The next item of business is a debate on motion <IP_ADDRESS>, in the name of Alasher Allan, on migration. May I ask those who wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons, please? I call on Alasher Allan to speak to and move the motion for up to 12 minutes, please, minister. Migration might not be an issue that politicians on the UK political stage leap to make speeches, or at least when they do make speeches about it, they had sometimes been better served by saying nothing. However, in Scotland, migration is an issue that this Parliament simply must engage with for the good of our economy and our communities. Historically, Scotland has been a country of immigration rather than immigration. People left Scotland to build their futures elsewhere, individuals who have made significant contributions to the new nations to which they travelled.  A country cannot export its young people in huge numbers for two centuries without some demographic consequences. It was a concern about population growth, or rather the lack of it, which led the then Labour Liberal Democrat Administration to develop the fresh talent initiative. To quote from the then First Minister, Jack McConnell, Scotland has a long tradition of welcoming new people just as huge numbers of Scots have been made welcome in other countries across the world in which they have settled and thrived. We are determined to continue and further improve on that tradition. That is an aspiration that we would all share across the chamber. We have a vision of Scotland as an open, inclusive, diverse and tolerant country. Unlike the UK as a whole, which experienced net inward migration in the 1950s and 1960s, only since around 2001 has Scotland been a nation of net in migration, driven in large part by EU citizens who have chosen to come to live and to work in Scotland to make their homes here. The Scottish Government published clear evidence last week setting out the positive impact that citizens from other EU nations have had on our economy and on our society. EU citizens are making a vital contribution to our economy. They are driving our population growth and ensuring that we have the workers to meet the needs of businesses and the public sector. 128,000 EU citizens aged 16 or over are in employment in Scotland—5 per cent of total employment. We cannot even contemplate losing 5 per cent of our workforce. Our unemployment rate is 4.5 per cent, lower than the UK average of 4.6 per cent. Employment rates in rural areas are significantly higher than in urban areas, although that reflects the fact that people in rural areas traditionally move out of those areas when they are seeking work. However, the evidence that we have published clearly sets out the positive impact of EU citizens in specific sectors of the Scottish economy. To resume to take one example, it generates around £34 billion in gross value added. It has experienced year-on-year growth in gross value added and in turn over since 2011. It delivers employment and economic development in some of our most remote locations, sustaining often fragile communities such as those that I and Mr Russell represent. It is a sector that is heavily and increasingly dependent on workers from other EU countries. In 2016, according to the annual population survey, there were approximately 17,000 EU citizens working in tourism in Scotland—around 9.4 per cent of all those working in the sector. In the accommodation sector, that rises to 15.3 per cent. The industry-led national tourism strategy, Tourism Scotland 2020, sets out a clear ambition for Scotland to become the destination of first choice for a high-quality, value-for-money and memorable customer experience. To grow that sector, to deliver that ambition, we need a skilled workforce. While the tourism skills investment plan seeks to support those skills and that development, we also need the skills and experience of EU citizens. Scotland is home to a vibrant digital technologies industry, with more than 1,000 companies working in that sector. A sector that contributed 5.1 billion in gross value added to the Scottish economy in 2015. Scotland's computer programming and consultancy businesses alone employed 3,000 EU citizens in 2016, representing 5.8 per cent of all those employees in those businesses. That sector is crucial for future growth, but it is a sector that is dependent on specific, specialist skills and experience. According to a report by Equistian that was published this year, 37 per cent of businesses in Scotland had recruited digital technologies skills internationally. At risk of listing sectors, but I will list sectors, there is manufacturing, which employed 180,000 people in 2016, accounting for 7 per cent of total employment in Scotland. 16,300 EU citizens were employed in the manufacturing sector. Last month, members in the chamber debated the impact on musicians and the music industry of withdrawal from the European Union. As members discussed in that debate, artists from overseas contribute to our festivals and events, while Scottish artists are able to take their work to audiences throughout the EU. I'm sure that he's going to come to the food and drink sector, which is a very important issue in my constituency. There's already signs that some of the businesses are thinking about disinvesting, not going forward with the investment that they had planned for their sector. Has he got any evidence that that has spread around the rest of the country as well, because of the failure to give a guarantee about how many workers we're going to be able to get into this country? I can readily agree with the member about the need to provide that certainty to people working in all those sectors. I agree very much with the member that we should remember the importance of people from other EU countries working in the food sector, and do everything possible to make sure that they understand that the Scottish Government and indeed this Parliament recognises their right to be here and welcomes their presence here in our society and in our economy. I've mentioned a few sectors, and I'm happy to mention the food and drink sector too, but the issues highlighted in those sectors are replicated across the Scottish economy in businesses and in the public sector. Last week, I visited the medical physics department in the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. There has already been significant publicity about the crucial role that EU citizens play in our health service. The Nursing and Midwifery Council has indicated that approximately 5 per cent of nurses on their register are trained within the EU, and UK-wide that equates to some 33,000 trained nurses. The president of the Royal College of Nursing has noted that, since the EU referendum, 96 per cent has been dropped in nurses from other EU countries registering to practice in the UK. Let me say that again. Since the EU referendum, 96 per cent has been dropped in nurses from other EU countries registering to practice in the UK. The evidence that we published last week provides clear information on our reliance on EU nationals who are clinicians, dentists and allied health professionals. I want to focus briefly on the challenges that are facing not just that sector but our rural economy too. Migration can be particularly important for our rural communities. While a number of individuals may be smaller, the impact of EU citizens and their families can be hugely significant. Richard Lochhead raised in this chamber concerns about the importance of immigration for sectors, including teaching. Some sectors in rural areas are most reliant on non-UK workers, including food and agriculture. When I appeared before the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee last week, I was asked what was unique about Scotland's needs. I would emphasise that the crucial economic impact of many of the industries that I have been speaking about, especially in our rural communities, the disproportionate impact that the loss of small numbers of key individuals can have on small economies, on small communities. Scotland's demographic profile is simply different to the rest of the UK. In Scotland, our population growth over the next 10 years is projected to come entirely 100 per cent from migration, 50 per 8 per cent from net international migration and 42 per cent from the rest of the UK. The comparative figures for the UK show that only 54 per cent of population growth will come from migration. This is a very significant divergence from the rest of the UK, and it is a divergence that we as a Parliament must address. Our population is ageing. We should welcome the fact that people are living for longer, but if we are to ensure that we provide those people with the support that they deserve, then we need to maintain a healthy working age population. The working age population is currently projected to increase by 1 per cent over the next 25 years. However, in a scenario of zero EU migration, the working age population in Scotland is projected to decline by 3 per cent over the same period. It is simply impossible to overstate the critical role of migration in Scotland's future growth and prosperity. Last week, I gave evidence to the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee, and I want to thank the committee for the work that it is doing in this area. The report notes that there is a broad consensus across Scottish political parties, businesses, trade unions, employers, associations and universities about the contribution that is made to Scotland's society by migration. There is much about this debate that I hope unites us. There are approximately 209,000 EU citizens living in Scotland. Each of those individuals is not just making an economic contribution, they are making a social contribution too. They are our neighbours, our friends, our family, they are enriching our communities. I invite everyone in this chamber to recognise the vital contribution that those people are making to Scotland. I invite this chamber to send a message to those people that we value them, that we value their contribution and that we want them, we need them to stay within our communities. I now call Jackson Carlaw to speak to and move amendment 8828.1. I begin by formally moving the amendment in my name. I hope to make a number of points in this afternoon's important debate and to draw them together as I conclude. Last week, with the Presiding Officer, I attended the opening in my eastward constituency of the new Calderwood Lodge St Clare's Jewish Catholic joint primary school campus, attended additionally by a significant number of Muslim children. It is the first of its kind not just in Scotland, not just in the United Kingdom, but in the world. How remarkable an achievement is that? The UK chief rabbi, Ephraim Mivris, noted that pupils can learn all that is best about their own faith while recognising the joint humanities and values shared by all. Bishop John Keenan in his remarks said that he would copy many of the remarks of the chief rabbi. After all, he observed impishly that is what we have been doing for thousands of years. Jewish Catholic and Muslim children studying and living together alongside significant Chinese and Sikh communities in a modern multiracial west of Scotland constituency of which I am immensely proud. Presiding Officer, all of those communities were themselves migrants to Scotland. The Catholics over several centuries, the Jews in the late 19th century, the Muslim and others in the 20th and today many new refugees and others seeking hope, security and freedom in our care. There is no argument, no point of debate, no truth other than that all those who have settled here through the ages and in modern times have contributed immeasurably to our culture, our economy, our understanding of the evolving sense of self and nationhood. Nothing would be more unnatural to us than to plan for a future where all that rich diversity was at risk or ruthlessly truncated. That is not something that I could or will support. I will, Mr Rennie. Will he, Rennie? The Prime Minister in the infamous speech to the Tory conference just a few years ago said that, while there are benefits of selected and controlled immigration, at best the net economic and fiscal effect of high immigration is close to zero. How does that contrast with the remarks that he has just made? Jackson Carlaw. I made the position of my own position completely clear, and this is a debate about what the Scottish Parliament thinks on these issues, Mr Rennie. And I'm grateful that it's nice to have you intervene. You were very unkind to me over the weekend. You compared my understanding to a baked Alaska. You said I was fluffy on the outside and cold as ice on the inside. And I was very disappointed, because we all know that Little Willie's own sponge hasn't risen for quite some time. Presiding Officer, long before Brexit was an acronym of sorts, indeed for many years as our spokesman in health, I spoke about the challenges facing Scotland of our demographic change. Added to the incredible pace of technological change with which they will be accompanied, it's increasingly possible that the world 20 years hence will be as dramatically different as the world of Waterloo and Napoleon is to us today. As much change in the next 20 years as the last 200, the breathtaking nature of which we can barely contemplate. And the change in Scotland's estimated population accompanying this between now and 2039 is equally as dramatic. There will be an 85 per cent increase in the number of people living in Scotland who are 75 years of age or older, from 430,000 to over 800,000. That will be matched by a decrease in the working age population, with people aged 2016 to 24 declining by 10 per cent. If represented by two simple images, our population shift is best imagined as a traditional pyramid today, upended in 2039. Brexit or no Brexit, the Scotland of 2039 and the years between now and then will require public policy to execute a dramatic shift. We need to see more people come to settle and work in Scotland, not just come to retire but come to settle work, live and retire in Scotland. In short, while we unreservedly welcome the halt in population decline achieved, we need to see a significant increase in the working age population. As the main motion in our amendment makes clear, migration is not just critical to data Scotland. It will be increasingly so to our public services, health and education, to our rural industries, to financial services and to the hospitality sector, which is unfortunately absent from the Government's own motion. Incidentally, it is worth noting, as this is a central part of the solution that our amendment prefers, that, while those of pensionable age will increase by 28 per cent in Scotland, they are set to increase by 