 It is made as possible, and I issue the vital payments to farm businesses across Scotland as soon as possible thereafter. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 12763, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on post study work visas. I will give a few moments for the front bench to get themselves settled. I invite members who wish to take part in the debate to press the request-to-speak button now and I also advise members that we have a bit of time in hand and I will, as will the other Presiding Officers, allow additional time for interventions. I call on Alasdair Allan to speak to you and move the motion in the name of the use of Dr Allan. I am delighted to open this important debate today on the role that post-study work immigration routes can play for Scotland. A post-study work visa would allow recent international graduates from Scottish institutions to stay in Scotland and to contribute to our economy and society. That is why the Scottish Government has consistently argued for the reinstatement of the post-study work route for international students. That is why we opposed its abolition by the UK Government in 2012. That is why we have continued to seek opportunities to press for its reintroduction, including in our submission to the Smith Committee last year. There is no doubt in my mind that a post-study work visa would be in Scotland's interests. It would be in the interests of our businesses, of our world-class further and higher education institutions and of the wider interests of the people of Scotland. We know that a post-study work visa is what our businesses and education leaders want, because that is what they are telling us. Our debate today follows the publication at the weekend of the post-study working group's report. The working group comprised business, student, further and higher education leaders. Those leaders came together due to a shared concern across their sectors about Scotland's ability to attract the brightest and the best international students and graduates. In their report, the group confirmed their unanimous support for the principle of a scheme to enable international students who are graduating from a Scottish institution to stay and work in Scotland. That report is important, because it clearly sets out the case for the reintroduction of a post-study work visa in Scotland. Not from the point of view of the Scottish Government, but from the point of view of education and business leaders who are dealing with the aftermath of its abolition every day. The opportunities and benefits of introducing a post-study work visa were acknowledged in the Smith report. The Scottish Government is strongly committed to responding positively to the opportunity presented by exploring all possible avenues regarding the reintroduction of a post-study work route in Scotland. I am disappointed that the UK Government has not made as yet any substantive progress in taking that recommendation forward, despite continued efforts by the Scottish Government to press for action. Whilst the UK Government delays on that matter, I believe that Scotland suffers. Yet Scotland is a highly attractive destination for international students, and it is crucial that it remains that way. Our higher education system is underpinned by world-class research, a tremendous breadth of learning, including internationalisation and a focus on enhancing all aspects of graduate employability. Scottish education is known across the globe for its excellence, and, as I never tire of pointing out, we have four institutions in the top 200 times higher education world university rankings. The 2014 research assessment framework found that 77 per cent of research in our universities was world-leading or internationally excellent ahead of the UK average. We know that the students who come here feel very positively about their experience. The most recent student academic experience survey in 2014 found that, out of the four home nations, Scotland had the highest level of respondents, 88 per cent, declaring themselves as satisfied with the overall quality of their course. Add to all that Scotland's natural beauty, friendly cities, world-renowned festivals, good travel infrastructure, and it is clear that this is a wonderful place to study, to work, to live, and, unquestionably, a highly attractive destination for international students. I am very proud that Scotland has one of the highest proportions of international students in the world. In 2013-14, there were 28,610 international students at all levels in our universities from over 180 countries. That represents a small increase of just 1 per cent on the total for the previous year. However, behind those figures, the negative impact of the UK Government's immigration policy is being seen and felt. Scottish institutions are experiencing serious declines in the number of students from key overseas markets, with countries that have traditionally sent high numbers of students to Scotland now looking at alternative, at least at an official level, more welcoming destinations. In March 2011, the UK Government announced the closure of the post-study work visa route from April 2012. In the years since then, the number of new entrants to Scottish higher education institutions from India has decreased by 63 per cent, and from Nigeria the number has fallen by 29 per cent. Those figures demonstrate the real threat to the success of our universities, presented by the UK Government's present immigration policies. However, there is another threat, too. I agree with much of what he says, including the regrettable nature of the withdrawal of the post-study work visa. He has given the figures for inbound students from India and Pakistan, and clearly they are a matter of record. Can he confirm that the overall number of international students who have come to Scotland over the last three years has increased and that there is a danger in ministers talking about a reduction in international students feeds the very problem that he is rightly pointing out? As the member will have just heard me say, I acknowledge that, overall, there has been a very small increase of around 1 per cent on total for the previous year. I am very happy to acknowledge that there has been that increase, but the member will acknowledge that that is something of a plateau. If there are some of our biggest markets who have traditionally supplied us with our some of our largest numbers of overseas students, it is clearly expressing those concerns. Those concerns are worth being mentioned in this place. I mentioned that there is another threat, and although the numbers of international students in Scotland's higher education institutions are an issue for us and for the sector, the number being attracted to our key competitor countries is growing and worth mentioning. Between 2011-12 and 2013, international student numbers in three other key English-speaking university markets increased with a modest growth of 0.4 per cent in Australia, a 7 per cent growth in the United States and 11 per cent in Canada. What do those trends mean? I strongly believe that the crucial difference between Scotland and our competitors is the ability to set out an immigration policy that supports and enhances the higher education sector and the wider economy. We need to be able to compete on an equal footing with those countries, and to do that we need to have a post-study work offer to match. In January of this year, Alasdair Sim, the director of universities Scotland, spoke on behalf of the sector when he said that Scottish universities need action from government to improve its post-study work offer. We are losing out in key markets as our competitors take steps to attract more international talent. Businesses 2 share his concern that, without a post-study work route, we are missing an opportunity to grow Scotland's economy. In an open letter to the Smith commission last November, nine of Scotland's key education, business and employer organisations voiced support for the partial devolution of immigration powers to Scotland, specifically to enable the introduction of a post-study work entitlement in Scotland. Commenting at the time, Ross Martin of the SCDI said, greater powers to attract and retain high talent from other countries would make a big difference to the key economic tests for Scotland, developing a more highly skilled and productive workforce, creating more innovative businesses and improving our global skills and connections to grow our exports. Major Scottish industries would soon benefit from this talent. The Scottish economy and society have distinct long-term needs and there is broad civic support for this move, and that is why we are jointly asking the Smith commission to transfer those powers and enhance Scotland's ability to prosper. The Government shares those views. I am certain that the UK Government's immigration policies are damaging to the university sector, to Scotland and to our international reputation. I must make some progress and Scotland's international reputation. Scotland benefits immeasurably from the social, cultural and intellectual impact of the more than 28,000 international students that study in our 19 higher education institutions. In the interests of fairness, I would better go for the person who offered first. If I can just remind you, as Mike Russell constantly reminded the rest of us, that higher education is also taught in further education. Although the international students have dropped by 23 per cent in further education between 2010 and 2014, EU and European students have fallen by 80 per cent in the same period. Why, given that we have the common travel area, are we losing 80 per cent of EU students compared with the 23 per cent fallen international? Minister, you will be rewarded at the end for the time that you have spent. I will be rewarded sevenfold, I am sure. It is fair to say that some of the language that has been used by the UK Government around people from many different nationalities, including, it must be said, from Europe, has hardly been conducive to them feeling that they have an entirely warm reception here. The Richard Foratt report by the University of Scotland in September 2013 identified a number of key qualitative benefits of internationalisation in higher education, which include the enrichment of the learning experience, the development of an international outlook among home students and graduates, positive impacts on the wider community and the creation of a network of alumni around the world that can act as informal ambassadors for Scotland. It is our concern that the current Westminster approach to immigration is working against our demographic and economic need for migrants in Scotland. The Westminster approach to immigration is driven, I am afraid, by a desire to reduce net migration to the UK regardless of who those migrants are and regardless of the contribution that they make. The Westminster approach is driven by and focused on the needs and context of the southeast of England. Their approach takes virtually no allowance of the value of migration to the whole of the UK, to Scotland or to the social, cultural and economic intellectual contribution that migrants are making to our communities every day. The beauty of the post-study work visa is that it does not just help us to retain world-class talent to fill vacancies, we know that the prospect of a post-study work visa attracts international students to our education institutions in the first place. Scotland was a trailblazer in the UK by introducing the fresh talent visa to encourage young, talented and hard-working international students to stay here. John Swinney and the SNP gave that initiative an unresolved welcome when it was announced in February 2004. Scotland's success became a model for the rest of the UK who went on to introduce the post-study work visa, which was then abolished by the current UK Government due to, I am afraid, their obsession with reducing any kind of migration. It is nonsense to drive away well-qualified and motivated young people from Scotland when they are exactly the kind of people that we need to stay and contribute to our great nation. The answer is simple. We need to bring back the post-study work visa in Scotland. I would conclude by highlighting the damage that the abolition of the post-study work visa has done to Scotland and to our future. Scotland welcomes the contribution that New Scots can make to our economy and society. Scotland is open for academic and research business, and we have the ability to provide a home for talented individuals who wish to build their lives and careers here. The first step in that is attracting the brightest and the best from around the world to our colleges and universities, and the post-study work visa will help us to do just that. On that, the Scottish Government is just not on the same page as the UK Government. We deplore irresponsible negative rhetoric on immigration. The Scottish Government supports a managed migration system that meets our needs, and that controlled immigration system for Scotland includes the reintroduction of a post-study work visa that is demanded by our education and business leaders. Thank you. I am pleased to open today's debate for Scottish Labour this afternoon. I am sure that we will find much agreement across the chamber. I would like to very much welcome the report that was published at the weekend and thank all those who took part in the research and production of the report. The analysis and argument is well made, and this afternoon gives us the opportunity to endorse its work. Scotland is a