 The next item of business today is a statement by Ben Macpherson on UK immigration policy after leaving the EU impacts on Scotland's economy, population and society. I encourage members who wish to ask a question to press their request-to-sheet buttons and I call on the minister Ben Macpherson. In October 2018, I established an expert advisory group on migration and population. I asked them to review UK Government proposals for immigration policy after leaving the EU and advise on the impact that such proposals might have on areas of devolved responsibility in Scotland, the health of the Scottish economy, delivery of our public services and sustainability of our communities. Earlier this month, the group presented me with their initial conclusions, and I am today publishing their report and updating Parliament on the implications of those conclusions. I want to begin by thanking the members of the group for their efforts in producing this considered analysis. I am grateful to Professor David Bell of the University of Stirling, Dr Andrew Copis of the James Hutton Institute in Aberdeen, Professor Rebecca Kay of the University of Glasgow, Professor Hill Cullow of the University of St Andrews and Professor Christina Boswell of the University of Edinburgh, who chaired the group. I also greatly appreciate the engagement and input throughout that process from COSLA on behalf of local government. The Scottish Government believes that Scotland is a European nation that belongs in the EU, and that is what the people of Scotland voted for overwhelmingly in 2016. The benefits of membership of the EU, or at the very least membership of the European single market customs union, are abundantly clear when compared to the risks that we now face standing on the precipice of a no-deal Brexit. Freedom of movement is one of the greatest achievements of the European project. It has facilitated trade, protected workers' rights and opened up new horizons for people young and old to learn, live and love across a continent. The right of free movement is one that we enjoy just as much as other member states, and losing the reciprocal benefit of shared EU citizenship will be one of the most significant negative impacts of Brexit. For Scotland, in particular, free movement has helped to turn around our long history of population decline. Migration has been a key driver of economic growth, adding to our working-age population and growing our tax base. That is now all at risk. The current UK Government is determined that freedom of movement should end. That is one of the Prime Minister's red lines. The Scottish Government, on the other hand, believes that that is a mistake from the Prime Minister, in principle and for very practical economic and demographic reasons. I asked the expert advisory group on migration and population to look into the impacts in Scotland of recommendations that were made by the Migration Advisory Committee in September 2018, subsequently adopted by the UK Government in the immigration white paper. In line with their remit, the group's report addresses economic impacts, including labour market effects and fiscal effects, demographic impacts and impacts on Scotland's communities. The group's headline conclusion is that, if it enacted, the policy measures in the UK Government's immigration white paper would reduce overall net migration to Scotland by between 30 and 50 per cent over the coming two decades. That would lead to decline in the size of the working-age population. I would increase the overall age profile of workers. That will only exacerbate the challenge of managing the pressures that are presented by an ageing society. The group has considered that the proposed new system might allow for a slight increase in migration from outside the EU. Indeed, compared to the status quo, the white paper proposes some minor improvements to the main route for skilled workers outside the EU. However, when a niff-free movement ends and migration from Europe is managed through that same route, the overall impact is set to significantly reduce migration to Scotland. The UK Government proposal for a salary threshold of £30,000 or more has already attracted much comment. That is the only element of the white paper on which the UK Government is formally seeking input. I encourage employers to clearly set out their position, but the message that I have heard in my engagement with business has been that this £30,000 salary threshold proposal is completely unrealistic. The salary threshold is just one of the measures that, together, will serve to deprive key sectors and industries of people and skills. Again, something that I have heard in my discussions with representatives from tourism, social care, transport and many other sectors. For those businesses, the UK proposals simply will not work. GBI Scotland said it most clearly, stating that the proposals outlined in the white paper do not meet Scotland's needs or the needs of the UK as a whole and would be a sucker punch for many firms. Furthermore, the expert group envisages a disproportionate impact of the white paper proposals on women. Fewer women than men are likely to meet a salary threshold, especially in less prosperous areas and in remote and rural communities. The report also highlights issues faced by rural Scotland as a consequence of those changes. Historical depopulation in some rural and island communities is so pronounced that it is not possible for natural change to sustain those communities. Migration to areas such as Dumfries and Galloway, the West Highlands, Argyll and Bute and the Western Isles