33 per cent in the rest of the UK. Crucially, however, the current forecast for the working age population has this rising by 11 per cent in the rest of the UK but only by 1 per cent as the minister identified in Scotland. Expressed in net terms, 27 per cent of non-working age increasing in Scotland, 22 per cent in the rest of the UK. The public services across the UK, especially health and education, our rural industries, our financial services, our hospitality sector, all will be searching for labour and skills. We are driven to the conclusion that it is imaginative migration policies that meet the needs of vital sectors across Scotland and the rest of the UK, which will be needed and which must be identified, embraced and introduced. Last week, I met someone by chance with whom I had not spoken in nearly 35 years. He now employs over 1,000 people across Glasgow and the central belt in a range of restaurants and bars, any one of which we will all likely have visited. He is deeply concerned. Like me, he voted to remain. Like all of us, he is concerned that a Brexit agreement must be reached and reached soon. He is, as are we all, concerned at labour shortages and asks why, when we were young, Scots were eager for jobs many now shun, what outcomes our education system has achieved for the real economy. His hospitality sector needs labour and, with an exchange rate at today's value, it's not enough to look at the euro currency bloc in isolation. Scottish Conservatives and Consequences are not persuaded by design to a bespoke differentiated migration system for Scotland. In any event, it's clear from such systems in Canada, Australia and Switzerland that, while the regional policy exists, there is no unilateral ability to act, only an ability by liaison or co-ordination with the central administrative government. Presiding Officer, the final part of the motion with which we agree is that the Parliament urges the Scottish Government to use its powers to make Scotland a more attractive place to live and work, and it's in this duty that the Scottish Government is comprehensively failing. Frankly, I do not understand the reasoning of the Scottish Government and others. On the one hand, they say that Brexit is doomed to fail, that the most unprecedented and severe storm has yet to hit Scotland's economy and people, and yet on the other, the SNP say that, uniquely, the way to meet this is to increase it's taxation across Scotland to build on the reputation of being the highest taxed part of the UK. Presiding Officer, let's see the Scottish Government actually turn to boosting Scottish economic growth, making Scotland economically attractive across the rest of the UK, where there is no currency fluctuation to impede inward migration to Scotland, concentrating on remedying its domestic policy failings, forgo its posturing on Brexit and work with the UK Government to achieve together a migration policy that will meet our economic sectoral needs across the UK and preserve the access to the most important UK single market. I call Lewis MacDonald. Do you have six minutes, please, Mr MacDonald? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Migration is a major issue in its own right, but it is also part of a bigger picture. Brexit means that we need new answers to a range of questions facing Scotland today, including a new approach to immigration that reflects the different needs and priorities of the nations and regions of the UK. However, it is not just last year's referendum that sets the context for this debate. It is also the changes of the last 20 years, since the Scottish people voted to establish a Scottish Parliament. As we have already heard, 20th century Scotland was a country in demographic decline. More people left Scotland for other parts of the United Kingdom and other parts of the world and came here to make their homes from elsewhere. At the same time as our birthrate was in decline and death rates remained relatively high, turning that around has been one of the great achievements of the era of devolution. Population decline has been replaced by population growth since the turn of the century. That is not just about migration, of course. Progress in tackling the big killer diseases and reduced mortality in most of Scotland has also played a part. Nor is it just about devolution or the policies of devolved Governments in Scotland. The decision not to put quotas on immigration from new EU member states in 2004 has been critical to Scotland's ability to grow our population ever since, and that was a decision by a Labour Government at Westminster. As a result of that, thousands of people from Poland and across the European Union have come to Scotland, some to earn money and to broaden their CVs before going home again, but many others to make a new life in this country for themselves and for their children. Their contribution to the economy and to the cultural life of Scotland has been invaluable. The rights of EU citizens in this country must be protected because they deserve no less. The benefits that they bring must also be protected, and that is why we need an effective new policy to meet our future needs. Addressing Scotland's migration needs can indeed be done within the context of the United Kingdom without undermining either the UK single market or a coherent UK immigration policy. Scotland's devolved Governments showed that with the fresh talent initiative of 2005, which, as the minister said, was designed to retain more international graduates from Scottish universities as a key part of reversing demographic decline. Brexit means that we need a broader approach now than we did then. The projections from the national registers of Scotland and the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which have been mentioned already, are clear. We need more people, and especially we need more people of working age if we are to maintain a healthy demographic balance from now to 2040. If, indeed, free movement from across the European economic area is radically reduced, then we need to develop a range of other initiatives without further delay. At this stage, we do not need, in my view, to pin down the details of what a post-Brexit immigration system will look like, but it is important to acknowledge that the status quo is not an option. In that respect, the Tory amendment today does not quite take the opportunity to set out a distinctive Scottish Conservative agenda. It acknowledges the particular demographic challenge that Scotland faces, as Mr Carlaw did a few moments ago, but proposes an exclusively sectoral approach to solving it. That is a pity given that Jackson Carlaw agreed with colleagues in the European Committee just a few months ago that a distinctive Scottish approach to immigration policy seemed like a good idea after Brexit. It is important to note that some of that could already be put in place with very little change. The Scottish Government already has powers in relation to the reception and integration of migrants in Scotland. It could use those powers in consultation and agreement with Scotland's local authorities to codify the rights of migrants and ensure access to services. More could be done in promoting Scotland as a destination for migrants from Europe and beyond. Again, no need to do that to alter the devolution settlement, rather a case of raising the profile of migration alongside trade in Scotland's representation overseas, while continuing to work closely with British embassies and consulates in Europe and around the world. Mike Rumbles? I'm interested in listening to what his contribution is. Does he think that the problems that Scotland faces about not having enough workforce is different to the rest of the United Kingdom, are significantly different? Lewis MacDonald? Mr Rumbles may be surprised. I would quote in evidence the comments made by Mr Carlaw, which highlighted the difference in the projected population growth of people of working age in Scotland compared with England and Wales, and showed a very radical difference. However, a real need for an approach that recognises and addresses that demographic deficit very specifically. Support from the UK Government will be essential to deliver some further objectives, but those objectives are wholly compatible with common migration rules for the whole of the UK. It would be relatively straightforward, for example, to appoint Scottish members to the Migration Advisory Committee to reflect the specific needs of all sectors of the Scottish economy. The Migration Advisory Committee could readily agree to a fuller Scottish shortage occupation list in relation to tier 2 visas to give Scottish employers more of an input and more chance that visas will meet the needs of the Scottish economy. The case for fresh talent 2 speaks for itself. Alongside that, there could also be parallel initiatives at other school levels in the economy to address temporary or seasonal labour shortages and to do so in ways to secure opportunities for young people to come here to work and to settle and to raise families if they so choose. Reversing Scotland's population decline has indeed been one of the great achievements of the last 20 years. As an objective, it has broad cross-party support and can be taken forward within an agreed UK framework. Meeting the demographic challenge will need to be even more explicitly a central objective of Government policy in the future in a context where we can no longer rely on the free movement of EEA citizens to address our democratic deficits. It is on that basis that we will support the Government's motion tonight. We now move to the open debate. Speeches of six minutes have been allowed for. I call Mary Gougeon to be followed by Rachael Hamilton. I'm really glad that we're having this debate today because migration and the future policy regarding this is a massive area of concern at the moment, both from the point of view of the EU citizens who live here and for the businesses and industries that depend on them and the free movement of talent coming from abroad. As we've already heard mention of, it's one that, through the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee, we've been investigating with great interest as part of both of our inquiries into the article 15 negotiations and into a differentiated immigration system for Scotland. To me, it's essentially quite simple. It is imperative that people continue to come to live and work in this country. To do that, we need a system that reflects the very specific needs of businesses and people in Scotland, which are different to that of the UK as a whole. In the 45 years preceding the turn of the millennium, Scotland's population was in decline. That trend had started to reverse since that time, largely down to the welcome influx of migrants, most notably from Europe to Scotland, to the extent that we now have approximately 283,000 more people living here than in the year 2000, which is an increase of 5.7 per cent. Those are people who left their own country for whatever reason to make a better life here in Scotland. Many came as students and stayed on. Many moved here because of the economic situation in their own country and recognising that there are opportunities for them right here. During the evidence sessions of the committee, we heard from members of the Fife Migrants Forum who told us about their individual stories. We heard about their backgrounds, their lives here in Scotland, their fears relating to the withdrawal from the EU, but also about their hopes to be able to continue to make a life for themselves and their families here. Two weeks ago, we also had a debate in this chamber on the EU negotiations and raised my own family situation. I am glad that I did, because since then I have been inundated with information from people who are in a similar situation or worse. People who have either already left Scotland or are planning to leave because of the uncertainty over their future are most hurtfully because they say that they no longer felt welcome here. If you follow the £3 million on Twitter or have followed the hashtag 500 days in limbo, you will see story after story outlining the same. People losing out on work and homes, the active discrimination and exploitative practices taking place and the lack of any engagement and poor communication with EU citizens here on the discussions and negotiations that are going to affect their lives. It is really hard not to get angry at that and the fact that we are now more than 500 days on from the referendum vote and there are still far more questions than answers when it comes to what the future of EU citizens, what the future will be for them post Brexit. This was made alarmingly evident in our committee's session with the Secretary of State for Scotland two weeks ago, where there were no answers or assurances forthcoming. As often as we can be told that the UK is in touching distance of a deal with the EU, that means very little when we still have no idea what settled status will actually mean, when there is no clarification on what the future will be for low earners, those who are paid cash in hand or even for the volunteers who come from the EU to work here. Especially if we face a no deal scenario, which grows increasingly likely by the day. We need effective migration policy because the fact is that those coming to this country tend to be young, well qualified and hard working. Statistically, EU nationals are predominantly under 35 with a much younger age profile across all age groups than Scottish nationals. That means that their net contributors to our economy and use fewer public services and contribute more to the public services than what they take out. Completely debunking the ridiculous myth that is continually perpetuated by the hard drive media and by the Prime Minister herself that they are drained on public resources. Indeed, many of them coming here use their qualifications to work in our public services. Jeremy Balford. I thank the member for taking intervention. Does he agree with me that any deal with Europe needs to be two ways and that we also have to secure the rights of UK nationals living in European countries as well? As well as the UK Government needing to reach an agreement, so does the European Union have to come to the table and negotiate as well? I think that the EU is already doing that. Of course, I would agree with the member that we need to protect the rights of UK nationals living abroad, of course we do, but the fact is that the UK Government isn't going far enough to protect the rights of EU citizens here. In terms of when we look at the contribution that is made by the people that live here, when you look at students themselves and the contribution that they make to our economy, this was calculated by University Scotland to be around £800 million annually. Professor Christina Boswell of the Scottish Centre for European Relations stated that we shouldn't be concerned with how to limit inflows, but rather the challenge of sustaining much-needed flows of EU nationals to fill jobs and sectors such as agriculture, services and construction. That was a concern both myself and Graham Day heard about directly in terms of agriculture when we met with the NFUS in my constituency last week. There are options on how we can achieve that. As a committee, we received detailed report from Dr Eve Hepburn, which outlined examples across the world where this already happens, as well as outlining a number of different approaches that could be adopted. Some options require further devolution of powers from Westminster, but some just require the political will on both sides to make it happen. What is clear from the evidence that we received is that the current system, as it stands, does not address the needs of our public services, businesses and other industries and sectors in Scotland. Those industries and sectors affected do not feel like they can feed into that system in a meaningful way. There is no doubt that the only way that we can provide a system that works for Scotland is if we have a direct hand in designing and determining it. I just hope that there is one message that we can send as a unified Parliament today to all the EU citizens living and working here right now, that we need to let them know that we are proud that they chose to make Scotland their home. We welcome you, we value you and we will do everything in our power to protect your right to be here. I call Rachel Hamilton to be followed by Joan McAlpine. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We all agreed that the subject that we seek to debate today is a vital issue and is at the forefront of Brexit discussions. Industries up and down Scotland are concerned about their workforce planning. Scotland also faces democratic challenges as we have heard today. Sorry, demographic challenges as we have heard today. Thank you, Tom Arthur. I am encouraged by a sentence in the motion that the Parliament urges the Scottish Government to use its powers to make Scotland a more attractive place to live and work. Making Scotland an attractive place for migrants includes many levers, including a competitive taxation policy. In the Scottish Borders and across Scotland and throughout the rest of the UK, the agriculture, hospitality sectors and others are concerned that the depletion in the numbers of EU migrants will negatively impact them. Of course, there is more than an economic cost, there is a cultural cost as well. There is a sizable Polish community in the Scottish Borders, around 1,300 people. That is according to the most recent census data. Their contribution cannot be overstated. They work hard, integrate well and add cultural diversity to the Borders. In May of this year, the Prime Minister visited a large employer in my constituency, Abitool Engage Limited, where many Polish people are employed. The Borders is now their home. In December, I will visit Hoik's Saturday Polish School, which offers courses to Polish and English-speaking adults. It is a great example of how the community does well at integrating, while maintaining and promoting its own culture. I know that there is some anxiety amongst that community about its future as the UK leaves the European Union. Ensuring that Polish people in the Borders continue to feel welcome is absolute necessity. It is therefore a priority that the rights of EU nationals are settled, and that is close. The Prime Minister has been clear on that. The Conservative motion accepts the importance of maintaining the integrity of the UK single market, which is crucial for the Scottish economy, and supports calls for a solution that is tailored to meet the sectorial needs in Scotland and the UK. That is the right action, of course. The wrong course of action is a differentiated immigration system for Scotland, and academics and businesses agree with the Scottish Conservatives. A report published by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford states that, from a technical perspective, it is not clear that significant regional variation would lead to a better match between policy and regional economic needs. At the same time, regionalisation has an economic drawback, which is that a more complex immigration system would increase administrative burdens for its users, such as large employers who employ staff in more than one part of the UK. I will give way to the minister. I thank the member for giving way. The member outlines the situation in which she feels that it is very difficult to contemplate regional or indeed national variation within the UK on this policy area. In that case, can she explain why, I think rightly, the UK Government continues to talk more warmly about a slightly different solution for Northern Ireland and why that flexibility cannot be extended to Scotland too? Rachael Hamilton. Well, I think that Northern Ireland is a unique situation and is not applicable to Scotland. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce, in its response to the Scottish Parliament's culture tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee inquiry on immigration, said that it did not believe that devolution on immigration powers to Scotland is necessary to achieve a business solution to migration targets, but sectorial and geographical factors are essential to the ability of a UK-wide immigration policy to meet business needs. Migrant labour needs for certain sectors are the same throughout the UK. As I stated to the minister last week, the requirement for seasonal story pickers in Angus are the same as in Herefordshire. The Prime Minister, in a recent response to Christine Hare MP regarding the need for seasonal migrant labour in her constituency, said that the Home Secretary has commissioned the Independent Migration Advisory Committee to look at the needs of the UK labour market and to further inform our work as we bring those new immigration rules in. The director of policy, if you are quick, please. Ross Greer. I will be very quick and grateful to the member for taking the intervention. It is the same question that I asked of her in a debate two weeks ago. She has mentioned a number of sectors with key shortages. Those are low-wage sectors. Why then does the UK Government implement minimum income thresholds? Rachael Hamilton. Of course, the Scottish Government is trying to sign people up for the national living wage and continues to do so. I think that we are very disappointed recently about the number in their uptake. The director of policy at the National Farms Union Scotland, Johnny Hall, has said that bespoke immigration policy would mean some sort of checkpoint near Berwick and let's not create another headache internally within Great Britain. Free movement of people in the UK single market is vital, particularly in my constituency where commuters move freely over the border on a daily basis. Indeed, the NFUS recognises that Brexit presents opportunities in recruitment from outside the EU. Currently, not being able to recruit outside of EU has caused recruitment issues. Post Brexit, the agricultural sector can recruit from non-EU countries with potentially more interest coming to Scotland. That's actually a quote from the NFUS. You're looking very confused. I'd like to make some progress if you wouldn't mind. The Food and Drink Federation Scotland has said that it would not support the addition of further levels of processing and assessment over and above those currently taken at a UK level, as that could potentially add to processing timescales for visa applications. Furthermore, the use of a Scottish work permit could restrict the movement of individuals in respect of both the requirements of the industry and of the permit holder. The point, often missed by those calling for a bespoke immigration deal, is that it won't fix the skills shortage in Scotland. The Scottish Food and Drink sector has highlighted the need to raise attractiveness to new entrants, to encourage leadership and management excellence and support the development of skills and growth in the workforce. Almost half of the people in the sector's workforce are over 50 and likely to retire in the next 10 to 15 years. I have mentioned that in a previous speech, but in 2015 the tourism industry recorded 27 per cent of employers had at least one unfilled vacancy within the last previous 12 months and 22 per cent of those vacancies in hotels and restaurants were due to skills shortages. Members are just coming to a close. Skills shortages are exacerbated in my constituency. By the numbers of young people actively leaving the area to seek other opportunities, those shortages are not being filled by EU migrants either, who find the lure of big cities more attractive. A bespoke agreement will therefore not solve the problem found within all of Scotland or the UK for that matter. To do that, we need to focus on developing the skills in key sectors like tourism, hospitality, quality, food and drink and agriculture. I think that there has been a fair shot at running over time so far. I think that other speakers have to stick to time a bit more. I call Joan McAlpine, followed by Rhoda Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wanted to open by referring to a constituent's visit that I made earlier this month to lock Arthur, a social enterprise and sheltered community near Beeswing, near Dumfries, which is run by Camp Hill Scotland. Camp Hill is a global organisation that was founded in Scotland and now has 11 communities across the country and young people from European countries live and work on a voluntary basis beside people with learning disabilities for whom Camp Hill is their home. It was founded in Aberdeenshire in 1939 by Carol Conig, a Jewish Austrian pediatrician who fled the Nazis to come here along with some of his students. He believed that everyone mattered and that should be included and that education could be therapeutic as well as inclusive. Today, young Europeans make up 68 per cent of Camp Hill's volunteers. They are qualified in social work, occupational therapy and special needs education. Often their short-term placement turns into a long-term commitment and they stay in Camp Hill and raise families there. However, that is all under threat if we leave the European Union and EU citizens arriving in future. After Brexit, should it go ahead, are treated as third country nationals. In Lock Arthur, for example, an American volunteer who worked in the bakery and supported residents in one of their houses was told to pack up and go because she did not meet the income criteria for residency. Camp Hill is one example of the wider humanitarian contribution that EU citizens make to Scotland and indeed the UK as a whole. People from the EU are volunteers, active citizens, good neighbours and social entrepreneurs. They are priceless and irreplaceable. The Scottish Government's submission to the Migration Advisory Committee puts a value on the contribution of working EU citizens at a very impressive £34,400 a year towards GDP. However, that is an underestimate, as I am sure the minister would agree. It does not include the unpaid work that many European citizens do. The Scottish Government's submission to the Migration Committee is welcome, but it is not surprising to myself or other members of the Parliament's Culture, Tourism or External Relations Committee. Our report, as others have identified, pointed to very serious workforce and demographic challenges faced by Scotland should EU citizens stop coming to live and work here. We recommended that, to tackle this time bomb, we need to have some kind of differentiated system of immigration. However, I am concerned that we are hearing from the Conservatives that a UK approach is the way forward. However, what I have heard of that UK approach is very worrying. The UK immigration minister Brandon Lewis told a fringe meeting at the Conservative conference that there will be an immigration bill in the new year. However, the Migration Advisory Committee, to whom the Scottish Government and others have been told to submit their views, will not publish the results of its engagement exercise until next September, long after the immigration bill is published, which makes me ask if that is really a meaningful consultation. Warringly, a document leaked to the Guardian newspaper said to be a draft of the immigration white paper, which suggests that the UK plans for the bill are as far from the Scottish Government position as can be imagined. It proposes a system of temporary resident permits for EU migrants post Brexit and plans to remove the right to settle in the UK entirely. That approach will exacerbate Scotland's demographic challenge, as others have outlined. It will treat UK citizens as third country citizens as a disaster for voluntary-led organisations such as Camp Hill. The Camp Hill volunteers do not draw a wage and therefore fail to meet the income criteria under current immigration rules. Those current immigration rules and the income criteria for them for families could have heartbreaking consequences if they were extended to EU nationals. In order to bring a spouse to this country at the moment, a UK citizen without dependent children needs to earn £18,600 a year, rising to £24,800 a year for someone with two dependent children. A report last year by the Migration Observatory found that 40 per cent of working British citizens earned less than the income threshold, and for women it was even worse. For childless couples, 55 per cent of British women fell below the threshold compared to 27 per cent of men. If two children were involved, 69 per cent of women fell below that threshold compared to 44 per cent of men, that is heartbreaking and is also deeply discriminatory. It seems totally wrong, and we can all agree that people who have been born here and lived and worked in the UK all their lives cannot easily bring their American, South African or Indian husband or wife to this country. In future, that could well apply to someone who falls in love with a national from Spain, France or Italy. It is worth remembering that the current system was approved by the Migration Advisory Committee. The MAC has no Scottish representative on board, and despite claiming to engage widely to inform UK policy, it is not accepting our committee's invitation to come and meet us. Evidence from COSLA, Unison and others suggests that the MAC is not responsive to Scottish needs and has poor quality data from Scotland to work on. That is one of the reasons, in addition to workforce planning and demographic challenges, why I believe that Scotland should have a bespoke approach to