small place, and I worked in and around the Parliament in the early days of devolution. I remember the launch of fresh talent by Jack McConnell as First Minister. It was an early example of this Parliament taking a different decision within a devolved settlement. It took negotiation with the UK Government to agree the policy, but a strong case was made and accepted. It was a Scottish solution to a Scottish problem. It provided flexibility for immigration policy, but within a cohesive UK policy, which retained the integrity of a UK system. Since the creation of this Parliament, Scotland has and does continue to face challenges with an ageing population, with skills shortages and with maintaining public services, alongside a desire to articulate who we are, what kind of country we want to be and what we value. Fresh talent was a scheme introduced to respond to those questions. If we have bright, educated and ambitious people come to our country to study and take advantage of our excellent educational institutions to contribute to our economy and our society, could we not have a system that gained some further benefit from the situation? The flexible, attractive, workable fresh talent scheme was a new approach, and it was adopted throughout the UK until it was revoked in 2012. There appears to be two reasons for that. One was part of a way of dealing with bogus colleges. A number of bogus colleges were bringing people into the country who had no intention of studying for a degree or a qualification. None of those colleges were identified in Scotland. Bogus colleges are unacceptable and exploitative, and it is right that action is taken to deal with them, but that action must be proportionate. Making it less attractive to actually come to study here is not the correct response. The other was the consequence of targets to reduce immigration. The removal of post-study work visas was a simple way of contributing to this target, but it is a decision that ignores the beneficial aspects of immigration to our economy and our society. The impact of that decision is clearly laid out in the post-study working group report that was published in the past few days. Since the removal of the visa, we have at best seen stagnant international student numbers, but when the figures are looked at more closely, as the minister highlighted, we see a disproportional impact reduction in students from Nigeria and India, with China a target growth area for many of our universities starting to see an impact. Those countries are all growth areas for international students. Our competitor countries—America, Canada and Australia—are all seeing increases, and all of them offer attractive post-study work options. It is not just Scotland who is falling behind. Earlier this year, the UK All-Party parliamentary group on migration published its inquiry into post-study work opportunities in the UK. It identified the same recruitment problems at UK institutions. It also highlighted that, under the current system, small businesses are particularly affected as they find it more difficult to get a sponsor licence and to pay the Home Office's entrance salary. It also found that the majority of sponsor licences are in the south-east of England, with other regions, along with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, being badly affected by the lack of uptake from SMEs. It also found that, even by its own measure, the UK Government had overstretched its policy. As part of a target to reduce immigration, the UK Government's own estimate that its policy would reduce those securing visas by 49 per cent significantly underestimated the impact of the policy, with the real reduction being closer to 8 to 8 per cent. That is why, in our amendment today, we have called for the immediate removal of international students from net migration targets. It is a flawed policy that is counterproductive. There are voices across the UK who are questioning the sense of this restrictive and damaging policy, but, by holding the debate today and by the Scottish Government with the support of the Parliament, arguing the case with current UK ministers, Scotland can be in the position of leading this agenda again. We all know that, while it is here, international students make a considerable contribution to our economy, both in regard to the fees that they bring into our universities and their substantial off-campus expenditure that significantly benefits the Scottish economy, but we should give them the opportunity to become more involved in our economy to help to grow it, to contribute through taxation. I was struck by the numbers outlined in the report that want to set up their own businesses and be enterprising and entrepreneurial. However, we know that the contribution that international students make is not just something that can be measured in pounds and pens. They contribute to a rich, diverse and multicultural educational sector and country, and we benefit from their choice to come to Scotland. International students contribute to our economy and our society, and those who wish to stay and work positively contributing to our economy once they have gained their qualifications should be afforded the opportunity to do so. There is a lot of self-interest in that for Scotland. We have significant demographic challenges. We have an ageing population and a birth rate that does not keep pace. As the report says, Scotland's proportion of the population of working age is also untypically low and is forecast to fall by 4 per cent during the period 2012 and 2037, while the number of people aged over 65 years is projected to rise by 59 per cent. We are facing the sharpest demographic challenge of anywhere else across the UK, and if we are to prosper as a country, we need healthy population growth. We are also facing acute skill shortages at graduate-level and key sectors. Scotland has a higher level of skill shortages in the rest of the UK, and in 2013, 25 per cent of all vacancies in Scotland are due to skill shortages. The report highlights that a wide range of skills were identified by employers as needing skilled graduates—science, oil and gas, research, engineering, as well as business, media and public sector professionals. If Scotland is to be a modern, growing competitive country, we must address the crisis and skill shortages. Of course, key to that is the skilling and investing in our young people coming through our own school system and having a programme of lifelong learning opportunities, but part of the answer is retaining the talent of international students to make their contribution. There is also an interest in discussion in the report of the value of students and graduates having a good experience in Scotland, which they then take home with them, creating a strong network of alumni around the world who retain connections with Scotland, good for our society and our economy. I was interested in a comment in the College Scotland briefing that the minister may wish to comment on in closing, and it reflects on Mary Scanlon's comments on EU students. The colleges say that traditionally they have been able to recruit internationally, but the priorities have changed with the move to reform and regionalisation, and they have had to consider carefully what international activity is now part of their delivery plan. Colleges are delivering some of the key courses that address our skill shortages, and the minister in closing can comment on what role the Scottish Government sees for colleges in international recruitment and how they can be supported. How do we move on from today? The report raises some debates around sponsorship, eligible qualifications and length of time, but those are all technicalities. There is strong support for the principal. We will have agreement at decision time that reintroducing a post-study work visa is the right thing to do. The Smith commission considered the policy and, as it was previously successfully introduced in Scotland, saw no barrier that could not be overcome within the current constitutional settlement to deliver the policy. It recommended flexibility and co-operation between the UK and the Scottish Government. Last week, in the chamber, the cabinet secretary, Angela Constance, said that meetings were on-going. Following today's debate and the publication of the report, Constance in the Scottish Government's position, one stumbling block is the continuation of international students in the net migration target. I hope that others will support our calls and our amendment for that to be resolved. That would make for easier negotiations. In 2005, fresh talent was new and innovative and helped to promote Scotland as an educational and entrepreneurial powerhouse throughout the world. Since then, other countries have upped their offer, and due to the current UK Government's decision to end post-work study visas, we are again faced with the challenges that we faced 10 years ago. The current post-study visa regime in the UK is cumbersome and restrictive, particularly in comparison to nations that we would consider are competitors in the field of education. While they are taking advantage of some of the best and brightest minds that the world has to offer, we are facing a competitive disadvantage. Jack McConnell, in a speech last week, highlighted that our visa system is damaging our relations around the world. In terms of this debate, it is damaging the impression of this country in the eyes of young people across the world, the language about immigration that is used as making us look insular and negative. Today's debate gives us the opportunity to talk about the benefits of immigration, yes, to recognise we need a fair and clear system of controlled immigration, but it also brings advantages to our economy, our universities, our colleges and our communities. The benefits of international students bring to Scotland are clear, and I hope that the consensus today around post-work study visas can stretch to consensus around the benefits that immigration students bring and the needs that we have an immigration strategy in place that is beneficial to the country as a whole and its constituent parts. I move the amendment in my evening. I do not think that anybody in this chamber could fail to be aware of the invaluable social, economic and cultural contribution that international students and staff make to UK universities and colleges. Like others, we believe that it is very important to celebrate the fact that the UK remains the most popular study destination for foreign students after United States. Scottish universities are quite simply second to none when it comes to their international reputation. That is something that has been now proven over many years, given the very consistently high rankings in a wide variety of league tables. That success, I believe, is precious, and it means that we should be very concerned when we hear a chorus of calls for change when it comes to the post-work visa situation. Notwithstanding the past and the current ability of the sector to attract international students and staff in what is becoming a fiercely competitive global market, something is wrong—quite far wrong, I think—when universities Scotland, universities UK and the wider business community are all expressing deep-seated concerns about some aspects of Westminster immigration policy, which they argue quite rightly in my opinion that they are overly restrictive and they are threatening to diminish the good work of these institutions. I hope that the chamber knows that the Scottish Conservatives made plain our support for many of those concerns to both Theresa May and David Willis on secret occasions in 2012. Those concerns are now, we believe, laid bare in the recent all-parliamentary group on migration report, which concludes that the UK is at risk of undermining its foothold in the international student market. That is something that we need to be very concerned about. In Scotland, for instance, the 1.1 per cent increase in the enrolments of international students in 2013-14 followed a 0.7 per cent decline in 2012-13, which was the first annual decline since records began. Further more in every year, since 2010-11, Scotland has experienced sharp double-figure declines in the enrolments of students from key overseas markets such as India and Pakistan, which the minister mentioned in Nigeria 2. I think that Liam McArthur's point is very valid that we have to keep it in the context of what is the overall perspective, but that does not mean to say that we should not drill down on some of the concerns about the detail. Of course, when set against the comparable figures from our key competitors, such as the United States and Canada, the severity of that current pattern, I think, begins to emerge. It is a real concern that we take that very seriously. I think that the evidence is particularly troubling. In fact, our Westminster colleague Richard Bacon MP found common cause, I believe, with many when he said that the coalition government's current stance is, I quote, jeopardising Britain's position in the global race for talent. Nobody could argue that that is not detrimental. I have no doubt at all that our universities are absolutely right to be concerned about the current situation, in particular the issues raised about the lack of a timescale flexibility in the award of visas and, I think, the lack of transparency when it comes to visa refusals, particularly for PhD research staff contracts running beyond 18 months. Those concerns are perfectly justified. I heard those concerns very forcefully articulated a couple of years ago at the Aberdeen University