is essential. Although there are particular concerns in rural communities and particular sectors, I also emphasise that the challenge that the group has described in the report is one that faces all of Scotland, urban and rural alike, across all sectors of the economy. That is why it is so important that we build consensus on what Scotland needs. Finally, the report is clear on the unworkable implications of the UK Government's proposed 12-month temporary visa for so-called low-skilled migrants. That route would insufficiently meet demand in areas that already at present suffer labour shortages. It would inhibit settlement and cohesion in Scotland's local communities and is contrary to the UK Government's own stated aims of discouraging economic precarity. This expert advisory group report on migration and population clearly sets out to all of us the potential impact on our economy, our public services and our communities of the UK Government's immigration proposals. It presents a challenge to this Parliament and we need to find solutions that work for Scotland. I will work with businesses, with local government, with third sector bodies and with all members across the chamber to build that common ground and together influence the direction of UK policy. However, it is also becoming increasingly clear that, if migration policy is to remain with the UK, we need the ability to set additional, tailored policy approaches to address the particular issues that Scotland is facing. We had an example of that in the previous fresh talent scheme, when that was withdrawn, all parties in this Parliament supported its reintroduction following the Smith commission. The arguments in favour of a post-study work visa still apply today. We need that route back. However, the challenges that we face on migration and population have only grown and so our collective ambition needs to grow as well in response. We want to implement a clear, fair approach that encourages and supports people who want to make their homes and live and work and raise their families here in Scotland. Together, we need to think seriously, with an open mind, about what solutions could be provided through devolution of immigration powers to this Parliament. Crucially, we also need to step up efforts to encourage people who have already come to Scotland under freedom of movement to stay. Ensuring that EU citizens continue to feel valued and welcomed has been at the very centre of our work since the EU referendum in 2016. Together with partners, we successfully argued for the abolition of the settled status fee. We are providing funding to Citizens Advice Scotland to enable them to provide information and advice to EU citizens and we will shortly be launching a new phase in our campaign to encourage EU citizens to remain in Scotland. Now, more than ever, it is critical for each and every one of us to reassure those who have built their lives in Scotland that this is your home, you are welcome here, we want you to stay and we will support you to stay. I hope that we can build agreement on reflecting on the findings of this expert group report on what might come next and, together, what we can do together that is right for Scotland. The minister will now take questions, starting with Adam Tomkins. I would like to thank the minister for early sight of his statement. It is a welcome statement and I welcome the minister's remarks about building consensus and effective cross-party working. Every Scottish Conservative MSP, who spoke at every stage of our recent budget debates, talked about the need to grow the Scottish economy. We are serious about that. We know that you cannot grow the economy without addressing the productivity puzzle and that you cannot do that without addressing the economic imperative of migrant labour. Managed migration is a social good, too, of course. A key opportunity of Brexit is that we can end the period of uncontrolled EU migration into the UK and replace it with a managed migration system that works for EU and non-EU citizens alike. I am not in favour of devolving immigration powers to this Parliament, but I am very strongly in favour of ensuring that the UK's new system of managed migration works effectively for all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. One size may very well not fit all, and where there genuinely are discrete Scottish needs, they should be accommodated within the UK's immigration system. With that in mind, will the minister commit to working with me and my Scottish Conservative colleagues, both here and in Westminster, to explore whether the tax system, either through our Scottish tax codes or through national insurance numbers, could form the basis of a new immigration system, which, while UK-wide, could, where appropriate, be tailored to the specific needs of the Scottish economy? The open-mindedness that was expressed in some of that question is welcome. However, what that report shows very starkly is that, if we are interested in being attractive and supporting the needs of business in the Scottish economy, what is being proposed in UK immigration policy after Brexit is going to have the exact opposite effect of that. What that expert advisory group reports and concludes is that there will be a 30 to 50 per cent reduction in the number of people coming to Scotland over the next 20 years. That is a 5 per cent decline in our workforce. How can we support the Scottish economy in a situation that is presented to us like that? The business opposition to not just the proposal for a £30,000 salary threshold, which, incidentally, as our expert