immigration. Others have already talked in great detail and, very interestingly, on the demographic challenges and the workforce challenges. Even more important, we should introduce a system that is compassionate. We should take our lead from organisations such as Camp Hill, founded by European migrants, determined to make a difference to the life of vulnerable people in Scotland. We need an immigration system that values people not just in a monetary sense but for their priceless contribution to our society. I call Rhoda Grant, followed by Graeme Dey. Migration is a good thing. People need the freedom to move about and seek a better life for themselves. Creating opportunities for young people is crucial to stopping outward immigration and to encourage inward migration. In the Highlands and Islands, we have a history of emigration. Our history tells us of the clearances. People forced off the land that they worked in order to increase the wealth of the land-winning classes. Those who could afford to left emigrated to Canada, America and New Zealand in large numbers, taking with them their wealth and their entrepreneurial spirit. There were economic migrants seeking a better life for themselves and their families. The economy of the Highlands and Islands still suffers from their loss. Because of that, emigration continues. Our young people leave to seek better opportunities because our economy has never fully recovered. Vibrant economies are dependent on people, therefore depopulation creates a downward spiral that needs to be stopped. It is only with people that we can build economies that will provide our young people with the bright future that they need to persuade them to stay. Therefore, we need urgently to address depopulation because this inward migration is an economic necessity. EU nationals tend to be young. They are ready to be down-routes and start families. The very people that our communities are crying out for. Many of the business sectors that are most prevalent across the Highlands and Islands are heavily reliant on migrant workers, trawler crews and farm labourers. There is also a need for seasonal migrants for fruit picking and summer tourism industry. Those industries have long used international migrants to power the economies and otherwise vulnerable and rural areas. While we recognise the need for inward migration, we also have to acknowledge that other parts of the UK do not need it. That is why we need different migration policies in different parts of the UK. Northern England and many parts of Scotland need inward migration. We need to be able to put in place policies and rules that are different in order to suit the whole country. In Scotland, 5 per cent of our workforce is made up of EU nationals, making them crucial to our economy. However, that is also true of people from other parts of the world. In the western is also told by hospitality businesses that they are having real difficulty in recruiting staff. They are becoming more dependent on students home for holidays. But once the young people return to university, they are having to close their businesses despite there still being many tourists around. This is a direct loss to these businesses but also a loss to the local economy. At the same time, I was overhearing tourists complaining about the number of places that had been closed and the impact that was having on their holiday. We need to build this industry and give visitors a good experience. If they have a bad experience, they will not come back again. Therefore, I am surprised that we have had a number of high profile cases in the Highlands and Islands where foreign nationals, not EU citizens, have been told to go home. That is despite the fact that they are making an important contribution to the economy. Some of the people who are being asked to leave are playing a crucial role in areas that are suffering from depopulation. New Zealand has a similar problem to itself in that their young people want to leave and they need to encourage others to migrate. They spend much more time attracting people and supporting them when they arrive. They put them in touch with other families who buddy them for years and this works to attract people to areas where they are most needed. Brexit will impact on how people view the UK. Even if we give them the security, they need to stay. The backdrop and uncertainty caused by Brexit will put people off coming here. The RCN has said that there has been a 96 per cent drop in the number of nurses from EU countries coming to the UK. We hear that almost a fifth of EU doctors have made plans to lead the UK. Our rural health boards are struggling to fill posts and huge amounts of public money has been wasted backfilling those posts with expensive locoms. Surely common sense needs to prevail to ensure that we are as welcoming as possible to people from other countries to fill our skills gaps. We need to learn from countries who encourage inward migration and do it well. I have mentioned New Zealand but we also need to look at Australia. They appear to be attracting a high number of newly qualified doctors from the UK. Why is that? Many of those posts are based in areas that make our remote rural practices appear urban. What are they offering in new recruits that we are not? Possibly less pressure and more time for career development. If that is the case, we need to find ways of replicating that to make our posts more attractive to our home-grown talent but also those from abroad. We need to look at the quality of life. That is crucial for keeping our young people and providing an attractive destination for those whose skills we need. It is clear that we need inward migration. Rather than picking a fight with the rest of the UK, we need to understand their needs and fears and make them understand ours. The Labour Party has pushed for a constitutional convention to look at how the different needs of the UK can be met within the devolved structures, making the best of the strength that binds us while recognising and celebrating our differences is important to this argument. I call Graeme Dates, followed by Alexander Stewart. I was attending the Royal Helen show on the day that the outcome of the European referendum emersed a driving home. I took a call from a prominent figure in Scotland's soft fruit sector. An individual utterly aghast at the result of someone who was already processing the potential impact on his industry given its reliance on migrant workers. I committed to working with him and his colleagues to address the damage that Brexit would potentially inflict on a sector that contributes more than £47 million a year to the economy of Angus. Astonishingly, more than 500 days on from that vote, the question of where exactly are we in terms of the soft fruit sector and indeed wider Scottish agriculture having confirmed access to the workforce in needs remains. The UK Government is no further forward in providing certainty, but we are certainly seeing the consequences of the decision to leave the EU already. There will be those who point out that reaching a decision around freedom of movement, whether special measures might be needed or implemented to cater for the agricultural workforce of the rights of EU nationals already living here, is still adequate time. After all, we have been told that the UK Government wanted to strike a deal on the status of EU nationals already residing in the UK and seasonal workers will still be able to come to the UK until March 2019. That ignores two things. First, the continuing emotional toll being exacted on our fellow Europeans who have made Scotland their home, something that I was reminded of yesterday when a French constituent visited one of my surgeries, seeking reassurance as to what the future might hold, not just for her but fellow immigrants who would want to follow the path she trod many years ago. Secondly, in the case of the seasonal agricultural workers, the question why they might still be able to come here in the short term, will they still want to? The evidence is mounting that the answer to that question is no with all the economic consequences that that carries for Scotland. We are all of us aware of reports of a shortage of migrant farm labour emerging. Cornwall, which voted to leave the EU, has had particular difficulties, so too has the apple industry in England. But what of Scotland? What has been happening here? When Mike Russell and I visited Angus Groes in our broth earlier this year, we spoke to some of the EU citizens who worked there. We heard from these key contributors to the local and wider economy that they felt unwelcome as a result of the Brexit vote. The collapsing value of the pound meant that coming here was less attractive financially. We heard that going to Germany, where their skills were wanted and where they would be paid in euros, looked a better option for 2018. The fact that the minimum wage in Germany has subsequently gone up will only strengthen the pool to a country from which the commute home is far easier. As is noted, in the Scottish Government's response to the Migration Advisory Committee's call for evidence, the demand for seasonal agricultural workers means that there is a risk that even a perception of the UK being unwelcoming, regardless of any actual barriers, could result in those from EU member states choosing to go to other countries such as Germany. The document also rightly highlights that recruitment of local people alone could not address this problem, especially owing to the low unemployment levels in rural areas. As I touched on earlier, queer evidence is emerging that Brexit is already leaving its mark on the soft-fruit sector, courtesy of—absolutely. Willie Rennie is exactly right about the issue. Does he recognise that the soft-fruit sector has grown massively in recent years? Even if we wanted to go back to just using Scottish workers, there wouldn't be enough of them because the industry is so much bigger now? Willie Rennie is absolutely right about that. The problem that is emerging at the moment is that fewer workers are turning up this year and hanging around until the tail end of the season when they would usually only have three days a week of relatively well-paid work and might use the rest of the time to tour Scotland. Let me acknowledge that there may be other factors at play. It has, for example, been suggested to me that a contributing factor to the lack of available workers at the end of the season is because the level of unemployment benefit that is being paid in Bulgaria is linked to the earnings accrued in that three-month period prior to their seeking support. Therefore, it might pay Bulgarians to head home on the back of a period of full employment rather than what is available to them late in the year. Of course, Bulgarians make up only a small proportion of the migrant workforce, and that would only passively explain away the early departures. So, what specifically has the impact been? One of the organisations cited in the submission that is made by the Scottish Government is Angus Growers, and I am grateful to them for allowing me to share with the chamber the details of what has happened across their 18 farms this year. Angus Growers needs 4,100 workers annually. This year, a total of 347 seasonal employees did not arrive or left early, giving little notice. That is 8.5 per cent of the workforce. The groups had to pay 35,580 overtime hours to address the labour shortages. The cost of overtime and training and transport between farms is estimated at a shade just under £225,000. Sitting alongside that, despite the overtime spend, a total of £436,000 worth of fruit was left unpicked or had to be downgraded to grade 2. In total, those farms took a 660,000-hit courtesy of having fewer workers at their disposal, if not entirely and certainly largely, because of the Brexit decision. No one could reasonably suggest that things are going to get better, at least not any time soon. The NFUS believes that mechanisms to allow access to workers must be introduced so that nothing impedes this happening in the spring of 2019. The NFUS is not prescriptive about the solution, but one possibility note is the reintroduction of the SAWS, which was abolished in 2013 after having been in place for 60 years. The fact is that Scotland, indeed the wider UK, needs those individuals, their skills and their work ethic. A new SAWS would be one way of achieving that. The NFUS does state that the previous SAWS restrictions in relation to quotas and people being restricted to working no more than six months would need to be looked at, the latter owing to, particularly to the expanded use of polytunnels that have extended the growing season. When we refer to seasonal migrant workers in the context of soft fruit, we are of course talking about people who are here for up to eight months of the year now, so a new SAWS would have to reflect those changed circumstances. I have sought in my contribution to be as measured as possible when laying out the situation that the industry is facing, but there is no getting away from the fact. Unless measures to safeguard access to the workforce are implemented quickly, they will have serious problems to attend with next year and beyond that they could face decimation. I call Alexander Stewart to be followed by Kate Forbes. I am delighted to be able to take part in today's debate on migration. The Scottish Conservatives value the significant contribution that migrants make to Scotland in our economy, our culture and our everyday lives. That great contribution should be at the forefront of our minds as we consider the options for managing migration. The vote to leave the European Union last year was not a vote against migration, but rather a vote for controlled migration. It is paramount for the future success of both Scotland and the rest of the UK that we continue to welcome individuals. For our economy, for our health sector and our hospitality and tourism, they need them and we know that. We need to ensure that, for many, the future system welcomes the best and the brightest from the whole world and not from one single continent. We should be welcoming migrants based on their skills and what they have to contribute to our nation, not where they come from. To those from the EU who already live here and work, the message is clear—we want you to stay. The Prime Minister has given her assurances that the rights to remain will be offered to all EU nationals who have chosen to make the UK their home. I'll go to Ms Gougeon. Mary Gougeon, please. Thank you very much. Maybe you have more information than we do, but how would you answer some of the points that have been raised today in terms of volunteers, cash and hand workers, where there are no answers whatsoever and no assurances from the UK