Medical School, and they have been raised twice at the meeting of the Parliament's cross-party group on colleges and universities. My concerns do not just end there, because this is a debate about the respect in which our tertiary education sector is held. It would be unacceptable if restrictions rendered our educational establishments less able to compete internationally. I can flag up the theme of international changes at the moment. I think that UCAS, just three weeks ago, made a very interesting change in that our students will not only be allowed to apply for British universities but also for EU ones. That is beginning to show the changes on the international stage. Nothing is more important—in fact, nothing, I believe, is probably the greatest credit to the Scottish university sector—than the way that they have developed knowledge exchange, partly to the underpinning of the research that the minister mentioned when he spoke. That knowledge exchange is so international these days, so anything that we do to undermine that is obviously a concern. It is absolutely right that the University of Scotland, along with the all-party parliamentary group on migration and the NUS, makes a very strong case for extending the length of time that international graduates will be here for high-skilled work. There is cross-party agreement in the chamber, but why are we here in the first place? The reason is partly the context of the debate. The coalition Government did have to take some action in the first instance, because the number of bogus students abusing further and higher education was at an unacceptable level. That was true in small measure in Scotland, but it was specifically true south of the border. Given the statistics that we had at that time about bogus places, there was a very understandable concern if that did not go unchecked. Too many of our institutions would fall foul of good practice when pursuing academic excellence and too high a proportion of international graduates would be moving into the low-skilled work when the demand was on. It remains for higher-skilled graduates. Previous Government policy was not working. It was quite right that there were some reforms put in place to ensure things that were better. I do not think that the debate is about whether those reforms are necessary. I believe that they are. It is much more about the nature of them. I fully understand where Labour is coming from in requesting that the Government immediately removes all students from net migration totals. In seeking to change that, there are some technical issues that have to be looked at first. The Scottish Conservatives would prefer to see how the post-Smith deliberations take place before we can make a whole-hearted commitment to what would be a significant change to immigration data. I understand the point that you are making, but I think that we have to be careful about how we go about it. Just last Thursday, in a debate that was sponsored by Jean Urquhart, we had a very measured and thoughtful debate that touched on immigration policy and, much more importantly, about how we handle that debate. I think that the same sensitivity needs to apply to this debate, too. We must deploy a rhetoric with extreme care, making it abundantly clear that we welcome wholeheartedly international students intending to share their skills and talents, and we welcome them because they bring such significant economic, social and cultural benefits to the country. For me, immigration policy and the wider issue needs to be balanced. It needs to be wholly welcoming to those students, but it should also be punitive towards those who merely wish to take advantage of it for their own end. There are some students, a few of them, who are in that position. The question is how we address the very strong, the very persuasive and the very well-articulated concerns of bodies like universities Scotland, but at the same time prevent any future abuse of the situation that was clearly causing issues in the past. It will be to Scotland's detriment if we cannot sort this, and the Smith commission provides us with that opportunity. Many thanks. I now turn to the open debate. Speeches of six minutes are so Christian Allard, to be followed by Ann McTaggart. I welcome the Smith contribution. I think that it was very important to demonstrate in this Parliament this afternoon that the Parliament is united to claim that what the Westminster Government did in 2012 was wrong, because there is no hiding the fact that, once again, Westminster immigration policies are not working for Scotland. The aberration of the post-study work visa in 2012 is a further proof of that. Last week, I participated to two debates in this chamber related to Westminster's attitude to young people wanting to live and work here in Scotland. We debuted in Scotland's place in Europe on Tuesday, and we celebrated Scotland's diverse communities on Wednesday. This is what this Parliament does, and does it well. We give the tone and immigration, a tone that our Scottish media are adopting when talking on the subject. A couple of years ago, the Sunday Herald was eager to celebrate the fact that the French-born MSP had taken his oath in French. So, eager was Robbie Dean Whitty to tell the good news that he told his readers a fib, Presiding Officer. Robbie told his readers that I was educated at Dijon's university. Let me be clear, and let's clear up any misunderstanding, Presiding Officer. I wasn't. The only time I went to the University of Dijon was when I went out with a student from Sweden. In reflection, I might have never attended a lecture at any university, but obviously students were very much part of my youth. I also shared a flat with an American student from Chicago. I remember Amy Jo Tobin quite well. She told me never to use the F word. I wonder if Amy Jo ever set the foot in Glasgow. What am I getting at, Presiding Officer, is that inviting foreign students to study here does not only help them understand our world, but more importantly, inviting overseas students to live here, help us to understand the world we live in. Just like pollinating insects for foreign students as bees playing a critical role in helping our culture to flourish, our businesses to grow, Scottish students, a student abroad, have the same cross-pollination effect spreading Scottish seeds across the world. In 2013-14, there were more than 48,000 students from outside the UK studying in Scotland. This represents more than 21% of the student body and brings people from approximately 185 countries to live and study in Scotland. This is why the UK government's immigration policies are wrong for Scotland and damaging our economy. Business leaders in Scotland said so in the post-study work-working group report 85% of businesses says that they were in favour of bringing back the post-study work visa for international students. What are we waiting for? In the same report, 100% of education providers in Scotland agree with business leaders. Let's bring back the post-study work visa for international students. What are we waiting for, Presiding Officer? 70% of respondents said that when a post-study work visa comes to an end, individuals should have the ability to move into a longer-term visa. What's not to like? The tone adopted by political parties at Westminster is beyond belief. They tell us that migrants are draining our education system, other students are paying to study here. They are net contributors to our universities and colleges. They could be our future teachers and professors if we allowed them to stay here. What does the minister tell us that overseas students are draining our NHS? Presiding Officer, we are the future nurses, surgeons, consultants and GPs that you are desperately looking for. It's a no-brainer. The question shouldn't be, should we make it easier for overseas students living here to stay and work? The question should be, how best can we encourage overseas students to come and study in Scotland? The answer is clear. Tell them when they consider Scotland as a place to study that they will be encouraged to stay and live here. It was in the Smith's Commission if you go to the additional issues for consideration. The Smith's Commission said that the parties should explore the possibility of introducing formal schemes to allow international higher education students graduating from Scottish Further and higher education institutions to remain in Scotland and contribute to economic activity for a defined period of time. What are we waiting for is my question, Presiding Officer. In a brief from Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, the strong and sustainable 2015 general election plan for the North East is a manifesto, which says exactly this, Presiding Officer. It is easy for me to claim that the best of the generation are likely to want to travel the world and they are the most likely to set up and live abroad. I'm one of those migrants who set up in Scotland. It's not for me to say if I'm making a positive contribution to Scotland's economy and society, but for members to judge. And vast members who didn't have that opportunity, didn't take that opportunity to study abroad. Some of you might have and decided to come back here into Scotland, but it's very important. I would like to make the point again of cross polarization. It's so important that we've got that engagement with the rest of the world and we keep that vibrant. The data I've published recently by Scotland Chief's statisticians show that we are typically us, migrants, younger than the Scottish population as a whole. We migrants are just as likely to be economically active as the rest of Scotland and half of us, aged 16 and above in Scotland, are qualified to at least degree level. I'm not one of them, Presiding Officer. I'm on the other half, but I would like very much to support the government motion tonight to reintroduce the post-due work visa. And again, I will celebrate that this Parliament is all in sync about this particular issue. Many thanks. I call Ann McTaggart to be followed by Chick Brody. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to be given the opportunity to speak in today's debate and to be supporting my colleague Claire Baker's amendment. The higher education institutions in Scotland are something that we all and, quite rightly, should be priding ourselves on. Scottish Labour has a pride history in creating a modern, inclusive, multicultural Scotland that attracts and welcomes international students to our world-leading universities. The fresh talent initiative in Scotland was introduced by the then First Minister, Jack McConnell, in 2005 and the Scottish Labour-led Scottish Executive, to encourage foreign nationals to study in Scotland. The fresh talent initiative took a step forward when the UK Government-lead regulations, which allowed students to apply to stay and work in Scotland for two years after the end of their course without the need for a work permit. Our connection with the fresh talent initiative is a very clear signal that we in the Labour Party want Scotland to grow in profile and in stature. International students already make up a large percentage of Scottish higher education institutions. There are currently over 30,000 international students from more than 150 countries in Scotland. However, the truth is that the number of Scottish students in Scottish university is declining. In the future, assuming that trend continues, it will become necessary for higher education institutions to admit larger numbers of non-Scotland students in order to maintain their student population size. Students from the EU countries have been essential in the growth of the Scottish university in the years past. As the need for international students grow, the students coming from throughout the European Union will prove to be even more essential to the universities in Scotland. The suggestion of reintroducing the post-study work visa that was abolished by the UK Government in 2012 has special implications for Europe as well. The students that are coming to study and potentially work in Scotland from the European Union are massively important to the skills that they give back to Scotland after they complete their degree. By enabling and encouraging overseas students to work in Scotland after they complete their studies, it fills the objective of supplying the confident graduates that the employers who recruit the students need. Immigration, especially in terms of young people and students, is a good thing for Scotland. The benefits to our culture, our economy and our skills and productivity are vital to the continued growth of this country. Too often, immigration is placed in a negative light, but it is essential to recognise the importance that it has. Post-study work visas would not just benefit the education sector but also to the business sector as well. The graduates that would be able to continue to live and work in Scotland would give back to the economy and contribute invaluable skills to the workforce throughout the country. NUS Scotland conducted a survey about the reintroduction of post-study work visas and her findings speak for themselves. 