UK Government will continue to welcome the best and brightest to this country, and that is vital and important that we do. However, as schemes have been in the past, we have to identify the processes that are involved to ensure that we understand the benefits for both the host country and the applicant. Therefore, I, like others, am delighted that the UK Government has abandoned its plans to change and charge EU citizens a fee when applying for the right to remain in Scotland through the settlement scheme. Governments in EU countries have already said that UK citizens living in other parts of the world will be treated in a similar way as to how the UK Government treats EU citizens living in the UK, and that is rightly to be expected. It is interesting to note that the UK Government has, additionally, researched and has agreements with non-EU countries such as Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein, as well as separate agreements with Switzerland. Those countries are happy with the current arrangements, and the national of those countries have the ability to apply for EU settlement scheme from March 30, 2019. The new system of obtaining settled status will be streamlined, user-friendly and will draw on existing Government's data information that is a burden for applicants with evidence. Applications will not be refused on minor technicalities without a paxing and giving that appropriate and giving them the opportunity to reiterate it. Casework or consideration applications will exercise the region on favour of the applicants who are appropriate. As a result, the Home Office has said that it will expect a vast majority of cases to be granted, which we feel is most likely to be only on serious criminality and individuals who are not part. It is also important that we understand and we obtain where we can absent from the UK. Individuals can stay outside the UK for five years without losing their settlement status. I have already heard Ms Ewing make some comments, and there is no doubt that this is quite a volatile issue during the current negotiations. I indicated right the start that I and my party recognise the importance of the value of migrants coming to our country. Many have made their lives here and contribute to our business community, our academic and our political life. They are most welcome to have that right to remain and should be treated with dignitary and respect. As I said, the case that Ms Ewing brings forward indicates that there is some way to go in managing that process. They have to and they continue to make a significant contribution to the way of life that we have here. I once again thank Ms Ewing for bringing that forward. I look forward to seeing the processes that will be achieved in the subject and that we all play our part to ensure the stability and the continuity of the subject going forward. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I call Alex Rowley to be followed by Stuart McMillan. I welcome the debate today on the settled status scheme for EU citizens in Scotland. I was pleased to support the motion from Annabelle Ewing and I would want to associate myself with the speech that she made today. Although I think that it is ridiculous that the Tories have brought us to a place where it warrants discussion about something that seems so obvious, those who live here in Scotland, work here in Scotland, have families here in Scotland and homes here in Scotland should clearly have an automatic right to remain and should not and had never been subject to the proposal of the Tory Government at Westminster of having to pay for the status and rights that they currently already have. I am glad that this proposal was hastily scrapped by the Tories amid strong criticism from MPs and campaigning groups. Although the fact that it was proposed in the first place only shows to highlight how much of a mess the Tories are making when it comes to Brexit, the Labour Party would never have used people's living in this country as a pawn in cheap negotiation tactics and, frankly, it is shameful that they were ever treated in this way. EU citizens living in Scotland contribute greatly to our country both culturally and economically. Diverse communities experience wide-ranging cultural benefits, especially through exchanges in ideas and customs, as well as making our world a more connected place. Migrants from the EU contribute £2,300 more to the Exchequer each year in net terms than the average adult. Over their lifetime, they pay in £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits. However, it is time that we as a country start talking about immigration. It has become an almost taboo subject to raise, which has in turn resulted in those with extreme views capitalising on the lack of discussion and playing up to people's fears. We as a country need to talk about immigration and try to disperse the myths and indeed the fears that people have around it. For it is the case here in Scotland that we need not less but more immigration. Scotland has an ageing population and, as a result of that, we will require more immigration in the future simply in order to sustain public services and support the increases in that elderly population. We only have to look at the Windrush scandal last year to see that our immigration system is broken. Theresa May has proposed a post-Brexit salary threshold for skilled immigrants at £30,000 level. That is just ridiculous, given that so many of our carers and NHS staff are migrants. How could we possibly maintain the level of services required when so many skilled workers will be blocked from working in the UK? We already are seeing our health service and social care systems struggling with funding problems, but if we remove access to a huge workforce resource, what will that mean for those in need? Brexit has highlighted starkly that we as a country need to work on dispelling fears around immigration. However, the Government has a huge role to play in that, and, frankly, the Tories have a lot to answer for in stirring up the rhetoric of fear in order to try and score political points. It is time, Presiding Officer, that they stopped using people's lives in the way they have been and started standing up for our country as a whole. I am happy to support the motion. I call Stuart McMillan, who is followed by Jamie Greene. Mr