Government on that? No, I take exception to that. There has been clear motivation behind all those. We are trying to ensure that individuals who are here remain here. That has been talked about on many occasions. That is the way that we are moving forward. In contrast, the current First Minister's position on the EU migrants is somewhat muddled. In 2014 referendum on Scotland's independence, the First Minister cynically suggested that the future of EU migrants would be under threat if an event of a no vote. Her actual quote was that there are 160,000 EU nationals from other states living in Scotland. If Scotland was outside Europe, there would be the right to lose that. That was one of her quotes. The SNP is therefore in no position to lecture others on the treatment of EU nationals. We know that Scotland faces a number of demographic challenges, not least the population expected to increase is lower than the rest of the UK as a whole. The population is expected to increase by 7 per cent between 2014 and 2039, which is lower than the 15 per cent that we expect for the rest of the UK. That predicted population growth at 7 per cent would be sustained so far as long as the net migration to Scotland remains at around 9,000 per year. The reality is that, if current trends continue, net inward migration is projected to be the main contributor to Scotland's population growth over the next 25 years. Improving net migration also means encouraging those who are already living in Scotland to stay, which is well within the SNP's influence. Around 3,000 doctors have left Scotland since 2008. We need the opportunity and possibility to ensure that we have professions that wish to remain and to stay here. We want to protect that. As I said, the Scottish Government has a rule to play in that. Making Scotland also the highest tax part of the United Kingdom is not the right way to go around making sure that is the case. I am curious to know whether the member, hand on harp, in all seriousness, really thinks that the thing that is worrying at the moment—our EU citizens who are living here—is the fact that there is a debate going on in this Parliament about the upper rates of income tax or income tax as a whole. Does the member really think that that might be influencing their decision whether or not to stay here at the moment? Everybody contributes to being part of this. Mr Carlaw, Mr Stewart is going to answer that. Every part, but the money in someone's purse or wallet is vitally important. If you are going to tax them more, you are putting them off coming to this country. Why should we in Scotland be subjected to this? It is not fair. They understand that and they see that. Mr Arthur, behave yourself. The SNP nevertheless seemed to think that all of Scotland's democratic problems can be solved by a different migration system, but the assertions are quite the opposite. Scrutiny has shown that. There are large bodies of experts' opinion that have opposed the idea and warned that this could have serious negative impacts on the Scottish economy. A report published by the University of Oxford's Migration Observatory states that regionalisation has an economic drawback and that a more complex system would increase administration burdens and that would have an effect on businesses in the United Kingdom. There are many companies operating across Scotland that wish to see that happen. In conclusion, we owe a debt of gratitude to migrants in Scotland for the immense contribution that they make to our nation. We need them and they need us. I am confident that any future immigration will reflect the fact that both Scotland and the United Kingdom will continue to be open and welcoming to those from around the world as we chart our new course for our country outside the European Union, and I support the amendment in Jackson Callow's name. Most of us, I dare say, are or have been migrants, I have certainly been one myself. We are a country of migrants, too often leaving, not arriving. As the MSP for a very rural part of Scotland that still struggles to retain its population, as Rhoda Grant highlighted eloquently, I thought, we want more. We want more migrants. Plenty have left and not enough have stayed or moved in. That is an open invitation to anybody who is watching. Yesterday, I was on a panel in Fort William answering questions from the audience and the vast majority of questions that the audience had were on depopulation and recruitment. That is partly because the new owners of the Lochaber Smelter, Liberty, have just submitted detailed proposals for a new factory and will support an additional 744 jobs either directly or through the supply chains. That is a whopping figure, 744 new jobs for a town with a population of 10,000 people. It is great news, but now is not the time to make it harder for would-be workers. If Lochaber is leading the industrial comeback, then Sky is setting the bar for tourism. It is all happening in the highlands. The vast majority of hotels, restaurants and tourist attractions are employing employees from outwith the UK and generally from EU count countries. Demand for our glorious scenery and delicious food is already outstripping supply. We want more workers, more entrepreneurs, not fewer. Debates on migration are usually couched in economic terms, and I have just done that myself. However, I want to emphasise throughout the human lives that are caught up in our increasingly polarising debates on the subject that migration is good. It is good for economic growth and that is good for all of us. Because when GDP goes up, so do the average incomes.  It is good for our business communities as the employment rate for EU nationals is higher than the overall rate for Scotland and they are generally better qualified than us too. It is good for our population growth as all projected population increase over the next 10 years in Scotland is due to net in migration with a vast majority coming from outside the UK. That reflects what has happened over the last 10 years as well with 88 per cent of population growth in Scotland coming from inwards migration. It is a far, far higher figure in Scotland than it is for the UK as a whole. Lastly, as has already been touched on, it is good for our public services, particularly as health and social care is the single greatest employer of EU citizens. I was waiting on the light for taking this intervention. I think that there is very little to disagree with in the comments that the member has given in her speech today, but I am genuinely interested here if the member has any views on how we could help tackle depopulation in the Highlands and Islands by encouraging more people who were born and bred in the Highlands and Islands to either stay there or return there after qualifications. I think that that is also part of the problem. Kate Forbes? I think that that is an excellent point. We are not saying that everybody who leaves school should stay, but every single one of my peers who left a Highland High School left the Highlands at the same time and very few of them have come back. I think that there are several things in that. What we are saying in Fort William at the moment is that we need training opportunities. It is about careers. It is about that first step going from school to work. That is where we need training, university. The University of the Highlands and Islands has been fantastic in that respect. Secondly, career progression. The more jobs that are available, the more scope there is for career progression. I want to come on to the human element. That is the part that causes me most frustration and anger at times.  Newlyweds, who returned from honeymoon to be told that one partner's salary or savings is not sufficient and they cannot enter the country. That is followed by months of stress, worry and separation. It is cruel. Those are not somehow bad people. They are dentists. They are naval architects. They are entrepreneurs. Those are just the ones that I know about. My greatest fear is that freedom of movement is reduced for EU citizens. They too will be subjected to the same, steely cold, unforgiving and suspicious approach of the home office. With the removal of the post-study work visa, talented students are not coming here in the first place. The very graduates that we need, the engineers, the medics from India, Nigeria and other countries, are going to Canada, Germany and the United States. We are the victims. Our society is the victim. Our future is the victim of a Government's very short-termist, very ill-thought-through and very destructive decision to cut the tier 2 post-study work visa. At the end of the day—this is where I will close—we are talking about people. That is perhaps best symbolised by the Zeldorfs, a family with five children who bought and invested in the only village shop in rural Lagan and turned it into a thriving business. After just short of 10 years to the mutual shame of the home office and the UK Government, they were deported.  Ross Greerfall by Willie Rennie. Scotland has benefited enormously from migration, culturally, socially and economically. Having historically faced significant immigration of Scots to places like America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, we have relied heavily on migration into Scotland over recent years to reverse that population decline, to fill skill shortages and keep many rural communities in particular valuable. Today, for example, about one in six nurses and midwives were born abroad, rising to one in five nursing assistants. One third of university academic staff have come to Scotland from somewhere else in the world. A huge number of EU nationals in particular work in our agricultural industries and live in our rural communities. Healthcare, food production and education are core services in sectors that employ a disproportionate number of people who have come from outside of the UK, both those from the rest of Europe and the wider world. Brexit poses a clear risk to those key sectors. The number of European nurses registering to work here has already dropped by 96 per cent, leaving NHS Scotland vacancy rates at its highest ever recorded. The National Farmers Union has reported a 29 per cent shortfall in seasonal workers, resulting in fruit quite literally being left to rot in the fields. Migration is not only about employment levels or economic contribution, as Kate Forbes said. People are not simply units of labour moved from one country to another depending on the needs of a ruling economic class. That is also about what kind of society we want to live in. One that is enriched socially and culturally by openness and by free movement or a closed hostile little island, angry and isolationist on the outskirts of Europe. We value the freedom to move to visit, live and work in other countries. After all, people born in Scotland have been doing that for hundreds of years and have spread all across the globe. It is only fair that we extend that same right to those who wish to come here and contribute to Scottish society. This is a position that I know is shared by many—most of the parties and members in this Parliament—and I believe by most of the people of Scotland. Not just remaining in the European Union and benefiting from European freedom of movement, but increasing immigration from across the world to Scotland because we know the benefits of it. More accurately, that would be about removing the unnecessary barriers and cruel systems that currently make up the UK immigration system for those coming from outside of Europe. Those are mainstream positions in Scotland, and yet we are currently unable to make that a reality, to respond to both the needs and the values of our society and our economy. Instead, our migration policy is created at a UK level by a Government intent on creating a hostile landscape for migrants. An atmosphere that has seen the debate poisoned drags so far to the right that a centre left party can somehow think it acceptable to chisel control on immigration into their own headstone. We have seen the UK Government enact heartless policies that do not respect people as human beings deserving of dignity. That has been one of the biggest fears voiced by EU nationals here in Scotland, whom I have spoken to, that they will be treated like the UK already treats third country nationals. The hostile environment, intentionally created by the UK Government, has seen the Home Office split apart families. The callousness at the heart of the UK's migration system has been imposed on our refugee and asylum systems, as well, ran by the very same Home Office. People who come to the UK as children have been forced to return to countries that they have never known that they have no families in, women and children at risk of female genital mutilation have faced deportation, and it is now normal to see MPs routinely campaigning against the deportation of their constituents, whether they be immigrants or refugees or asylum seekers, including individuals who face serious risk of harm or even death. It has been normalised, but it is not okay. The responsibility to house asylum seekers, for example, is an example of the asymmetrical distribution of powers within the UK. That is carried out through the UK Government's tendering process. It is delivered by organisations with far more interest in squeezing extra profits than in treating people with dignity. Asylum seekers have been forced to live in some like conditions—an insecure, damp, dirty and rat-infested houses. Victims of abuse and traumatised people have been placed in houses without even a lock on the door. A Home Affairs Select Committee report into asylum housing last January branded it a disgrace. Yet charities said in October that the UK Government was still to respond to the report's findings. Despite our responsibility over housing policy for everyone else in Scotland, we are not in a position to help asylum seekers who have been placed here. We need to restore humanity to the migration system, create one suited to the needs and aspirations of Scotland. To do that, we need to devolve migration and asylum powers to the Scottish Parliament where appropriate. There are already plenty of examples across the world about how such systems could work. The European Committee has commissioned research into that, which has already been discussed. Places like Quebec and the other provinces of Canada, as well as Australian states, are examples of areas that enjoy significant controls over immigration. That allows sub-state bodies to sponsor visas and encourage migrants to settle in areas that are deemed to have low population growth or other specific needs. Under the Canada-Quebec Accords in 1991, Quebec has sole responsibility for establishing immigration levels in the province. I would not pretend that there