100 per cent of education institutions were in favour of bringing back post-study work visas. Initially, 85 per cent of businesses were in favour, but in polling businesses that had hired an international graduate, that number rose to 94 per cent in support. Those numbers are irrefutable. In providing how important international students are to Scotland, Scotland is a great country with loads to offer. However, we need to make studying in Scotland even more attractive than it already is. By allowing those students who have decided to graduate with a degree from a Scottish University to remain and stay to work in Scotland as well, students would be much more inclined to make that commitment. Encouraging more international students to come to Scotland is imperative to meet the needs of our education and business sectors. We in the Labour Party believe that international students have a significant contribution to make to Scotland's education system, along with our social and cultural life and our economy. Therefore, university students should be removed from the net migration targets immediately, as my colleague Claire Baker mentioned earlier. Our universities are amongst the best in the world and we need to ensure that they can continue to attract the brightest and the best students and researchers from overseas. Therefore, we are also committed to reintroducing the fresh talent initiative in Scotland. Many thanks. I remind members if they do wish to take interventions, I have time for that. As I scan the policy horizon, it is hard to see a bigger risk or a more poisonous gun pointed at our collective success. It is not my words. Those are the words of Peter Downs, university of Scotland, convener at the higher education conference in December 2013. It was hardly prescience that I asked a question on this very subject last week. I raise it not just because of personal circumstances that have been raised with me by Indigenous Scots students who have developed friendships with those from abroad, but also because of the discussion that we had in the economy committee when we discussed the impending shortage of locally trained and foreign software designers and engineers, thus threatening the global presence, the premier presence of our key video games industry. I welcome the debate today. Scotland is a nation that has always welcomed migrants from all over the world, enriching our nation with many cultures and intellect, but also adding value to our nation through learning, skills, hard work, leadership and business skills. Recently, the Westminster cross-party group on post-study work opportunities recently published its report on post-study visas. Frankly, the report's findings were damning of the current arrangements. A Labour MP Paul Blomfield, who is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration and the chair of the inquiry committee said in a quote, the report lays bare the negative impact that the 2012 closure of the former post-study work visa has had on British businesses and universities, and so is it for Scotland. Alternative visa routes have failed to attract talent and have actually prevented skilled inbound graduates from contributing to our jobs market. There is, I believe, strong cross-party agreement, not just in this place on the need to take action to restore our reputation as the destination of choice for international students from all countries. As Liz Smith said, the Conservative MP Richard Bacon, a member of the APPG on migration inquiry committee said, higher education is one of our country's leading export success stories, increasing our soft power and helping to shape the world of the future. The UK Government's current approach to post-study work and student migration policy is jeopardising not just theirs but our position in the global race for talent. We are already losing out to countries with a more sensible approach such as Australia, Canada and the United States. Such a short sighted stance is damaging to the economy and hinders the delivery of our long-term economic plan, so we need to amend that policy and improve our ability to attract students from around the world. Scotland has had, as I said, a worldwide reputation for providing opportunities and high-quality education to overseas students who then went on to contribute to the wealth of Scotland. Some estimated that value at one stage to be worth almost £1 million to the Scottish economy. In 2012-13, Scotland welcomed 45,000 overseas students, contributing £374 million to the Scottish economy through higher education institutions. Those were non-EU fees alone, which shows the growth that we are seeing from China and far Asian students. Since the UK Government announced the post-study work visa routes in 2012, we have seen declines, as has been mentioned, in India, Pakistan and Nigeria. In the Scotland's future paper, we set out the Scottish Government's vision in independent Scotland for controlled immigration systems. We welcome, of course, the post-study work group. Scotland has always recognised the value of attracting overseas talent. As has been mentioned, the Fresh Talent Initiative, which was introduced by Jack McConnell, was an immense improvement and had an immense impact on our economy. What is vital now is that the UK Government is true to its words in the Smith commission in regard to introducing visa schemes to allow international higher education students graduating from Scottish Further and higher education institutions to remain in Scotland and contribute to economic activity for at least two years. Scotland needs to become the destination of choice yet again for overseas students and allow us thereby to have full control not just over our immigration policy but also how students move from university from tier 4 to tier 2 to getting work in Scotland. Overseas students bring great benefits to Scotland. With our ageing population, as has been mentioned, we need to encourage migration into Scotland from skilled people from all over the world. We have always been admired for our global outreach and its impact over the world, but it is not just us, as I have mentioned. According to MPs in Westminster, the current system is failing and failing them badly also. Immigration policy, including post-work study visas, should never be dictated by the outgrages of a group like Newkip. The working group on post-study visas is very important. Scotland needs powers over those visas as soon as possible to ensure that we attract the most talented students to our shores and ensure that, once again, we continue as a growing and welcoming environment for the most talented in the world. The message then to foreign students should be—must be—that to be part of a globally competitive Scotland, come to Scotland. We are open for your education, we are open for your business, come to Scotland. I add my welcome to the debate and confirm right at the outset my whole hearted support for the reintroduction of the post-study work visa in Scotland. As Clare Baker's amendment makes clear, it was first introduced in 2005 by the Lib Dem Labour Executive under the Fresh Talent Initiative. I pay special tribute to the work done by the former First Minister, Jack McConnell, in driving this forward, recognising the specific demographic and skills challenges that we face and continue to face here in Scotland. I know that the Labour amendment goes on to call for an immediate removal of university students from the net migration targets. I certainly support such a move for the reasons regularly cited by my colleague, Vince Cable. However, it is not clear if Labour is demanding this prior to the election or is a statement of intent post-May 7. If it is the latter, then fine. If it is the former, it smacks a little of a demand asking to be disappointed, but I appreciate the spirit in which it is intended. Meanwhile, Humza Yousaf's motion, if not always, Dr Allan's speech, is generally measured and appears to recognise the existence and the value of the robust cross-party consensus that exists on the case for reintroducing post-study work visas here in Scotland. Again, what I am not clear about is what is meant by the minister's call for, quote, an immigration system for Scotland that meets its needs. As I have said before, the argument for a totally separate immigration system north and south of the border is riddled with holes and consequences that Dr Allan conspicuously failed to acknowledge. If the minister's argument is for a post-study work visa system, a removal of university students from any overall target and a discourse around immigration at a UK level, that is less inflammatory, I am absolutely in agreement. He should be wary of conflating overall immigration policy and his party's commitment, as Chick Brody alluded to, to increasing Scotland's population by a million or so, and a more modest, targeted but nonetheless important measure such as the post-study work visa. We will all have our differences. Many of them have been articulated already in this debate about why a case for change still needs to be made at this stage, but I believe that we risk diluting the effectiveness of that case by overplaying the politics and undermining the genuine consensus that exists here and, as members have acknowledged among many MP colleagues as well. Dr Allan also downplayed, for example, the need that there was to address the issues of abuse in relation to bogus students and institutions. However, that problem was very real. Ignoring it would have risked longer-term damage to RHE and FE sectors, as well as potentially adding to tensions in wider society. I certainly will. I am happy to acknowledge the problem that bogus colleges, as they were called, did create. Although other members have pointed out to be fair, that was not a problem that was prevalent so much in Scotland. Although I am willing to acknowledge that, will the member likewise acknowledge that in no way provide an obvious explanation or excuse for the policy that is currently being taken around post-study visas by the UK Government? It sets a context. The minister is right to reiterate what others have acknowledged. The problem was one predominantly south of the border, but, similarly, the risk to reputation flowed both ways. I think that dealing with it was in the interests not just of colleges and institutions south of the border but those north of the border as well. There were problems in Glasgow, as the minister will recall. At the same time, we are right to acknowledge and highlight legitimate concerns about the ongoing problems that are created by the current visa regime, both practically and in terms of perception and reputation. We are right to seek a workable solution sooner rather than later. The opportunity to mould such a solution, of course, has been presented by the Smith commission. The basis for that solution is to be found in the recommendations that are developed by the working group of business education student representatives to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. Details may need to be fine-tuned, but the group's proposals represent a reasonable aspiration and a basis for negotiation with any incoming UK administration. Why does that matter? The motion puts it very well and others have all articulated that to some extent. Scotland can lay claim to genuinely world-class education institutions competing effectively on the international stage for students and staff. In turn, that virtuous circle ensures that there are culturally diverse campuses in rich Scotland's intellectual, social and cultural life. In crude financial terms, University Scotland estimates that international students contribute around £800 million in fees and wider expenditure within Scotland. However, as importantly, the cultural and social infusion to our universities undoubtedly broadens, deepens and enriches the learning experience for our own Scots domicile students, with all the benefits that that entails in the short, medium and longer term. The rationale for reintroducing a post-study work visa in Scotland lies partly in enabling our universities and, to a lesser extent, colleges to maximise their chances of attracting students and staff in a highly competitive international market, but it also is about addressing the wider needs of our economy and society, capitalising on the desire of those who have benefited from our excellent education system and who may be inclined to stay a little longer, make a further contribution and even put down routes in due course. That, to me, seems self-evidently a good thing. Sadly, that is not a universally held view in Scotland. Consistently, social attitudes surveys and even a recent BBC Scotland poll confirm that attitudes to immigration north and south of the border differ little. I know that that runs counter to the narrative that the Scottish Government is keen to adopt, often to create the impression of otherness in respect to elsewhere in the UK, but the evidence for those assertions simply does not exist. Where there is a difference, I accept, is in the tone of the political discourse. Why that is? Who knows? It may simply reflect the fact that immigration policy is reserved to Westminster and therefore MSPs and Scottish ministers do not face the same unrelenting pressure from the public, but particularly the media. It may be a question of the numbers involved. Whatever the reason, we need to continue to have the courage to conduct our debates in a more benign language, to make the positive case for why encouraging more, not fewer people from across the globe to see Scotland as somewhere they wish to come and not just study over the short term but to live and to work over the longer term is in hours as well as their interests. At the same time, Scottish ministers and even those in the education sector must be careful about the language that they use. In making the legitimate case for changes in UK policy over recent times, there has been talk about a quote, cap on international students and a suggestion that overall numbers coming to Scotland have reduced. Neither is true and