advisory group report states, would not apply to 63 per cent of the Scottish working population? In a situation like that, how can we be attractive as a country with UK immigration proposals that are going to make it more bureaucratic, more costly and less welcoming for people to come here? What is being proposed by the UK Government is not going to work for business, so we need to be solution-focused here in Scotland and work together to get the powers that we need to come to this Parliament in order to come up with tailored solutions. Yes, we will try to implement UK Government policies. We will try to influence the shortage occupation list for Scotland and have asked for direct input into that, and the UK Government has yet to enable that. However, the truth is that if the UK is going to take a policy direction based on the white paper that it is proposing, that will not work for Scotland. That advisory group expert evidence concludes on that, and, in Scotland, we need to think creatively and be focused together on coming up with solutions that will work for Scotland and using this Parliament to help to design them and make them happen. Claire Baker will be filled by Ross Greer for the advance copy of the statement. I also thank the chair, Professor Christina Boswell, for her and the expert group's work in producing this detailed report on the impact of the UK Government's white paper. On this of your views on leaving the EU, it is difficult to ignore the evidence of the negative impact that those proposals will have on Scotland's population, economy and society. The process of leaving the EU is chaotic, and it is not clear when the exit will happen or on what basis. However, we must assume that the UK will require a new immigration system, and the UK Government must not ignore the pressures on Scotland's population, economy and society if those proposals are enacted. This Parliament has previously worked together across political parties, when the evidence clearly pointed us towards the need for policy tailored for Scotland. The minister proposes devolution of immigration powers. I believe that there is an alternative way to address this problem, which would provide flexibility and regional variation within a UK framework. Will the Scottish Government equally approach cross-party discussions with an open mind, and has the minister commissioned any work on other models, such as those operating in Canada and Australia? Thank you very much, Clare Baker, for that question and the tone of it. I agree that the conclusions of the expert advisory group make it clear that we have specific acute, more pronounced challenges on demography that we need to consider as Scotland, as well as the potential economic repercussions of the removal of freedom of movement and the implications of what is in the white paper from the UK Government. Those are serious in the short and medium term and in the long term in terms of the demographics. What we have put forward since February last year, when we put our discussion paper to this Parliament, are the possibilities that we could create together by utilising devolution to be solution-focused in that. Devolution of immigration as a whole is one question. Devolution of powers within a UK framework is another. I am open minded to that other and consider it of that and very much open to having dialogue and considering the possibilities of that. In terms of how we move forward, we are considering how to develop that discussion and building on our discussion paper last year on how we think about, as Clare Baker said, examples from other countries and what Scotland could learn from that, particularly from Canada and Australia, who have regional powers within their immigration system that allow flexibility and differentiated solutions, but also how we would design a Scottish visa based on a point system that we would decide that would work in the benefit of Scotland and keep Scotland open and attractive and welcoming. Ross Brears, we follow by Willie Rennie. Thank you and like colleagues, I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement and the expert group for their work. One of the many traumas that is inflicted by the UK's current immigration system for non-EU citizens is the trauma of family separation, which is caused significantly but not entirely because of the minimum income threshold. Expanding that system to EU citizens will result in more family separation. Can I ask the minister what work the Scottish Government has done, or if it is not what work it will do to assess the support, not just advice but the support that will be needed by families who suffer that as a result of UK immigration policy? One of the benefits of free movement has been the impact positively that it has had on family migration to Scotland. What our expert advisory report rightly highlights in terms of my anecdotal experience and the report highlights in a robust academic analysis is the positive impact that family migration has had in terms of the age profile of migrants who have come here from elsewhere in the EU under freedom of movement and the positive impact that that has had on our working-age population and our demographics. In terms of family migration, as a whole, we absolutely understand the significance of it and are undertaking consideration of the impacts of what is being proposed by the UK Government post-Brexit on family migration and how we in Scotland would consider solutions to support family migration in the future. We will come forward with that in due course. Adam Tunkin seems to be living in a parallel universe