are no challenges to overcome when looking at the devolution of migration powers, but as other countries have demonstrated, it can be done. It can be done in imaginative ways. The Swiss Cantons, for example, show that levels of responsibility can be given to layers of government below the equivalent of this national parliament. In Scotland, that debate must include our local councils and what their roles in any devolved system could be. If the argument is about the specific needs of Scotland as a whole, then much of that can be applied to the specific needs of Dumfries and Galloway or Angus. Greens believe in a world beyond borders. We believe that no human being should be declared illegal on the basis of nothing more than the patch of land that they were born on or the patch that they now live on. Scotland has long reflected that outward-looking internationalist and welcoming approach. We just need the right powers at the right levels to make it a reality. Willie Rennie, to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Willie Rennie, please. It seems that the Conservative MSPs this afternoon have been determined to prove me absolutely right at the weekend when I compared them with a Baked Alaska. Just for the benefit of those who were not at the conference, I was comparing them with a Baked Alaska because they are light and fluffy on the outside but cold-hearted. Today they have proved that exact point. Light and fluffy, Jackson Carlaw says. Immigration is crucial to key sectors, including public services, health, higher education, rural industries, the hospitality sector and financial services. Theresa May, there are thousands of British people who have been forced out of the labour market, still unable to find a job, cold-hearted. The Conservative amendment goes on to say that light and fluffy acknowledges the important role that immigration will continue to have in addressing Scotland's on-going demographic challenges and skills gaps. Theresa May, the benefits of immigration are close to zero. That's what she said. That's their Prime Minister who said exactly that. Jackson Carlaw says one thing, the Prime Minister says another. I watched that speech at the Conservative Party conference. I saw it and I saw the whole hall rise to the feet at the end of what I thought was a deplorable speech. There was, including, one Ruth Davidson who was there applauding every single word of what Theresa May said on immigration. Who is in charge of the Conservative Party? Is it Ruth Davidson? Is it Jackson Carlaw? Or is it Theresa May? The immigration policy that I am sure Conservative MPs at Westminster will vote for is the one that Theresa May sets out and it is not the one that Jackson Carlaw has put forward today. The verbal gymnastics do not stop there. The BMA warned that a third of EU GPs working the NHS in Scotland are thinking of leaving in the wake of Brexit. 14 per cent of those GPs, remember, were 850 shots by 2021. Something the Conservatives are on the high streets of Scotland campaigning about but they seem to ignore the fact that their own government are driving them out of the country on the other hand. There are no verbal gymnastics from the Scottish Conservatives. While they are, they have been drip-fed in this country, an anti-immigration propaganda by the Conservative Party that was reinforced by Brexit. We have seen it. Graham Day made an excellent speech. He made some really important points about the real peril that is facing our fruit and veg sector. The fruit and drink sector has grown massively in recent years on the back of workers from the European Union, because we cannot get enough Scottish workers to work in that sector. It is proving, it is hoping, to double by 2030, up to £30 billion in terms of value. That will not be achieved if we are not getting the workers to come into this country. That is Theresa May's policy. She does not want them to come into this country. It equally applies to the university sector as well. In St Andrew's, my university in St Andrew's, about 20 per cent of the staff are from the European Union. The grants come from the European Union and 10 per cent of the staff as well. But they are thinking about not coming here because of the uncertainty in the future. If you are going to make a long-term commitment to go to a university to travel across Europe, you are going to think twice if you think that that country is not going to be welcoming to you in the future. You are not going to uproot your family for another part of the European Union and take that risk. That is why our university sector is under threat as well. You can see where the universities are farming. The impact of tightening immigration is going to be felt in the wake of Brexit. We still have the Scottish Conservatives standing up and telling us that that is not their policy. I am afraid that it is their policy because that is what they stood on in the Brexit campaign. The expectation is that, on the back of Brexit, fewer foreigners will be in this country. That is what people are expecting. No matter what they said in the small print, that is the expectation. That is the imagery and the symbols that they sent out during the Brexit campaign. To stand here today and pretend that it is otherwise is trying to fool us, but we will not be fooled by that. The problem is, at the heart of the problem, that this is not just a Scottish issue. Graham Day made the point himself. He is talking about workers in Cormill, picking the apples down in England as well. We are talking about the Daffodil pickers, who start off on the south coast and they work their way up to the north. Having a differentiated system does not necessarily solve the problem. What we need to have is a change of approach from the Conservative Government for the whole of the United Kingdom. The universities in the whole of the United Kingdom can have it. No, that is not what Jackson Carlaw said. What Jackson Carlaw is defending is that a Conservative Government is trying to drive down immigration in this country. It is going to hit our fruit and veg sector, it is going to hit our universities and it is going to hit our NHS. He is backing them every single step of the way. I am afraid that I do not have any time for Mr Light and Fluffy Carlaw, who is pretending to be something that he is not. What we need to have is a proper debate about immigration in this country to make sure that we have the right level of immigrants coming in and working to grow our businesses, to defend our NHS, to make sure that we are caring for their people in their own homes, to make sure that we have a thriving economy and that we will not get that with the Conservative Government. Stuart McMillan is followed by Jamie Halcro Johnston. We still do not know anything because it is not clear to us that we have a right to reside here permanently. We want to know that we will not lose our houses, our jobs or our human rights here. We do not want to be treated differently. We have made so many contributions to this country and we do not want to be discriminated against. Not my words, but the words of Caterina Slavic from the Fife Migrants Forum when she gave evidence to the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee on 28 September. When Mr Stuart, who is not in the chamber now, spoke earlier on that there is certainty to all the EU migrants who are living here. Just for the sake of fact, Mr Stuart is in the chamber, he was just moving around a little. I will just carry on. Sorry, that came out all wrong. Yes, it did. I will just carry on. When Mr Stuart, who is now taking his seat once again, spoke earlier on that there is certainty and migrants do know what is going to happen to them post Brexit, I would urge Mr Stuart to talk to his constituents in the region that he represents, to talk to people from the Fife Migrants Forum, to listen to their concerns, to listen to every single word that they have to say, because when people from the Fife Migrants Forum come to this Parliament, come to one of our committees and tell this Parliament that they still do not know that there is a huge amount of uncertainty for them, then clearly Mr Stuart is not listening to his constituents. On that point as well, Mr Carlaw spoke earlier on the issue of economic policy. The motion that the Scottish Government has put forward speaks of that it should continue to use the economic powers. That is something that certainly this Parliament should continue to do, but with the amendment that has been put forward by the Conservatives, it is urging the Scottish Government to use the powers, but I would argue that Brexit is going to hamper this Scottish Government undertaking the economic policies that we really want to see happen to make Scotland a better country and a more prosperous country, Mr Carlaw. There has certainly been a hugely confusing narrative from the Conservatives in this debate, not just today, but certainly in recent months. There are a few points that have already been touched on in the debate, but there are a few that the members need to consider. First of all, every year, EU nationals working in Scotland contribute an average of £34,000 each, which amounts to £4.4 billion per year. The current employment rate for EU nationals in Scotland is 76.8 per cent, which is 3.8 per cent higher than Scotland's unemployment. Almost two thirds of EU nationals aged 16 and above are employed in either distribution, hotels, restaurants, public administration, education, health and banking, finance and insurance. Over one third, 36.7 per cent of EU nationals have a degree-level qualification or higher. As a nation, Scotland is far richer for having people of all nationalities, including EU migrants here. I would go as far as saying that there are some who use the language of send them all back where they came from, but I'm afraid that if those people were all to be sent back, Scotland's immediate population would decline, the economy would suffer and our cultural appreciation and understanding would deteriorate. It's abundantly clear that EU migrants have a positive effect on the Scottish economy, our culture, our sporting activities and our learning opportunities to provide just a few examples. One aspect that they also help with is that of health. It's been touched upon today. At present, EU citizens help to fill specialisms and areas of shortage in the health sector. Recent figures released by the nursing and midwifery council confirm that, since Brexit, the number of EU nurses and midwives registering to work in the UK is declining. Not just by a wee bit, but as the minister spoke of earlier on, 96 per cent reduction in people applying to come to work in the health service in the UK. Today, the British Medical Association shared the findings of a recent study that it undertook, which indicates that one in five European doctors working in the NHS UK-wide are already planning to leave Britain due to the Brexit uncertainty. One in five. Forty-five per cent of EU doctors are considering leaving. Thankfully, the figures in Scotland aren't as bad, but 34 per cent are considering leaving and 14 per cent have already made plans to leave. That is a little comfort to Scotland. It's one of the aspects of the Tory Brexit shambles that we now have to deal with. It's not just EU nationals that are concerned about the impact of Brexit. It's also the employers of the Scottish Government's recent publication, Brexit, what's at stake for businesses, highlights the concerns of Scottish businesses around attracting and retaining EU staff and their skepticism about replacing this workforce from UK sources. I mentioned about the culture committee in the Parliament. We received evidence from businesses as part of our immigration policy inquiry and just some of the stats we received were the following. Skills Development Scotland outlined the main sectors to be affected by Brexit, which will be the food and drink industry, most at risk, with more than 10 per cent of their current workforce being EU nationals. Also, 12,800 vacancies arise every year in Scotland in the digital technology roles. That is a skills gap in the current area that are partly alleviated through the recruitment of European staff. Brexit is an absolute shambles. The issue of immigration is something that this Parliament, if we can speak with one voice to encourage people to stay here, we certainly need the UK Government to come to the table and be clear for every single EU migrant they are welcome to stay here because they do contribute already and they are welcome to stay in Scotland. I call Jamie Halcro Johnston, followed by Ivan McKee. Mr Halcro Johnston is the penultimate speaker in the open debate. Migration is an issue that cuts across a great deal of the work that we do in this chamber. Our population trends dictate how we deliver public services, whether communities are sustainable and how we plan for the future. Migration into Scotland has been a force of good for much of our history. Individuals and communities have come from across the world and made Scotland their home, adding to the already existing diversity and richness of our culture. That is particularly the case in my own region, the Highlands and Islands, which is now the preferred destination for many from the rest of the UK, the EU and from across the world. Communities across the region are enriched by those who choose to make the Highlands and Islands their home, who bring their skills and experiences to a wide variety of sectors. The UK will always welcome skilled migrants who want to come here to work, study, learn and contribute to our national life. Those principles are already embedded in our immigration system, but it is likely that changes will have to be made to reflect the interests of all parts of the UK going forward. There are a number of specific concerns. We have heard much, for example, about seasonal employment. That affects rural areas across the UK and there has been some initial discussion about how seasonal work, particularly in agriculture, should be accommodated within our immigration framework. I noticed that the National Farmers Union of Scotland has shown its willingness to explore arrangements that go beyond the EU 27 countries. However, to approach those prospective issues in detail, we need a greater range of accurate data. The economic impact of migration changes can only be accurately estimated if we know the current flows of migration and how individual sectors are affected, where people are coming into our economy and where they may come from in the future. My colleagues have spoken from a nationalist perspective, but I would like to talk more about my own region. As Rhoda Grant has said, the story of the Highlands and Islands has traditionally been one of outward migration, unfortunately not always