both risk adding to the damaging impression that coming to Scotland or the UK is more hassle than it is worth. That is not to detract from the strength of the case for a change in policy. I certainly am sorry. Just two points if I may. First of all, I agree with the member that I would not overplay the differences in opinions that may exist. I have not enough doors to know that immigration is an issue of concern on the doorstep, but if he breaks down and looks at the Oxford Migration Observatory's analysis, for example, he will note that most people in Scotland—I think that that would probably be reflected in the UK—believe that the numbers of international students should not be reduced and there should not be restrictions, unnecessary restrictions on those and I hope that he would reflect on those. In terms of his second point that he was just making, having travelled to India recently, I can tell you that every single journalist, every single organisation and every single person that I met asked us why the UK was making it more difficult for them to come to work and to study so perception sometimes, unfortunately, can be the reality of one of the member. I think that the minister makes a fair point in relation to trying to dig beneath the figures. The point that I was trying to make in terms of the social attitudes survey and even the BBC Scotland poll is that it is wrong to simply assume that there is a more benign impression of immigration at large in Scotland than there is south of the border, but I think that when you press people on what we are talking about here in terms of increasing overall student numbers, I suspect that what you get is a very different response. In relation to the impression that has been created in key markets, he cites India, I suspect that Pakistan is not wildly different than Nigeria likewise. Those are key international markets for our universities and I think that the numbers that we have seen there are a source of real concern, which is just one of the reasons that I certainly support a change, both in terms of the tone, but specifically in relation to the post-study work visa. It is not to detract from that case for change, but I remind it that we all have a duty of care. We also need to look, as Mary Scanlon suggested, at wider issues as to why our colleges have seen such a fall-off in numbers of international students. A 75 per cent drop in EU students is nothing to do with visa issues. As Collegy Scotland and Clare Baker suggested, they point to pressures caused by mergers and hint at the effect of budget cuts. That is regrettable given the financial and wider contribution international students have made to colleges in the past and requires further consideration. Deputy Presiding Officer, in conclusion, again let me welcome this debate, reiterate the support of the Scottish Liberal Democrats for the reintroduction of a post-study work visa in Scotland that can only help enhance and enrich our universities and colleges as well as our economy and society as a whole. It is useful to start with three preliminary points. I think that we welcome the general consensus that there has been that is happening in many ways. Equally, though, without being too childish, I think that it is indicative perhaps of the fact that what is being sought is not perhaps air-shattering here. It is certainly not a distinctive immigration policy. Post-work study visas are important and vital, and it is helpful that we have unanimity regarding their benefit to Scotland around the chamber. However, the fact that we have that unanimity is perhaps indicative that it is not too hard to give for those who are of a difficult constitutional perspective. I think that, although fresh talent was welcomed when it came along, there is a great deal of mythology about fresh talent. There was no huge significant change to the last Labour-liberal administration. It was well-packaged and well-presented. It gave opportunities for Scotland to sell itself. However, when it drilled down on what was available and granted, there was not much available here that was not available elsewhere. However, a good bit, as I say, of well-packaged and presentation went on, and it should not be sniffed. Therefore, I give credit to Jack McConnell and his colleagues then. I think that, thirdly, the point being made by all means. I thank Kenny MacAskill for taking a point. I have to say that I do not necessarily disagree with him in terms of the mood music around fresh talent, but would he accept that what he did was create an impetus elsewhere in the UK to follow suit so that Scottish universities would not have a competitive advantage? I think that it was helpful in terms of giving Scotland a slight edge, but I do not think that it was the changes that were sought by the universities north or south of the border, but I am not seeking to be too chirlish. Reference was made about the fraud and the criminality that was going on, and I think that that reference was made by Elizabeth Smith. I think that the point here is not that people were abusing the system in terms of coming in with fictitious colleges. I felt a great deal of sympathy for many of those young people coming in, and I had experience of it in my constituency. That was criminal. What was going on was that young people were being exploited by them or their families by people who were establishing so-called colleges of education that were not providing it at all. I have to say that, within Nidrae, in my own constituency, one of the most deprived parts of my constituency, I met young students hanging around some day who had come over from Nepal or elsewhere who were almost the victims of criminality given who they were, strangers in a very difficult and challenging area. They were being charged top dollar, had come in thinking that they were coming to some equivalent college along with the University of Edinburgh or whatever else, rather than blaming the young people. The fraud was that we were not dealing with those people who were exploiting them, making a great deal of money. Thankfully, many of those institutions were closed down, although I think that many prosecutions should perhaps have followed as well. However, I think that there are two important parts that have to be made. One is the importance of post-work study visas to our economy and to our society. That is being referred to by many around the chamber and, thankfully, from all political parties. Secondly, it is important to point out that it can be done. All that requires is the will from Westminster. I very much welcome the comments that were made by Elizabeth Smith and the Conservative Party, but it is incumbent upon Westminster to deliver an implement. We are not asking for an independent immigration policy here. We are asking for something that is important to our society and to our economy. That leads me to the first of those parts, the importance to our society and to our economy. Universities are a vital part of the modern economy here in Scotland. Within the city of Edinburgh, as I last recall, I think that universities—the combined universities—are the second largest employer in the city. I think that that is the same position in Glasgow, in Dundee, in Aberdeen and in many places. That is even before we add in the colleges. You just have to look at the number of staff employed by the universities of Edinburgh, Herriot-Watt, Napier and Queen Margaret, all of whom add to the economy. They bring in, as many people have said, I think that it was Chick Brody and others, the spin-off jobs, the high net worth individuals, the professors, the talents, all of that that creates employment, not simply from the employment that is there with their professors, their lecturers or whatever else. However, there is an awful lot of jobs, many of whom my constituents carry out, whether it is in catering, whether it is in cleaning, whether it is in maintenance, simply providing remunitive, reasonably well-paid jobs within this city and indeed every other city, the length and breadth of Scotland. Universities and education are vital to the Scottish economy, in addition to the benefits that they provide in educating our own people and in charging young people from elsewhere top dollar. The people that we are talking about here are paying top dollar, they are paying significant amounts of money, so we have to recognise the importance to the economy. The importance to our society is there as well, the reference that was made to the jobs that are spun off out of it, the high net worth, the intellectual capacity that we could not acquire in any other shape or form. It is because of Scotland punching well beyond its weight in terms of university education that we are being able to deliver. Yes, it will help to tackle, as Clare Baker and others were saying, in terms of demographics. We are not at crisis point in Scotland, but we have to address it. Circumstances are better now than they were when Jack McConnell first instigated the scheme. After all, we are now at 5.3 million. We do have an increasing population. We need to do an awful lot more because of the demographics, because of the ageing population, but we are, I think, beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel. However, this is hugely beneficial for our society in those aspects, as well as in the other areas that are brought in terms of the mixture, the cosmopolitan nature that they create. That then comes on to that it can be done. We are not asking for the earth here. We are asking for something that will benefit the Scottish economy and the Scottish society, where we have a distinctive provision from the problems faced with regard to immigration south of the border. We see it as a benefit here, not as a drain, as perhaps as a perspective down in the south of England, and that is why we need to have those powers. It is part of being as close to that federal society as we were promised in the referendum without giving us the powers of an independent nation and powers over immigration. Other countries do it and have done it for some considerable period of time, because I remember the criticisms that I made of fresh talent not going far enough a decade ago. Let us look, for example, at the federated companies that are mentioned often by those who wish to retain the union, such as Canada or Australia. Let us look at South Australia, which has a distinctive immigration policy other than New South Wales and, indeed, Victoria. It has been recognised for a long time that Adelaide did not have the cache that existed for Sydney and Melbourne. When people were emigrating to Australia, it was those cities that they wanted to go to not to Adelaide. On that basis, South Australia was given the opportunity for people to go and emigrate to South Australia at a lower points differential than it would require to get into elsewhere, to other states and certainly into Sydney or Melbourne. That has been granted and that is the same situation that applies in Quebec and in Canada. What we are seeking is simply what is given in other jurisdictions, where you recognise the benefit that the nation, the part of it that is losing out in whatever shape or form so that it can be done. That would be good for the Scottish society. We are required to compete in that global world. I am concluding, Deputy Presiding Officer, to take on board the points that were made by Liam McArthur. That is about leadership. It can be done if Westminster is prepared to grant it. The idea that we need to beat ourselves up because there are people in Scotland who have wrong and false views of migration is something that, as I said, I do not think that we should be countenancing. Yes, we have individuals in Scotland who have views that are abhorrent. It comes down to political leadership. If we stand up and articulate, as Canada and Australia do, that immigration is a good thing, then that can be delivered and the people will follow it and welcome the political lead given. I have a little bit of time in hand for interventions. I welcome the opportunity to contribute in this afternoon's important debate on post-study work visas. A policy introduced by Labour in my mind unjustifiably cut by the Conservative Government. We have heard about the reasons around that and issues such as bogus colleges. The response to remove the post-study work visa was much like using a sledgehammer to crack it up. I agree with a lot of what Kenny MacAskill said that the answer to bogus colleges was pursuing the criminality and the people who were exploiting innocent immigrants rather than a wholesale withdrawal of the post-study work visa policy. There is no question that that policy had a positive impact not only on those people who came to Scotland from overseas but on Scotland's economy and our university and college sectors. The post-study work visa enabled international graduates to seek employment without sponsorship for up to two years after the completion of the course. Certainly since the UK Government closed the tier one route in 2012, there has been a detrimental impact on colleges, universities and businesses here in Scotland and across the UK. Official figures show that there has been a decline in first-year student enrolments from China, India and Nigeria. Colleagues who are on the cross-party group on China tell me that in every single meeting of the cross-party group. The issue of post-study work visa is raised in the difficulty with Chinese students, one of our key emerging markets in accessing Scottish institutions. Similarly across the UK in the year that the post-study work visa was repealed, the intake of students