SCOTTISH ministers have clashed with the UK Government’s independent Migration Advisory Committee after it disputed claims Scotland has its own immigration needs

The MAC was established by the Home Office more than a year ago and tasked with commissioning and analysing academic research, and consulting with business, and communities, to find a post-Brexit immigration system fit for the UK.

It’s main finding, that there is no need for a new route for low-skilled workers from the EU or around the world to come in after Brexit, has left businesses leaders scratching their heads.

The committee also disagreed with the Scottish Government that EU migration to Scotland is essential for preventing population decline, to offset the ageing of the existing population and to support remote communities.

“Migration is much less effective at dealing with a rising old age dependency ratio than increases in the pension age and immigration may not be an effective strategy for sustaining remote communities unless the reasons for locals leaving are addressed,” the report said, arguing that population decline was not a specifically Scottish issue.

“Overall, we were not of the view that Scotland’s economic situation is sufficiently different from that of the rest of the UK to justify a very different migration policy.”

Scottish Government Migration Minister Ben Macpherson disagreed: “With all of our population increase to come from migration over the next 25 years, migration is absolutely critical to Scotland’s future prosperity.

“However the Migration Advisory Committee’s report does little to consider Scotland’s needs and instead suggests that increasing the pension age would be a preferential approach to managing demographic change – a completely unsustainable position and one which we and many across Scotland would reject.”

He added: “There is overwhelming and growing support for a differentiated solution for Scotland. We will build on this debate by listening to any concerns from businesses and public services, to make the case for the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament so we can ensure any future immigration system meets Scotland’s needs.”

Professor Alan Manning, the chairman of the MAC, suggested bosses in industries such as tourism, hospitality, construction and others where a significant proportion of workers are migrants, would simply have to get more out of their existing workers.

They should also, he added, look at increasing salaries to attract Britons to do jobs currently undertaken by eastern Europeans.

The report said it was wrong to suggest that existing free movement with the EU has “large negative effects” or “clear benefits”.

Manning said that the impact of free movement on the UK to date was “modest” and urged politicians to “keep some perspective”.

“The problem with free movement is that it leaves migration to the UK solely up to migrants and UK residents have no control over the level and mix of migration.

With free movement there can be no guarantee that migration in the interests of UK residents,” the introduction to the report says.

“That does not mean that free movement is guaranteed to cause problems – that likely depends on the level and mix of the migration flows that result.”

Manning said the impact of migration on real wages is “pretty small”, he added.

However, the report suggests ministers could “trade” better rights for EU migrants as part of the Brexit negotiations with Brussels.

Another recommendation in the report is that the government should scrap the cap on tier 2 visas for skilled workers.

Liz Cameron, Chief Executive of Scottish Chambers of Commerce, welcomed that proposal.

She said the cap has been hit for several months in a row, “leading to declined applications from employers in an environment where skills shortages continue to constrain business growth”.

Brian Berry, from the Federation of Master Builders, said the recommendations would “cripple” construction.