from his colleagues in the UK Government. Seasonal fruit and veg farms in North East Fife, in my constituency, are already struggling. They are running short of workers right now and processors like Kettle Produce need workers all of the year round. There is no doubt that this Conservative immigration policy is bad for business and an awful lot of organisations like the CBI, the National Farmers Union and the FSB all agree with that, but we need a UK solution to this UK problem. Just a Scottish solution won't help the whole of the UK economy, so I'd urge the minister to work together with colleagues across the UK to fix this problem. From the minister's discussion with his Conservative counterparts, does he think that they get the impact that this narrow-minded policy is having on business and our economy? I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. However, in terms of my engagement with business, third sector and public sector and across different sectors in Scotland, the people of Scotland are understanding the negative consequences of this, as are many across the UK of what is being proposed by the UK Government. I would particularly emphasise that, although what is being proposed in the white paper will have, I would argue, a negative impact on many parts of the UK, what the expert advisory group's report that I published today clarifies is that we have in Scotland a more pronounced population ageing than the rest of the UK. Although reduced migration from the EU will lead to gradually declining working age population here in Scotland, it won't have the same effect on the working age population across the rest of the UK, so we face challenges in Scotland that are more pronounced than elsewhere in the UK. That is why we need to be solution focused and think about how we can get the solutions that we need here in Scotland and the powers in order to deliver those solutions. In terms of the seasonal and temporary programmes that Willie Rennie mentioned, the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, while welcome—and I have been to farms not too far from its constitution, another fruit farm—that is inadequate in terms of the amount of people that it caters for, and the temporary programmes that are in the UK Government's white paper are inadequate in that they would not allow family migration, they would not allow access to public funds and no recourse to public funds, and they would require a 12-month cooling-off period, so the temporary solution and the seasonal solutions that are on the table at the moment are not adequate for Scotland. The minister will be aware that the chair of the UK's Migration Advisory Committee, Professor Alan Manning, admitted to the Scottish Parliament's Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee that he had done no modelling of the demographic or fiscal impacts of Scotland of his proposals and that he had done no in-depth study of the differentiated migration systems in countries such as Canada. The analysis by the Scottish Government is welcome. Can the minister tell us in more detail what his analysis tells us of the proposed £30,000 a year minimum salary threshold for EU workers in Scotland? As I said before, in the report, the expert advisory group has estimated that 63 per cent of workers in Scotland are below the proposed £30,000 threshold. If the UK Government enact such a threshold, it would dramatically constrain the abilities of many of Scotland's employers to access the skills and labour that they need, including in agriculture, tourism, social care and many other sectors. Those sectors make such an important contribution to Scotland's economy and rely on freedom of movement to attract and retain the talent that they need throughout the country in rural and urban areas alike. The UK Government's proposals here are unworkable, unrealistic and ultimately damaging to Scotland and its local communities. I think that the UK Government knows that they have promised to engage on this threshold and listen to others. By doing so, I think that they acknowledge that this salary threshold is completely unrealistic and unworkable. What is interesting is that the expert advisory group also concluded that a salary threshold of £25,000 would exclude 53 per cent of workers in Scotland. That is again a reason why we need powers to come to this Parliament to decide, first of all, whether we want a salary threshold at all and, if so, would we set it at a different rate for Scotland? Those are the questions and debates that we could be having designing our own policy solutions for Scotland, and that is where we need to take this debate to. We have plenty of time this afternoon, but we still need to make some progress with these questions. I refer members to my register of interests. I, too, welcome the minister's statement and the analysis. It is very welcome, and it is worth noting in discussions with the minister, Ben Macpherson, that the CBI and the FSB stated that proposals for a UK-wide system were their preferred option. Further to that, we on those benches agree that a specific 30,000 threshold could be detrimental to key sectors such as manufacturing, hospitality, food and drink and tourism. Given that the minister is against that threshold, what analysis has his Government done, if any, to pinpoint a threshold that he believes could be workable? The Government believes in freedom of movement. In the first instance, I would want to consider whether our salary threshold was necessary at all. The expert advisory group's analysis and conclusions state the clear need, one, for us to be