from overseas declined for the first time in 29 years. I can remember when the previous Scottish Labour Government introduced the first talent initiative in 2005, mostly because I was still at university. In the years following, I could see the impact on that initiative. However, that encouraged foreign students to come to Scotland and then allowed them to give something back by working here and contributing to our economy for two years without a work permit. That initiative was adopted by the UK Government in 2008, which again helped to increase the number of international students who came to Scotland. Our colleges and particularly our universities rely on that significant financial support from overseas students who contribute around £337 million per year in fees and approximately £450 million to the wider economy, investment that we can't afford to be without. In addition to the financial consequences of a fall in overseas students from key markets such as India and Pakistan, the scrapping of the post-work study visa has had a reputational impact to the NUS. We have commented on the hoops that international students are expected to go through and the hoops they continue to have to go through, although here it is unacceptable. The minister himself has spoken about his trip to India. The real reputational risk that we have in Scotland is not looking like an open market for the best talent in the world to come and study here and feel welcome and valued and contribute to our economy. Mary Signe from the UK Government stated that there is a sense that the UK Government's immigration policy is very narrow and insular and not to the benefit of Scotland or universities. I think that all the parties in this Parliament recognise the problems that have arisen as a result of the decision taken in 2012 to end the scheme. It is important that future UK Governments take the decision to reverse that regressive step, but it is also important that there is clearly willingness from the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government to make sure that Scotland has that variation now to allow us to take a different approach and reintroduce that fresh talent initiative. I am just listening carefully to the member. Does he agree with the Smith commission proposal of exploring the possibility of introducing a formal scheme to allow international higher education students in Scotland to say, oh, and does he agree with the Scottish Government and the UK working together to achieve that? I agree with the Smith commission proposals. To talk about that later, I said that it is right that the Scottish and UK Governments work together to find a solution to making sure that an initiative such as fresh talent can happen again. It happened here first under Jack McConnell. McConnell has no reason to stop it. It has been touched on earlier that the slowing down in the rate of growth of international students here in the UK is not happening elsewhere. Our main competitors in the English-speaking world of the United States, Canada and Australia have continued to expand their student numbers of the course of the last five years. In the University of Scotland, the minister has used the same quote in saying that we are losing out in those key markets, as those international competitors have taken steps to attract that international talent that we are now missing out on. I am pleased that, Scottish Labour, we have been able to commit to reintroducing the fresh talent initiative, as the Smith commission highlighted. Scotland is a much more diverse, vibrant and culturally varied nation because of immigrants. The benefit to our educational establishments business and our economy as a whole by reintroducing such an initiative is clear. It is therefore of utmost importance that the UK and Scottish Governments get together to work to end those unjustifiable restrictions that are currently in place. Thank you very much. I now call Jim Eadie to be followed by Hans Alamallek. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Following last May's debate in Parliament on immigration policy in relation to higher education, I am pleased that the matter of the post-study work visa is again being debated, and I am grateful for the opportunity to take part this afternoon. That is an opportunity to recognise the vital contribution that international students make to higher education, research excellence, the economy and cultural diversity of Scotland. In December last year, when the Smith commission report was published, I took the opportunity to make clear my concern in Parliament to the Deputy First Minister about the failure to include in the heads of agreement of the Smith commission the views of the National Union of Student Scotland, University Scotland, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors Scotland, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and Unison Scotland that there should be partial devolution of immigration to enable the reintroduction of the two-year post-study work visa for international students who graduate from our universities and colleges. The Deputy First Minister's response was that the Scottish Government would seek to engage constructively with the UK Government on this matter in order to make progress on reintroducing the post-study work visa, and to do that in order to ensure that Scotland can attract and retain talented students from across the world. As the MSP for Edinburgh Southern, I am incredibly privileged to represent not one but two of Edinburgh's world-class universities, the University of Edinburgh and the Edinburgh Napier University, both of which have campuses in my constituency. Together, those two universities make up a large proportion of Scotland's 50,000 international students. Over 30 per cent of Edinburgh Napier University's student population is international, and the 13,735 international students at the University of Edinburgh, which make up 40 per cent of that university's student population, represent the largest international community at any Scottish university. The University of Edinburgh has echoed many of the findings of the post-study work working groups report, highlighting that universities require greater support in recruiting and retaining the world's best academic talent, and that the removal of post-study work opportunities for international students puts Scottish universities on the back foot in competing in what is a highly competitive global market, as we currently are not able to offer students the opportunity to live and work long-term in Scotland after graduating. The convener of University Scotland, Professor Pete Downs, makes this point well. As it stands, the UK's immigration policy is anti-competitive. It is a deterrent to highly skilled students and staff, and it is hurting our universities. Furthermore, we in this chamber can all agree that international students make a significant financial contribution to Scotland's economy. £374 million was accrued from the tuition fees of non-EU international students at Scottish higher education institutions in 2012-13, with a further £441 million through accommodation and living costs. That is a clear demonstration that international students support local businesses in the towns and cities in which they live, which in turn boosts Scottish jobs. Research for universities UK has estimated that each international student enrolled in a university supports 0.45 full-time equivalent jobs in the UK. The University of Edinburgh has calculated that that supports over 6,000 jobs in the local area due to the university's global student community. Mary Scanlon. Does the convener agree that EU and European students contribute enormously to Scotland's economy, culturally and so on? However, they have been reduced by 75 per cent and 81 per cent, whereas international students have been reduced by 23 per cent. Will he also share my concern for EU and European students? I certainly acknowledge the point that all students from whichever part of the world they come from enrich Scotland in the way that the member has indicated. I hope that she would acknowledge that we have a consensus through this working group that the current system is not fit for purpose. Of the findings of the working group, a number of points are significant and need to be put on the record. One of those is that the UK Government, since the changes to the post-study work visa in March 2011, has been a substantial decline in the enrolments of international students at our universities. We have seen that in terms of students from India and in terms of students from Pakistan, and those are higher education statistics agency figures. Key competitor countries that offer more attractive post-study work opportunities have, in contrast, seen a rise in their numbers of international students. For example, the United States has seen international student numbers rise by over 5 per cent on average, and Canada by over 7 per cent over the past five years. The current system is, as Liz Smith stated, unduly restrictive, and as Mark Griffin referred to, narrow and insular. There are two findings in the report to Scottish ministers that underline those points. The first of those is that the low number of graduates across the UK are allowed to stay in the UK under the tier 1 provisions of the Home Office, which relate to graduate entrepreneurs. Only 1,900 graduates a year who have been awarded a degree in the UK can extend their stay under that route in order to set up a business. The second point relates to the restriction that applies to the main route for graduates to take up employment in the UK, where employers who wish to employ a non-European economic area national must hold a UK Home Office sponsorship licence and must employ them on a minimum salary of £20,500. In 2013, only 4,000 tier 4 students switched into tier 2 after completing their studies, allowing those who study for a PhD to spend one year in the UK on completion of their studies to undertake employment or self-employment. The point about all of this is that the system does not meet the needs of our universities, our businesses or our wider economy, nor does it allow us to address the demographic challenge and the skill shortages that Clare Baker referred to earlier. A number of members have referred to the fresh talent initiative, and it is important that we acknowledge the important work that was done under the previous First Minister, Jack McConnell. In conclusion, it is clear that the reintroduction of the post study work visa would help to make Scotland's economy and society better off. Commenting on the UK's policy of curbing the entry of international students, Gordon Maloney, president of the National Union of Students Scotland, stated, for too long we have allowed a negative and damaging rhetoric to take precedent. Presidents, when we discuss immigration, harming Scotland's reputation abroad and depriving our communities from the benefits that we know international students bring. This Parliament is united in its support for international students, and I think that it is high time that the UK Government worked with the Scottish Government to make that principle a reality. Thank you. I now call Hans Alam Alec to be followed by George Adam. Thank you very much, and good afternoon, Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to talk about post student work visas. I have historically been encouraging international students to visit Scotland, in particular Glasgow, for many years now. I would first like to state that it was the Scottish Labour Government, Jack McConnell, that first introduced post study work visas to students. Now that there is a broad agreement amongst Scottish Parliament and education institutions that we should reintroduce the scheme once again, as we in Scotland quite clearly are not benefiting from the current system. Scotland generally benefits from the international students learning in Scotland. As Jamie Dill said, in 2012 and 2013, the Scottish higher education institutions received £374 million from international student fees. In addition, NUS Scotland estimates that while students are in Scotland, international students also contribute to the Scottish economy, and in particular local economy, and estimate that £441 million was spent every year. This is just only by students. This is not counting the relatives, friends, and others who come and visit them in Scotland while they are studying and their subsequent visits thereafter. Whereas the number of international students has remained reasonably steady, there has been a major fall in students from previously important countries such as Nigeria, India and Pakistan, already mentioned by several speakers. Much of the fall has been compensated by students from China, but there is a risk in being so dependent on one market as the recent decline has shown could be very unhelpful to the industry overall, and I think it's a risk that we perhaps don't want to take. Another reason cited for not choosing UK institutions for higher education is the much better opportunities of work experience and possible migration offered by countries such as Canada, for example. The UK Employment Skills Survey report published in January 2014 noted that Scotland has a higher level of skill shortages than the rest of the UK. In 2013, 25% of all vacancies in Scotland were skill shortages. This figure was significantly higher than the 15% reported in 2011 and also higher than the levels reported for England at 22%, Wales 20% and Northern Ireland at 18% in 2013. So, okay, we have post study work visas. We'll encourage more international students