voluntarily. We have long-faced broader issues around depopulation. For a number of communities, however, this has become a reversing trend, but it remains a patchwork. Many of our issues spring from young people seeking to move away to other parts of Scotland or the rest of the UK. For many, the lack of opportunities, whether through education or employment, are not perceived, they are real. London, the global city where the worldwide reach is an enormous part of Britain's wider economy. In Scotland, we have the considerable pull to the economic hub focused on the central belt. There, we have some of the finest universities and institutions of learning in the world and, of course, some major employers. Those are not criticisms—we should welcome having those on our doorstep—a major global capital, thriving businesses and enterprises in cities such as Edinburgh and Glasgow. The whole country benefits from their success. However, pressures do exist as a consequence. The sustainability of communities in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland is something that we occasionally consider in the specific, as we did recently in discussing community buyouts, but it is also something that needs to be examined in the round. These discussions often come back to the same challenges that face many villages and towns across rural and remote parts of Scotland—how to retain and to attract people to live and work locally. Connectivity is a key to opening up rural Scotland as a place to live and to do business. People who choose to stay or to move to rural Scotland need not only a home but also the ability to participate in economic and social life. Technology may yet drive change for rural Scotland. We increasingly see distance working in businesses from one end of the country or one side of the globe supplying others. That is why it is so important that we get the roll-out of things like broadband right. The Scottish Affairs Committee's report on Scotland's demographics from last year concluded that broadband was identified by the Scottish Government as a key factor in determining the attractiveness of rural Scotland as a place to live. It said that a key to keeping young people in rural areas would, of course, be our broadband connections. I welcome that commitment, but we need to see real results. Kate Forbes, thank you for giving way. Overall, in terms of the trends of the Scottish population, there is still a vast majority who are coming from outside the UK that are driving the growth in the Scottish population that is exacerbated in the Highlands. Having made all those points that I agree with, does the member not think that it is quite difficult to square that circle of being in a party that wants to cut immigration numbers, where in the Highlands we are desperately needing immigration from outside the UK as well? I am about to move on to one of the reasons for retaining people locally. Transport is also important. Nowhere are these more in sharp focus as the Scotland Islands community. I met only yesterday with representatives from Orkney Islands Council and met with Shetland Islands Council over the summer. Both councils recognise the importance of ensuring that life remains sustainable, and that means providing either local public services or at worst good access to local services. It is true that not every service can be provided in every local community, but that is why transport connections are so important, both to and from mainland Scotland and, almost more importantly, within our island communities. I am going to move on if that is okay. The member is closing shortly. That is why the Scottish Government's decision to treat Orkney and Shetland Islands Council differently to other councils, requiring them to contribute to the cost of internal ferries when other similar councils do not. It threatens both local services within those council areas and, most importantly, access to those services for those living on islands. If a family living on one of those islands cannot access a school for their children, or a hospital when one of them is ill, or a care provided for the elderly, then that family will leave and others will join them in leaving and communities shrink and become unsustainable. Migration from around the world, from our neighbouring countries in Europe and from within the United Kingdom will be an important step in the future of many communities here in Scotland, but simply asserting how welcome we are is not sufficient. We need a Scottish Government that is willing to take on those challenges, and that has been outlined today. We need a real action on the issues that face many of our rural communities, and we need to stand against actions that will make Scotland unattractive or make living in Scotland's remote communities almost impossible. Scotland's population has been in relative decline for the past 300 years, something that has not only been partially reversed in the last decade. In 1700, fully 20 per cent of the population of Great Britain resided in Scotland, and by 1900 that reduced to 13 per cent. In my lifetime that percentage has reduced from 10 per cent to barely 8 per cent today. Now, emigration from Scotland has been the key characteristics of our demographics for centuries. Fully 8 million current residents of the rest of the UK are said to be descendant of Scots, and the pattern of Scots settling in other countries across Europe, the Commonwealth and further afield is well documented. In absolute terms, Scotland's population in the year 2000 was almost the same at around 5 million as it was 100 years earlier at the end of the Victorian era, a timeframe that saw populations of other comparable countries—Norway, Denmark, Sweden, amongst others—double. A determination to reverse that long-term trend by the policies of this Scottish Parliament has done much to help turn that corner, and a key part of that success story has been the influx of new Scots and the largest part from the new EU member states since the 2004 accession. That is a trend that is essential to the economic success of Scotland in future decades, and it is a trend that is now at risk as a consequence of the decision of this UK Government to pursue a hard Brexit, leaving the single market and with it ending the free movement of labour across the EU, thus ending at a stroke the main route for recent immigration, which has been so beneficial to Scotland's economy and society. A key consequence of net immigration from Scotland has been a demographic profile that is not helpful to our future economic growth and public sector finances. Scotland's ageing population needs young working people to pay taxes to fund pensions, and it needs the dynamism of young immigrants to drive forward our economy, as they have done in past decades and centuries. Because, while immigration has been dramatic over the centuries, waves of immigrants into Scotland have gone some limited way to mitigate its worst effects. Scotland's consequence is a healthy mix of descendants of people from all over the globe, and Scotland today is a country that celebrates the strength that comes from that diversity. Many more of us in that sense are new Scots and may be obvious at first, and I count myself among that number of my own eight great-grandparents only two are born in Scotland. The economic benefits of migration into Scotland are well documented. Each EU migrant working in Scotland adds an average of £34,000 to GDP, with consequent contributions to our tax base. The total GDP contribution of EU citizens living in Scotland adds up to more than £4 billion. Migrants contribute more to public sector finances than they take out, and if you encounter an EU national in our Scottish NHS, they are far more likely to be a medical professional treating you than a fellow patient. Diversity of Scotland's population is not only significant for that direct economic impact. There is also the immeasurable benefit of the gain to Scotland's international standing, prestige, reach and profile, so critical in building businesses and cultural links in an increasingly internationalised economy. Immigrants from other countries maintain their links to those countries, which are invaluable in building Scottish businesses and export links. The critical impact on key sectors is also well understood. Agriculture, finance, manufacturing, education and our health service. At time and pressures on our health service as a consequence of an ageing population acquiring more, not less doctors and nurses, we find the BMA reporting that 45 per cent of EU doctors working in the UK are considering leaving and 19 per cent have already made plans to go. The numbers for Scotland are marginally better, but they are still extremely concerning, with 34 per cent considering leaving and 14 per cent having already made plans to do so. However, although the numbers tell a powerful story, the message, the mood music that can be conveyed by this debate is also hugely important. What EU migrants already living in the UK here is that they are no longer welcome. That message comes from the top, from UK Government politicians who set that tone and to hear that message in Warsaw as much as they hear it in Wyshire. The number of EU citizens planning to come to Scotland in key-skill sectors is significantly down already. The damage is already being done. The months of prevarication and the inability of the UK Government to offer clarity to EU citizens is not some clever negotiating wheeze, it's a dramatic on-goal, regardless of where the Brexit deal ends up rebuilding bridges with EU nationals already here and those who would hope to persuade to come here will be difficult. The impact of the drop in the value of sterling since the Brexit vote should also not be underestimated. Why come here when a less risky, more secure, more welcoming and more profitable option exists in other Western European countries? In conclusion, presiding officer, the importance of the message that we send out from this Parliament and the steps taken by the Scottish Government to do what it can to reassure EU nationals should not be underestimated. We say to EU citizens living and working here in Scotland that we value your contribution to our economy and our society. We say to EU countries and their current residents thinking of emigrating. Scotland is a welcoming country. Your skills will be valued here. We say to the UK Government, wake up, realise the economic damage that you are doing to Scotland and to the UK. If you are not going to reverse your damaging immigration policies, then at least allow Scotland to implement our own policies to protect our economy. Closing speech is called Jackie Baillie to close for Labour. Six minutes please, Ms Baillie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. When baked alaskas and flat sponges are being thrown around the chamber as insults, you can tell that MSPs have been spending far too much time watching the great British bake-off. I am pleased to close the debate and welcome the opportunity to have discussed migration in the chamber today. My mother emigrated from Glasgow to Hong Kong, where I was born, so you could say that I am a migrant to Scotland. Scots are indeed to be found in every corner of the world and we welcome people across the world to this country too. Brexit has implications for us all. In some areas, we can only begin to estimate the impact on businesses, on our economy and on individuals, but it is a time of huge uncertainty. We can, however, be clear about the impact that Brexit will have on the labour market in Scotland. 181,000 EU nationals are living in Scotland. The majority are Polish, followed by the Irish and then Spanish nationals. I will come on to the specific sectors in a moment, but I want to first agree with the minister's comments and, indeed, Jackson Carlaw's comments about population. We know that Scotland's population is likely to decline if we do nothing. Unfortunately, we are also ageing. We are a more rapidly ageing population than elsewhere in the UK, so we depend on inward migration to meet our population growth target. If that is absent, and EU nationals will not be able to come here, our population will inevitably decline with all the impact that that will have. That is not good for our economy. It will lead to shortages in key industry sectors and in public services too. Let me touch on some of the sectors that have been covered by members across the chamber. The soft-fruit industry relies on seasonal labour, the majority of employees coming from the EU. This is an industry that has grown substantially in the last 20 years, contributes something like over £1 billion to the UK economy and is not an industry that we can afford to lose. Then there is the hospitality sector, which will experience a double whammy, firstly losing employees from the EU who make up a significant element of the workforce, and secondly, losing visitors from the EU, which would have a material effect on the industry and on our GDP. Then, of course, are the members covered in health and education sectors? If you look at universities alone, we can see that EU nationals comprise 9 per cent of students and almost 25 per cent of research staff. We risk losing talented European staff and academics. Nobody can tell me that that's not going to be bad for the education sector and bad for our economy. A university and college union survey of over 1,000 lecturers and professors has suggested that up to three quarters of continental EU academics in the country have said that they are now more likely to leave the UK. We know, indeed, that this is a UK-wide problem and that should we have solidarity with the rest of the United Kingdom on that? The member will know that I always have solidarity with the rest of the United Kingdom, but I suggest that he looks at the evidence that tells us that there is a greater percentage of academics from the European Union in Scotland than there is in the rest of the UK. That makes an argument for a differential system in Scotland and I hope that he does read that. We also know that our NHS relies on staff coming from the EU. We've heard from the minister, from Rhoda Grant and from others, the impact on nurses, the fact that there's a 96 per cent drop in those wanting to come to Scotland, vacancy rates are up and indeed one in five doctors thinking about leaving. Willie Rennie is right to point out the hypocrisy of the Conservative situation over GP vacancies. When Brexit and the lack of response on migration is contributing to driving doctors out of the country, but it isn't just about people not coming. Those EU nationals who are already living and working here are leaving, Presiding Officer. As Mary Gougeon rightly highlighted, they are doing so because they don't feel welcome, they have no certainty about the future and they don't know if they'll be able to access public services for their families. Let me turn to what we can do. We should have a differentiated immigration system that can be linked to specific sectors. We have had a differentiated system before with the fresh talent scheme. We can do so again. My colleague Lewis MacDonald suggested a range of initiatives that we could undertake and I commend them to the minister. The Scottish Government could codify the rights of migrants, ensuring access to services. We can do more to promote Scotland to migrants using the trade network that is being developed overseas. The appointment of Scottish members to the Migration Advisory Committee would also be helpful and developing a fresh talent too and more besides. Whatever initiatives are agreed, we need to do so with slightly more urgency. That applies to UK nationals living in the rest of the EU. People need certainty and both the UK and Scottish Governments need to set aside their differences in the interests of the economy, our public services and individuals. We should be an opening and welcoming nation but that perception is currently being challenged by Brexit. Let me urge those on the benches opposite who have an influence on the UK Government to use that influence, to do so in Scotland's interests, to create a differentiated migration system that works for all of Scotland. I call Dean Lockhart, close to the Conservatives, in six minutes. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Let me first declare a personal interest in the area of migration. As someone who has lived and worked in five different countries across the world, I have had the privilege of seeing first hand the cultural, social and economic benefits that migration can offer. Here in Scotland, the significant benefits of migration have been highlighted across the chamber. That is a very important message for this Parliament to send out. We welcome migrants to Scotland, value their significant contribution and welcome the diversity that they bring to our society. The minister opened the debate by reminding us that Scotland's population would be in decline in the absence of migration. Jackson Carlaw highlighted that migration also plays a critical role in addressing the ageing demographics within Scotland and offered up the image that our population profile could resemble an upended pyramid without migration. Migrants coming to Scotland also play a vital role in addressing the skills gap, as Lewis MacDonald explained, providing seasonal workers for different sectors, including hospitality and rural industries, as we heard from Rachael Hamilton, and helping to meet labour shortages in particular geographical areas such as Highlands and Islands, as Rhoda Grant mentioned. Jeremy Halcro Johnston made an important observation when he said that in the context of Brexit and a rapidly changing global economy, we need to understand where migrants arriving in Scotland are coming from and how that might change in the future. Based on the latest available numbers, 42 per cent of migrants come to Scotland from the rest of the UK, 25 per cent of migrants come from the EU, with recent trends since 2010 seeing a drop in levels of EU migration to Scotland, 12 per cent of migrants are from commonwealth countries and 22 per cent of migrants come from the rest of the world. Those numbers are important because they show the diversity in the origin of migrants coming to Scotland, and that is to be welcomed, particularly when Europe itself is experiencing significant demographic challenges. In fact, Europe is projected to be the only continent that will see a declining population in the next 25 years. Those migration numbers also show and emphasise how important the UK single market is for Scotland. Not only does the UK single market account for 63 per cent of Scotland's trade, but it is also the origin for almost half of Scotland's inward migration. There is a consensus across the chamber that migration will continue to play a critical role in Scotland's future. Willie Rennie If there is a consensus across the chamber, is there a consensus in his party? Does he agree with his Prime Minister who says that the value of immigration is close to zero? Who does he agree with? Dean Lockhart Mr Rennie, that is, as you know, a selective quote. We are having a debate here in the Scottish Parliament about the value of migration in Scotland and the system that we need going forward. That is why the Scottish Conservatives are calling for an immigration system that is fair, that balances the interests of the economy and the interests of migrants, a system that is not unduly complicated and a system that is tailored to meet industry and sectoral needs in Scotland and the UK. That is why we cannot agree with the Scottish Government's call for a separate immigration system for Scotland. We have listened to the views expressed by leading organisations across Scotland that a differentiated system is unnecessary, unworkable and would damage the economy. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the NFU Scotland have called for… Yes, I will. Thank you for taking the intervention. The member will be aware that we did have a differentiated immigration system in the post-study work visa, something that was adopted across the UK, but now only remains for certain English universities. We already have that differentiate situation. Is it not right that Scotland should be making these decisions? Dean Lockhart The post-study visa is a particular issue. We agree that we should explore options there with regard to possibly looking at reintroducing that at some stage in the future. Let me just go back to the commentary from leading organisations in Scotland about a differentiated immigration system. Scotland's Food and Drink Federation raised concerns about the increased cost and complexity of such a system and the potential problems that are involved for migrants relocating elsewhere in the UK. The views of those organisations reflect the reality that, on the whole, Scotland's immigration needs are similar to the rest of the UK. That is reflected in the UK-wide tier 2 occupational shortage list, which sets and lists 34 occupational categories for which there is a UK-wide shortage. The separate and additional Scotland only list, which shows occupations with a particular shortage in Scotland, has only two occupations listed. In other words, Scotland has the same labour shortages as the rest of the UK in 34 out of 36 occupational categories, not exactly a compelling case for differentiation. Instead of calling for unnecessary additional powers, our amendment today calls for the Scottish Government to take full use and make full use of existing powers to grow the economy, to make Scotland a more economically attractive destination, to reduce the number of economically inactive people in Scotland, currently standing at 730,000 people. Retraining a fraction of those who are economically inactive and bringing them into the workplace would go a long way to meeting any potential labour shortages. We also call on the Scottish Government to abandon plans to further increase income tax in Scotland. Disposable incomes in Scotland are already lower than the rest of the UK. One in five people in Scotland are paying more tax in Scotland than the rest of the UK. I will answer the question that the minister asked earlier. Yes, tax increases will discourage the inward migration of skilled workers if they can be paid more elsewhere in the UK. It will also encourage existing skilled workers in Scotland to look elsewhere as they are punished financially by the SNP. I support the amendment in Jackson Carlaw's name to urge the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government to achieve a migration policy that will meet the sectoral needs of industry across Scotland and the UK. I welcome the debate that we have just had this afternoon. I am sure that every single member in the chamber will have EU citizens within their constituency. Every single member will have businesses in their constituency who are concerned about the potential impact of Brexit on their workforce. Many members in the chamber will have raised constituency cases about the migration status of individuals who have made a commitment to live here, to raise their families here and to make a future here. Inward migration has made, I believe—and I think that the chamber believes—an overwhelmingly positive contribution to Scotland's economy and society. There was widespread agreement on that much, but I am afraid that once the Conservative benches started speaking beyond those generalities, I genuinely had to throw away an optimistic, glowing closing speech that was full of commendations for them on their rational approach. I want to say that the evidence that has been published is evidence that demands to be read. Evidence that shows that EU migration to Scotland is essential for ensuring sustainable population growth. I feel the need to re-emphasise the point that 100 per cent of our population growth over the next 10 years in Scotland will come from migration. If net migration to the United Kingdom falls, Scotland's population growth will be disproportionately affected. That is a challenge that is distinct to Scotland. The UK position is very different, as I said and others said. Only 54 per cent of its population increase is expected to come from overseas migration. Our needs are different to those of the UK as a whole. The debate that we are having in Scotland is distinctive. Our focus is on sustaining and growing our communities, especially our rural communities. We need population growth to meet that aim, and we need migration to sustain that. That means that, as Ross Greer and many others pointed out, we can and must take a different approach when it comes to this, to perhaps the approach that is taken in different parts of the UK. EU migration supports our economy in different ways, ensuring the availability of workers. Excuse me, minister. Mr Kelly, you are putting on a wee performance there. Do you think that you can do it more discreetly? Thank you for that, Presiding Officer. I want to mention one or two specific contributions to the debate. Kate Forbes spoke eloquently about the situation in the Highlands and Islands, about the human impact of Brexit on families and about the ability to make plans for themselves and about how migration fits into the wider economic strategy that we need to deal with rural depopulation. Mr Carlaw pointed out that hospitality was not mentioned in the Government's motion. Our response would be that the UK hospitality sector is more heavily hit than other sectors, and we accept the point that he makes with that regard. However, we have expressed concerns as a Government. We pointed them out to the Migration Advisory Committee report, which, at the UK level, is going to be produced regrettably after the UK immigration bill, I think, is likely to be produced. It may be difficult to see how the committee will have a direct impact on policy, but we seek to engage with it nonetheless and specifically about the issues that Mr Carlaw raised about that sector. Joan McAlpine pointed out again the impact on families. Graham Day and Willie Rennie expanded that point, talking about something that is often overlooked in this whole debate—what European citizens feel about all this and say about all this themselves. Mr Day has been taking soundings in the agricultural sector and I have been seeking to do likewise across Scotland. At one point this afternoon, the rights of UK citizens elsewhere in the EU was raised almost as if it was a counterargument against this debate's focus on EU citizens. All I can say very gently is that we absolutely agree with the need to protect the rights of UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU. Secondly, bracing ourselves for the impact of a no-deal Brexit is possibly not the way to achieve that. I also want to mention a point that was raised by Mr Rumbles and others who asked about what is really different about the situation in Scotland. A number of speakers, including Mr MacDonald and others, raised the issue. In one word, perhaps, they gave an answer to it. I will give an answer to it again, demographics. We have 4.5 per cent unemployment in Scotland. Of course, we have worked very hard all of us to provide the skills and the employment that is needed to provide jobs. However, with a pool that small, we simply cannot meet the skills shortage and we simply certainly cannot meet it if we do not have an open and welcoming attitude towards migrants. I am pleased to see that almost all parties—I will, yes? My previous intervention was that this is a UK-wide problem and that it needs to be solved on a UK-wide basis, because it is a problem that is hitting Scotland, but it is also a problem that is hitting England and Wales, too. I would certainly never deny that those are problems for England and Wales, too. I am pleased to see that almost all parties in this debate recognise, however, that Scotland needs to do something differently if we are to solve our distinctive bit of the problem. The all-party parliamentary group on social integration, for instance, at Westminster, believes that immigration should be devolved. I take it that the member's party is represented in that, too. The Oxford Migration Observatory, which was prayed and aid by a number of Conservatives today, should be pointed out and said that the arguments against subnational visas are political rather than economic. I want to conclude by coming back to this point about distinctiveness. It is the reason why we cannot support the Tory amendment, because I am afraid that the amendment calls to mind in its language the very unfortunate remarks of Ruth Davidson, which she made on 17 May, where she described Scotland as uniquely unattractive to people from other countries, about as unhelpful a remark as it is possible to imagine if we are trying to attract people to live here. I heard the arguments that were made in favour of the amendment, but I think that rational people will conclude from the situation that has been described about our demographics that the situation is different in Scotland. Rachel Hamilton said that Scotland faces a democratic challenge. I accept that that was a Freudian slip, but she went on to accept to say as well that Scotland faces a demographic one. We certainly face a demographic challenge in Scotland. To address that, we have to be people open to people living here from other countries. I hope that that was a tenor of today's debate. It is why the debate was held today, why I commend this motion to Parliament and why I hope that sentiments will receive widespread support. Thank you very much. That concludes our debate on migration and