able to attract more people and two, of the risks involved in the UK Government's immigration policy in making us less attractive and unattractive, and the negative economic consequences and demographic challenges of that. We will seek to influence the UK Government on the salary threshold, and I encourage all businesses and others to state their opinions on the salary threshold. However, there are other aspects of the UK Government's immigration white paper proposals that will also put people off, be bureaucratic and costly, such as immigration skills charge and the fact that, after leaving the EU as a result of the removal of freedom of movement, each employer will have to sponsor individuals to come here. Think of the extra bureaucracy and cost that that will put on big and small businesses alike. Those proposals from the UK Government do not make sense. We can come up with better solutions in Scotland. Annabelle Ewing, to be followed by Pauline McNeill. With all of Scotland's population growth over the next 10 years, projected to come from migration, can the minister clarify what the impact will be of the UK Government's disastrous post-Brexit immigration policy on not just GDP in Scotland but on Scottish Government revenue? The Scottish Government's own analysis suggests that, on average, each additional EU worker in Scotland adds 34,400 to GDP and contributes 10,400 to Government revenue. The MAC, in evidence that it gathered and submitted to the UK Government, shows how migrants pay in more to the public purse than they take out in benefits or services. That report also emphasises that point. The expert advisory group strongly reiterates that finding, and all evidence shows that migrants to Scotland, especially from EU countries, are young, healthy, well-educated and highly skilled and ready to take up work and contribute to the economy. That is why we want to keep attracting people from the EU, that is why we believe in freedom of movement and that is why Brexit is such a tragedy and a mistake. Pauline McNeill, to be followed by Bruce Crawford. Does the minister agree that the best way of achieving any concession, if it is possible, from the UK Government on a flexible or differentiated immigration system, is essential that all the parties in the chamber, the Tories, Labour, Liberal Democrats, the Greens and the SNP, must find a way forward? Does the minister consider what has been said already by Adam Tom, that the tax system might provide a partial solution to providing a variation model if we all stick together on that? As I have said, I am looking to work cross-party in a solution-focused manner and to consider all aspects that we can look at together. However, we need to be careful about thinking about how motivated people are by tax if they are hearing messages that the UK is a place where they are not welcome and where coming here to do business or to settle is going to be bureaucratic and costly. What we need to do is think about how we continue to create openness, how we continue to be attractive. I am open minded to suggestions and if Labour and Tories want to give me those suggestions, we can consider them and have dialogue. However, the fundamental point is that, without the flexibility that we need to this Parliament, if the UK policy goes in the direction that it looks like it is going to go to, we will be less attractive, we will realise less of our economic potential, we will struggle to provide the public services that we want to because we will not have the people and our demographics will be significantly challenging. Bruce Crawford, to be followed by Adam Tom, is a student. Does the minister agree with me that the UK Government's approach to linking perceived skills of people to earnings is a flawed process? Will the minister tell me what that will mean for vital professions such as nurses, paramedics, midwives, junior doctors and other healthcare assistants, many of whom may be earning below the minimum threshold and will now be viewed but under this UK Government scheme as being low skilled, as well as the many people in my constituency who work in the vital tourism industry, because it is important in my constituency. Is this not downright wrong, minister? Will it not damage the Scottish economy as well as the social fabric of Scotland? I absolutely agree with the member on that sentiment and that we cannot judge the social and economic value of an individual according to their earnings. This Government believes in all skills. The Scottish economy benefits from all skills, public service provision benefits from all skills, and that is why freedom of movement has been so beneficial. It has allowed us to bring people here in order to fill jobs across sectors, across communities, urban and rural, in order to make a positive difference and to realise creativity and growth. I want to see solutions where we continue to attract people and value all skills in our economy. I absolutely share the sentiment of that question. Does the minister not recognise that the Office of National Statistics has published today that overall UK migration is roughly unchanged while EU immigration is marginally down since 2016? Non-EU immigration is up. Does the minister not agree with me that that represents an opportunity for Scotland? Restricted routes on EU immigration will put a significant strain on our ability to attract individuals. We welcome an increase in the number of people from elsewhere in the world beyond the EU. However, we disagree with the Prime Minister's stated ambition to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands and to create a hostile environment. The analysis that was published by the expert advisory group today shows that the positive impact of EU immigration in Scotland has been to a higher extent than elsewhere in the UK, and our demographic challenges are more pronounced. The growing of our working-age population is more reliant on immigration than it is elsewhere in the UK. We need more people to come here. We want more people to come here. Freedom of movement is important to that and would be going forward. We would like to see that continue, but it is certainly a pleasure to welcome anyone here to Scotland to contribute to making this country better. Gillian Martin will be followed by Neil Findlay. The chief economic advisers report on a no-deal Brexit noted that the economic shock will not be uniform across Scotland and that there are sectors that anticipate what will see the greatest impact. Aberdeenshire was ranked amongst the local authorities with the highest concentration of workers in the sectors that are most exposed. In Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, we are identified as having one of the highest levels of EU employment in Scotland. I wonder if the minister could confirm if there is any indication that the UK Government has identified the north-east's unique demographics and challenges and taken into account in developing its immigration policy. Having been to the north-east to visit McDuff shellfish and Camp Hill, providing social care in the north-east, I have seen first hand the absolute positive difference that EU migration has made to the economy and society in the north-east. Unfortunately, whether it is the Migration Advisory Committee report or the white paper, the UK Government policymaking has not catered for the nuances and the differences that there are in different parts of the UK in terms of demand for migration. The report that I have published today from the expert advisory group highlights the specific benefits for Scotland of migration, the need for us to keep attracting individuals to come and live and work here, to benefit our economy and our society, being higher than other parts of the UK. We need to continue to do that. Unfortunately, we have not seen that consideration of Scotland as a whole, let alone parts of Scotland from the UK Government. Neil Findlay to follow by Maureen Watt. If we are going to be progressive and internationalists and if we are going to have a new system of migration, it cannot be all one way and it cannot just be about what we get from migration without consideration of the impact that that migration has on the countries that people leave. Has the Government done any analysis of the impact of that movement of people from here on their country of origin? We want to attract people to come here in order for them to make personal choices whether they want to come here or not. The challenge for Scotland is to continue to be attractive and for people who do come here to have a positive experience of living here, whether that is continuing to live here or if they are on here for a temporary basis. In terms of the wider question around global trends of migration, impacts on different countries, that is a wider geopolitical question, but we need to think about how we continue to attract people from near and far to come to Scotland, because we want to grow our population, we want to grow our working-age population and we want to keep contributing. That is why freedom of movement has been so beneficial. It has given individuals across the EU, including people from Scotland, going to other parts of the EU that chance to travel, to contribute, to learn and to love in other places. I wish that that could continue. The impact of the UK Government's post-Brexit immigration policy on prospective EU students and on our universities cannot be underestimated, as in the event of no deal the UK Government is proposing at European temporary leave to remain of three years. As we all know, Presiding Officer, the majority of degree courses in Scotland are four years, meaning prospective students will be put off applying to Scottish universities because there will be no guarantee that they will be able to complete those courses. With around 9 per cent of Scottish university students and 27 per cent of full-time research staff being EU nationals, does the minister agree that the UK Government must change course and recognise the threat posed to Scotland's higher education institutions from its plans? Yes, absolutely. Ministers and officials have relayed those concerns to the UK Government directly, including Mr Russell, most recently at the joint ministerial committee on EU negotiations, and the Deputy First Minister is also engaged with the sector on the issue. I will raise the issue again with the immigration minister, Caroline Noakes, when I meet her next month. This example shows exactly why a one-size-fits-all approach for the UK does not work and that decisions about what Scotland needs should be taken here. Again, I reiterate the past operation of the fresh talent scheme to encourage students to come to Scotland and stay here once they graduate, and the cross-party consensus is built around that. It is time to start exploring solutions that can work for all of Scotland, and I emphasise particularly that point in relation to Maureen Watt's question, given that today the Russell group has said that the UK Government should scrap plans for a bizarre and discriminatory no-deal visa for EU nationals when it comes to starting here. Thank you very much, and that concludes our statement.