to come to Scotland. I get that, but what I don't believe that is the unautomatic that there will be end to skill shortages, where I have spoken to businesses who have hired people through fresh talent initiatives for two years. Many have said that staff that have got fully trained and very productive then had to leave at the end of that period. The next difficult part is how do we manage the varied immigration systems throughout the UK? An interesting example is the provisional nominee programme in Canada. They've had an increase of 11% and I wonder why. Well, let me tell you why, because Canada has set aside resources to actually support and promote good relations between recent migrants and the wider society. I have not had any time to look at that particular scheme in much detail, but I'm happy to go to Canada to do some fact finding with the European and External Relations Committee if that's a challenge I have to face. Now, at this point, I can pretty much recycle my speech I gave last week on negative attitudes on immigrants. In my speech, I gave statistics to show that there was still widespread under representation of ethnic minorities in education and employment. The Scottish Government did not give me any explanation and just because I didn't get an explanation doesn't mean that I'm going to stop mentioning it. I'm going to keep mentioning it to every opportunity I get because this is an important issue for us in Scotland. We cannot keep hiding. There is no point in saying that we want more immigrants to come to Scotland if you're not actually combating the race in our society today. I said public services are employing at 0.8% and apprenticeships 1.1% out of a population of 4% of the minority communities. That's unacceptable and it doesn't give a very good picture. It's very nice to say that, you know, we're a great country and you must come here and very diverse but practically we're not delivering on the ground and I think that's unhelpful. I'm not going to go away. I'm going to keep banging at this drum to let people know that this is still an issue and I made an offer last time and I made an offer on my first year in this parliament that I'm here to help. I'm here to give my support to try and deal with this issue. No one's come to my door yet but I'm still here and I'm still willing to help out if anybody needs my help. Last but not least, I think it's absolutely crucial that the amendment is considered seriously because I think it's absolutely important that we continue to encourage overseas students to come to Scotland. I have always wished that we continue to encourage our universities and colleges to continue to support our education system and it's quite crucial that we do so. The revenue that is stimulated in our industry, the fresh talent with young thinking minds, fresh minds coming from overseas to encourage competitive thinking in Scotland I think is crucial. It helps build minds and I think it encourages unpaid ambassadors around the world for Scotland as we did historically before. I think that we should continue to work on that. I believe that we should continue to demand that the Government takes our proposals very seriously because I think that it's absolutely important for an industry and the wellbeing of society today. Thank you very much. I now call on George Adam to be followed by Cara Hilton in a generous six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I enjoy debates like this because it gives us the opportunity to really discuss an important issue like this in a way that we can up here and not in the partisan way that is done in other places. I think that it brings up some important issues that have already come up in this debate. We now know that Christian Allard attended university but did not study there. The rest of the story, Presiding Officer, was probably too much information so swiftly moving on. I think that we can take from today's debate that our international students make a valuable contribution to Scotland's economy and society. In fact, I would say that we must, as a nation, retain international students because they contribute so much to our communities. In Paisley, the University of the West of Scotland, they have recruited non-EU international students for some time and they have made such a difference to our community. The challenge for us is to make sure that they stay within the community and do not move on later on. The other thing that was brought up by Mark Griffin was quite right about Chinese students because, in UWS, they have also recruited quite a lot of Chinese students there as well. How we deal with that is a way forward. We have seen the potential and, as my colleague Christian Allard has already said, what is not to like about it? According to a higher education statistics agency, Scottish higher education institutions receive an overall income of £374 million. That has already been said by Chick Brody from other non-EU international students. Those figures represent 12 per cent of the total income for Scottish higher education institutions, but off-campus expenditure by international students amounts to some £12.2 million. Local businesses in Paisley have benefitted from that over the years, but as a town it is something that we still need to develop further and it is something that we need to ensure that we get the advantage and other communities in the country get an advantage of being a university town. You can see why education and business leaders in Scotland have clearly set out a case for the reintroduction of post-study work visas in Scotland. The Westminster Government's policy on this issue is wrong and is limiting our university's potential and limits our economy. We in Scotland need to find a way to be able to retain those individuals. It is of course welcome that the Smith commission's view was that UK and Scottish Governments should work together to explore a potential post-study work scheme in Scotland. We are all hopeful, and today's debate is quite useful in that as well, that the Smith commission can deliver on that, because we need to have that power to ensure that Scotland has the opportunity to make the legislation that we need to work for us. The post-study working group report confirms that it calls for the post-study to reinstate, as well as how the scheme would operate, and asking the UK and Scottish Governments to work together. It also recognises us that post-study work visa is an important lever for attracting the best international students, ensuring that we manage to get everyone over to our institutions here, and that they see Scotland as a way forward for them and ensure that they can actually live the rest of their lives here. One of the interesting points was that the survey was that Scottish business and education providers showed that 90 per cent of all the respondents were in favour of bringing back the post-study work visa for international students, and 100 per cent of the education providers and 85 per cent of businesses. That shows you how important that is to all the people involved in that. The minister, Humza Yousaf, has stated to previously that one of his comments is that the immigration policy is currently too heavily influenced by the priorities of the south-east of England, based on the values of the current UK Government, and driven by a desire to reduce the number of incoming migrants, which does not recognise Scotland's needs nor does it serve our economic or social interests. I think that that is the whole point of this debate. As we are saying, we are trying to find a Scottish solution for this situation. Even some of the universities themselves, Professor Pete Downs, convener of the University of Scotland principle of university Dun D, said that the case to allow international students to work in Scotland was overwhelming and described the UK's current immigration policy as anti-competitive and a deternt to highly skilled students and staff, and it is hurting our universities. We are currently working in a position where our universities are internationally renowned and doing very well, but we need to take those quotes on board. We also need to look at what Alasdor Sim, the director of university Scotland, said that a strong presence of international students is an asset to Scotland's universities and Scotland as a whole, as well as making a significant economic contribution. Everyone has agreed that we need to move on. I know that Claire Baker and Jim Eadie have already mentioned our competitors in the international market, but it has to be said that the United States and Canada are good examples of countries offering post-study work visas for international students. The number of international students has already been said that the United States is increased by 5.5 per cent and the number in Canada by 7.3 per cent, so that shows you that if you have the ability to do that, it can make a difference. Professor Anton Muscatelli, principal of Glasgow University, said that the current UK policy is a message that says, do not come here, we are closed for business, we are closed for education. It is exactly the opposite message that a number of other countries are sending, including the US, Canada and Australia. I do not think that we should be there as a country. I think that he is right, I think that we have to say that we do not want to be here. This debate is a perfect example of how, as a country in Scotland, we do not want to be there, and it is representative, even though our colleague Liam McArthur was quite negative in some of the things that he said here today. That is not the reality of the situation. Scotland does see itself as a country. We are a country that has always encouraged immigration. We have worked together with people from other cultures, and we have delivered and made our culture so much better as well. I say in closing that we need to have the powers and embrace them, and we need to ensure that we can make this difference. As my colleague Christian Allard said, if we get the powers, what is not to like about that? I now call on Cara Hilton to be followed by Joan McAlpine. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate on post-study work visas, in particular in support of Scottish Labour's amendment. Scottish Labour believes that international students make an invaluable contribution to our education system and to our economy, culturally, academically and financially. There are currently over 30,000 international students from more than 180 different countries studying in Scotland, bringing an estimated £373.6 million in fees to Scottish universities and £32.5 million to Scotland's colleges. International students also contribute significantly to Scotland's economy, helping to support our public services and our local economies, valued at around £441 million every year. As has been mentioned already, it was Scottish Labour who first introduced the fresh talents initiative back in 2005, encouraging students to work, study and stay in Scotland. We extended that initiative across the UK in 2008, which ensured that Scotland had a constant flow of fresh talent to flourish alongside our home-grown talent, enabling us to succeed and compete in the global economy and to make Scotland better and stronger and address demographic challenges that we face head-on. The decision by the coalition Government three years ago to scrap post-study work visas was damaging a bright across the UK, but it was especially damaging here in Scotland. A regressive move not only limiting opportunities for our international students but posing a real threat to our higher and further education institutions, a move that seemed to be more motivated by politics and a desire to bring down immigration figures with our universities, our economy and international students paying the price. For overall student recruitment is up very slightly by 1 per cent. Scotland has seen a 2 per cent decline in enrolment from China, which colleagues have commented on already. A 12 per cent drop from India and a 9 per cent drop from Nigeria reflects the direction of travel in UK immigration policies in recent years. In contrast, key competitors such as the US and Canada have continued to expand their international student numbers over the past five years, up 5.5 per cent in the US and 7.3 per cent for Canada. It is time for a change in today's debate as a welcome one. I am really pleased that there is cross-party support for action. Scotland, and indeed the rest of the UK, is a much more diverse, vibrant and culturally varied place because of immigration. We should be recognising, celebrating and awarding the contribution that has been made to our society, to our economy and our education system. We should be rejecting the negative and nasty rhetoric from the likes of UKIT, which seems to blame immigrants for society's ills. Scottish Labour wants to see a modern, inclusive and multicultural Scotland that attracts and welcomes international students to our universities and to our colleges. We therefore welcome the recommendations of the Scottish Government's post-study work review group, which calls for the reintroduction of a post-study work route for international students. A move that has been backed by a broad coalition of university, college, business, trade union and student representatives, as well as across the chamber today, recognises the specific demographic challenges that Scotland faces, which contrasts with the rest of the UK, and which would help tackle the skills shortages faced right across Scotland, which are responsible for an estimated 25 per cent of vacancies according to a UK employer's skills survey report. The briefing that we received from NUS Scotland for today's debate tells us that, while England's population rose by 15 per cent between 1971 and 2012, Scotland's only rose by 1.5 per cent—that's 10 times less—the proportion of our population that is working age is low and on the decline, but the numbers over the age of 65 forecast rise by 59 per cent over the next couple of decades, posing as significant challenges for the future. We need to recognise that the contribution that international students make does not end when a student graduates. Scotland has got to be a positive and welcoming destination for international students, and that offer must include the opportunity to stay on in Scotland and to allow their eligible families to join them, too. For our universities to be world-leading, we need to attract students from overseas, and those students need to be made welcome. This does not just benefit international students. It enriches the experiences of Scottish learners, too, and as College Scotland pointed out in its briefing for today's debate, it is a cultural exchange that benefits everyone, allowing students to share different perspectives, values, experiences and beliefs, promoting Scotland to international level. Across the rest of the UK, there is also a demand for change, as Clare Baker has highlighted. The recent report by the all-party parliamentary group on migration looked at the impact of ending post-study work visas and recommended reforms to allow students to remain in the UK for at least 12 months after graduation. They found that, across the UK, removing the visa had resulted in a significantly larger decline in the number of skilled international graduates able to remain in the UK than the Government had anticipated. Last year, the NUS, a UK-level, released a report in partnership with the Entrepreneurs Network, which served 16,000 graduate students—sorry, 1,600. 