Greene will be the last speaker in the open debate. I thank my friend and colleague Annabelle Ewing for securing that important debate. The campaign that has been successful so far proves that, when parties work together, they can encourage and force some political change. Clearly, in this Parliament, every party deserves some credit, except that is for the Conservatives. The Tories, either willingly or through some blind dogmatic approach, seem to have forgotten how important EU nationals are to Scotland and to the rest of the UK. It has been a complete and utter embarrassment to instigate the settled status fee. Tom Arthur, in his contribution earlier on, spoke about the history of the EU project. I cannot agree with him any more on that, because it is so important to understand and appreciate why the EU has came about and how important it was for that to be the case. The fee was £65. Someone claimed that that would not break the bank for many people. The fee could be £65 for all I am concerned. It is not the issue of how much it was. It is about the message that is sent out to people. It is sending out two messages to EU nationals. First of all, they were not wanted. Secondly, they were going to become a bargain chip in the shambolic EU negotiations being led by the worst Prime Minister in history. They were to be used to tell the EU negotiators that they will be tough in the talks. What the Prime Minister and her acolytes have done is to turn Britain into a laughing stock. The so-called Great Britain that the Tories so proclaim that they support and love will have the reputation that is not great across the EU and beyond. The Prime Minister and her revolving door of ministers, apart from Chris Grayling, are telling people that Britain is uncaring. It was claimed in the past that the UK's negotiating skills have reduced somewhat by becoming a member of the European Union. It certainly appears to be true in this case. The EU is not kicking us out, but the UK seems actually hell bent on going out, leaving as sour a taste as possible to make things worse for the future. I wonder if Mr McMillan would agree with me that a fitting motto for the UK Government in the whole Brexit process would be to stop the world that Britain wants to get off. Who genuinely thought that imposing a charge on people who are our neighbours, our friends, our family members, our colleagues, our active members of society, teachers, nurses, doctors, engineers, footballers, rugby players and many more was a good thing? Who genuinely thought that imposing a charge on EU nationals would build up some goodwill during the negotiations? Brexit is serious. It will have a huge effect on the lives of everyone living in the four nations that currently make up the UK, as well as the people living in the EU 27. That is not a game of chicken. Those are real people with real lives and real futures. I do not for one minute think that all the Tories in this Parliament supported what was to be deployed. They will have told the line to support the London Masters. I understand the fact that we have internal party discipline. Every member in this chamber will get that. However, on something like this, forcing people who live here and many of them have been here for decades to pay for the privilege to remain in their own home, to remain with their families, to remain in their communities and to remain in their job was the worst kind of dog whistle politics. Scottish Tories did not need to sign up to that. They could have been different, but they proved that whether it is in Scotland or that it is across the UK, the nasty party is well and truly back. I truly welcome the U-turn by the Prime Minister on the £65 fee, but the damage has been done. I am a firm believer that prevention is better than the cure. Every Government will make mistakes and this one was a howler of epic proportions. The silver taste will linger for many years, long after Brexit. This is in addition to the windrush scandal telling the population that, if you are different, you will remain different. That stinks and is deplorable. I understand why people are rightly angry and I understand why people like former MSP Christian Islayer were so vocal about the scandal. Every Tory who supported the scheme should hang their head in shame. My final comment on this is that the Tories need to apologise to our friends, our neighbours and every EU, national living and contributing to society, including to the staff of this Scottish Parliament. I call Jamie Greene, please. I had written a speech on today's date, but I have listened carefully to what the members have to say. I accept some of what they are saying, because I think that we as Parliamentarians have a duty to work together on some of these issues. We had a very lengthy debate about Brexit the other day, four hours of it in this Parliament. There was a lot of theatre involved, but there was also a lot of sense coming out of that as well. My colleague Jackson Carlaw stood in this podium here and spoke about some of the issues that Ms Ewing referred to around how people feel about this process. I share his sentiment, I share Ms Ewing's sentiment on some of that, but I would like to explain why. I did read the motion. There is lots to agree with it, but there are a few things that I do not. If you would give me the benefit of explaining why I did not sign the motion, I am not going to use the debate today to talk about Brexit as a wider issue or EU citizenship and what it means to people who are Scottish or British or Scottish independence and what may or may not happen. I would like to talk specifically about the processes by which we achieve something that I think we all want to achieve in securing the rights of EU citizens. I welcome the U-turn that was made on the fee. We did not have any specific role to play in that policy. It was a Home Office decision. Did it sit uncomfortably with some members? Perhaps. Was the decision to abolish it the right one? Yes, it was. However, I have this conundrum about the process by which we secure EU citizens' rights. Anyone who knows me and any member from across the chamber that I have discussions about immigration with, including members of the Government's front bench, will know that I think that there is a positive case for inward immigration to Scotland and that there is a sensible conversation to be had around that. However, those who are already here and those who wish to come here post 29 March need to have some form of security and certainty that the process that they follow will give them the rights that they need and indeed the ones that they already have. Let me explain why that is important to me. I have lived in Europe before. I have lived in Spain, in the Netherlands and France. I have been through that process of turning up in a new country to live and work, but I have also been through the processes of those countries and respected their domestic processes to apply for residency in those places. The reason why I went through that process is because I wanted to enjoy the benefits that they enjoyed of employment benefits of being able to pay tax locally and being a meaningful part of their economies. I have had to apply for identity cards and registration of my citizenship. That is partially because of why we are where we are. We are not in Schengen. We do not have domestic ID cards or residency cards and, indeed, no one else has ever left Europe before. It was against that backdrop that we are in this conundrum of how we guarantee the rights of those from outside a state of unions that we will no longer be a member of. The phraseology in the motion says that we want to scrap the settlement scheme. If we were to do so, and it is a question, which legal means do we have available to us to secure the rights of those who are already here? It is not an automatic process because the constitutional changes that will have taken place means that there needs to be some form of process. I really have very little time, but maybe the minister can sum up. I have a lot more to say. I am not refusing to take an invention for the record. I have missed everything through the chair, please, and the member is absolutely every right not to take an intervention that he only has four minutes for thereabouts. It is a matter for him. I would love to take an invention, but I want to point out that, if there is a logic that there is no settlement scheme for EU residents in the UK, surely we would be calling us a Parliament that there should be nothing for EU residents in Europe? For example, Spain has offered reciprocal rights for EU nationals, but they have already said that they will need to apply for something called a foreigner identity card. What do we do as a Parliament? Do we welcome that because they have offered that reciprocal rights? Or do we condemn it because it involves a card, a process or some form of registration? That is the conundrum that we face. I want those bilateral agreements that secure UK rights in Europe, and I want to secure UK nationals' rights in the UK, but let us make sure that it is as simple, fair and respectful a process in both directions as it can and should be. There is much degree within the motion today, but I cannot agree that there should be no process whatsoever. If there were no process, it would make it difficult to secure the outcome that we collectively want to achieve. That is securing EU citizens' rights. Those who are already here, I want them to stay, I welcome them, and I do not believe that anyone in the benches that I sit on do not want them to stay. Any suggestion, otherwise, is not just unfair but deeply saddening. First of all, I too would like to congratulate Annabelle Ewing on securing this incredibly important debate at this time. However, I say that with regret because Scotland is a remarkable European outward-looking welcoming country, and we should not be having to have this debate. My message to EU citizens, as has been the message from the majority of speakers, is that Scotland is your home. You will always be welcome here. We want you to stay, and the Scottish Government will do all it can to support you to stay. All of us can't say that enough to our EU citizens, friends, neighbours, colleagues and loved ones. We must never lose sight of the fact that, behind all the talk of amendments, withdrawal agreements, negotiations and the abolition of fees, people and their lives lie directly in this situation and are directly affected. People like Tobia MacDonald, who has been mentioned, who, after 59 years of living in Scotland, must now apply for the right to live in her home, an awful situation. When I saw Tobia MacDonald's interview, I thought of so many others that I have met and spoken to over recent months and years from Poland and Italy and France and other countries in the EU. Real people, real stories, people who have made their home here, who have brought up their families here, who pay their taxes, are valued members of their community and yet now are being forced to apply for the right to stay in their home. That cannot be right. That is not right. In response to that, the Scottish Government is clear about the need to ensure that EU citizens feel valued and welcomed in Scotland. That has been at the heart of everything that we have done since the EU referendum in 2016, yet we are working against a backdrop of a narrative from the UK Government that is deeply unhelpful to say the very least. Their hostile environment policy is hurting people. Before Christmas, this Parliament debated the rights of EU citizens. One of our key asks in that debate was that the settled status fee should be abolished, an argument that was rejected at the time by the UK Government, but soon after, from pressure from the Scottish Government, this Parliament, together with key partners such as the 3 million, we played a central role together in getting the fee for settled status scrapped. Emma Harper Thank you. I have been sitting here listening to this debate, and I too am concerned for the many EU citizens in my South Scotland region. You are talking about the settled scheme, and I am also interested in the seasonal agricultural worker scheme that has been developed for the agricultural workers that are fruit pickers or vegetable pickers. Does the minister recognise that the Government's designing of the seasonal agricultural worker scheme has completely disregarded the dairy farms? 48 per cent are in the south-west of Scotland, and it is not seasonal, they are all year round, and they do not even probably meet the tier 2 £30,000 requirements to stay in this country. Thank you for that question. The seasonal agricultural worker scheme is useful in some ways but is absolutely inadequate and will certainly not be a substitute for freedom of movement. That is why we in the Scottish Government are pressing the UK Government to rethink its white paper proposals but are also putting forward proposals for flexibility within a UK framework within devolution in order to try and obtain solutions for Scotland in a post-Brexit environment, which of course we do not want to happen. We would prefer to maintain freedom of movement, but in the face of what is coming at us, we are trying our best to stand up for the interests of Scotland, including dairy farmers. Getting back to the settled status scheme, let me be clear that the scrapping of the fee was just a small concession from Westminster, because demanding that our colleagues, neighbours, friends and family pay to remain in their homes should never have been suggested in the first place. The proposal to charge a fee was always unacceptable, but it is not the only issue with the settled status scheme. EU citizens should not have to apply. I noticed that one of the Tory speakers talked about the applicant a number of times. Those are not applicants. Those are people who are embedded in our communities and welcome parts of our country. People should not have to apply for the rights that they already enjoy and to answer one of the Conservative members' questions. Instead, they could have and should have been automatically granted status, unless there was a very good reason not to. The responsibility for obtaining that should not lie with individuals to apply, but with the UK Government that has imposed the wrong-headed scheme. The UK Government could have and should have chosen to secure EU citizens' rights as a priority after the vote for Brexit, separate to any withdrawal agreement. They could have done that and led on that, and that would have been the right thing to do. I will take the intervention. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. I hear what he is saying. Is it therefore, by that logic, the Scottish Government's official policy that the EU 27 should give automatic residency to all UK nationals living in Europe at the moment without any form of process or registration? Is that his policy? My understanding is that this only became a live issue in the negotiations because it was one of the Prime Minister's red lines. If the UK Government had shown leadership and ethical leadership as well by securing the rights of EU citizens, then she could have encouraged the remaining 27 to do the same. That should have been done years ago, and it certainly is something that we would back now. The security of EU citizens in all members of the European Union should be paramount, and we absolutely support that. Despite assurances from the Home Office that the SETL-C scheme would be simple with a presumption of acceptance, there are serious and mounting concerns about its operation. The UK Government has left a vacuum where it should be providing information, advice and support to EU citizens across the UK. Many EU citizens simply do not know that they need to apply because the UK Government has not done nearly enough to raise awareness of the scheme and provide much needed assistance with applications. That is why the Scottish Government in the weeks and months ahead will redouble its efforts to reach out and provide EU citizens with the information and support that they need. We have already made provision for an advice and support service delivered through Citizens Advice Scotland, which will provide assistance over and above anything that the UK Government is doing, despite it being clearly their responsibility. However, the concerns do not end there. The UK Government's insistence that all applications must be made online does not work for significant numbers of people. The issue with Apple devices not being able to be used for the scheme has been much debated, but for many people it is not a question of which device they use. It is about having the digital skills and the confidence to trust your future to an online application. I know that many EU citizens are concerned about their ability to access services, housing and employment in the future. I hear consistently that many individuals want physical proof of their status, something that they can show to evidence their rights. The UK Government should listen and, in addition to the proposed electronic proof of status, provide individuals with a physical document evidencing their status. Again, that could have been proactively provided through a declarative process rather than an applicant process. The Home Office says that the vast majority of those who have applied during the test phase have been granted status. Yet, there is no information on the number of people who were incorrectly granted pre-settled status instead of settled status. The Home Office must look at that as a matter of urgency. We acknowledge that those granted pre-settled status are faced with many more months or even years of uncertainty. The onus will be on them to remember, perhaps in several years' time, that they then need to reapply for settled status. It is incumbent for the UK Government to make sure that that does not happen. The Home Office must notify individuals when they become eligible to apply for settled status. My overarching concern is the same as Trovey MacDonald, a grandmother who fears being the victim of another Windrush scandal. The UK scheme is unprecedented in its nature and scale and, in trusting its delivery to the department responsible for Windrush, is wrong-headed in the extreme. The UK Government must look again at the fundamentals of the EU-settled status scheme and address the urgent concerns that I and many others have raised, all of which could critically undermine the ability of our friends, neighbours, colleagues and family to continue their lives here in Scotland. Let me also conclude by saying this again. This Parliament and indeed Scotland welcomes and supports the many EU citizens who have built their lives here and call here home. We are better for having them here, we know they love Scotland and we love them too and want them to stay and continue to feel welcome as part of our communities. Thank you minister. That concludes the debate and I suspend this meeting of Parliament till 2 pm.