42 per cent of them said that they wanted to set up a business, but less than a quarter of them wanted to set one up in the UK due to the restrictions on visas. A staggering one-third said that they would not recommend the UK as a study destination to their friends and family. That is another coalition policy, which is undermining our future prosperity. Across the UK, it has been estimated that the restrictions are costing British universities £2.4 billion over the next decade. In conclusion, Scottish Labour is committed to reintroducing the fresh talent initiative in Scotland. We want to ensure that the Scottish dimension is properly taken into account in developing our immigration policy. Staff, students and colleges, universities and businesses are united in their call for action. We need to reintroduce a post-study work route for international students in Scotland as quickly as possible, and I hope that we can work together to make that happen. The evidence base for such a move is crystal clear and beyond doubt. We should be celebrating international graduates who want to contribute to Scotland, not excluding them as a way of massaging immigration numbers or meeting targets. We need to have a model that meets Scotland's distinct demographic and economic needs and ensures that Scotland is an attractive place for international talent from right across the world. That has got to include the right to work and stay here in Scotland. I hope that we can see progress very soon on that vital issue for our colleges, universities and Scotland and that it can take action to ensure that we attract the brightest and best students and graduates that Scotland's door is fully open to people from right across the world. I now call on George McAlpine to be followed by Jane Baxter. I start by welcoming the debate and the publication of the post-study working groups report. Broad consensus is across the education and business sectors and across large parts of the chamber that the current UK Government's immigration policies are wrong for Scotland and are damaging our universities and our economy. During my time sitting on both the education and the economy committees, I have heard the case made time and again by those with first-hand experience about the valuable contribution that international students make to our economy and our society. We all know that leaders in education and industry almost universally condemn the abolition of the post-study work visa as a hugely detrimental step. The UK Government has systematically enacted measures to reduce immigration in recent years, but we need a different approach to attract skilled individuals to study in Scotland and to encourage them to stay and contribute to our society and help us to meet the economic and demographic challenges of the future. Last year, the Education and Culture Committee held an inquiry into Scotland's future. One submission from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce pointed to Quebec and its distinctive immigration policy as a potential model for Scotland. Quebec has its own immigration criteria, separate from the rest of Canada, and that has benefited Montreal as a magnet for talent in particular. As some other members have addressed the educational implications of the abolition of post-study work visas, I would like to speak briefly about the work that I am currently involved in as a member of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into the importance of boosting Scottish exports. As University Scotland recently highlighted in its submission to the inquiry, our higher education sector is a major exporter and international students contribute over £800 million annually to that sector. The committee yesterday afternoon in Aberdeen, we were hosted by Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, and we heard submissions from Robert Gordon University, which has conducted its own small poll looking at the impact of the removal of the post-study work visa and the impact on its enrolment figures for international students. The findings were stark. The number of international students enrolled at the university declined by 9.5 per cent between September 2011, when it was announced that the post-study work visas would be abolished, and September 2013. That was in spite of the fact that the number of international students being offered places over that time period had increased by 6 per cent. RGU study shows that the number of enrolled international students initially dipped when the Scottish Government's distinctive fresh start initiative was absorbed into the Westminster-controlled post-study work visa, and it declined noticeably after the announcement in March 2012 that work visas would be abolished. While our world-leading university sector will undoubtedly attract many to come to Scotland to study, many students want peace of mind that, upon finishing their studies, they will be able to stay and apply the skills that they have learned in Scotland. We must not forget that that is a hugely competitive international market. The committee's adviser for our export inquiry is Jane Gotts of Glasgow Caledonian University. Yesterday, she highlighted that many Scottish companies cite a shortage of the right skills, particularly language skills and knowledge of overseas markets as a barrier to exporting. Encouraging post-study students to stay and contribute their talent after graduation is therefore an obvious way to support Scottish companies who wish to boost exports, which is, of course, a key goal for the Scottish Government. Another benefit of this approach would be the potential network of ambassadors that would spring up across the globe. Following the return to countries of origin, talented individuals with practical experience of working in Scotland will help to build a network that could help to support more Scottish businesses in their international efforts. Ms Gotts has helpfully suggested that, if post-study work visas are reintroduced, a matching service between businesses and higher or further education institutions would be welcomed by both industry and the education sector. That could be done potentially through Scottish enterprise or a private sector organisation such as SCDI or the Chamber of Commerce. Scottish Networks International was a good example of the industry and education collaboration. The potential for growth in start-up businesses for Scotland should also be taken into account, as all overseas students will not necessarily want to work for a company. Many overseas students are entrepreneurial, so a route to giving them the opportunity to set up their own business in Scotland could also be good for the economy and could link to existing start-up hubs such as Entrepreneurial Spark. I mentioned earlier how competitive the quest to attract international students is, and other members have mentioned the fact that the United States attracts many international students. I have some knowledge of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where my daughter studied, and it is very striking the number of start-ups in that area of Cambridge, Massachusetts. In fact, it has the highest number of start-ups of anywhere in the world, and that is because of the talent coming out of MIT and Harvard, much of which comes from around the world. I hope that we will be successful in lobbying Westminster for the reintroduction of post-study work visas, particularly in light of the Smith commission finding that Westminster should work with the Scottish Government to explore schemes to allow international graduates to remain in Scotland and contribute to our economic activity. That is a hugely important topic for Scotland's universities and colleges. There are over 30,000 international students studying in Scotland from more than 150 countries. In total, 11 per cent of all Scotland students come from elsewhere in the EU, and a further 10 per cent come from elsewhere in the world. That is one in five of the students at our universities coming from outwith the United Kingdom. It is a tremendous reflection of the quality of our universities that they are able to attract such large numbers of international students and a huge boon to not just our economy but to our culture as well. Speaking broadly about the issue, and as I have said before, I am disappointed that only universities are generally discussed when public debate turns to international students. Too often, people's attitudes towards Scotland's colleges are of secondary importance to our universities. Governments in both Holyrood and Westminster have made choices that have resulted in drastically fewer foreign students attending our colleges, which has a financial and structural impact on them. It is much greater than that on our elite universities, but to return to the issue of this afternoon's debate. I am concerned about the impact of the current Tory Lib Dem Government's immigration policy. In particular, I am worried about including students in the blanket immigration cap. That policy treats all legal immigration in the same way as a bad thing for Britain that should be reduced, and that, in my view, is entirely wrong. The Labour Party across the United Kingdom strongly believes that it is deeply damaging to the UK's social fabric and economy that the number of fee-paying overseas students has fallen at a time when the international market for universities in other countries is growing. That is why university students should be removed entirely from the net migration target, which is, in any event, a policy that has failed. We need to explore how we can encourage students to stay in Scotland once they graduate, not force them to leave. Scotland, in particular, faces an acute demographic challenge in the coming decades. There were around 820 centenarians in Scotland in 2010. That is projected by the national records of Scotland to be over 7,535. The number of people over 75 is projected to increase by over 80 per cent in that same time frame. Our population will age at a faster rate than the rest of the UK. The Parliament's Finance Committee noted in 2013 that the proportion of Scotland's population, which is a pensionable age, is projected to increase by 2.9 percentage points between 2010 and 2035, compared with the 1.7 percentage point rise for the UK. That will be accompanied by a much smaller increase in birth rates. That means that our population will age, and a company's change will be the myriad associated increases in spending. Inmigration, particularly at the immigration of high-skilled young people, is therefore an important aspect of how we finance Scotland's public services in the future. Foreign students tend to be young and are, by definition, highly skilled. Those organisations who know most about the value of foreign students, the University of Scotland, the University and College Union Scotland, the National Union of Students Scotland, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Director Scotland have made clear that they support the expansion of post-study visas. For example, the principal of the University of Dundee, Professor Pete Downs, has said that Scotland has distinct demographic challenges that have vastly affected our potential for economic growth. We face skills shortages in key sectors as articulated by business, and our universities are forced to operate in an anti-competitive environment in attracting international talent that could be a great economic and social benefit to Scotland. Universities in Scotland have seen a 2 per cent decline in first-year student enrolments from China, a 12 per cent decline from India and a 9 per cent drop from Nigeria. Those are key countries for international student recruitment, and it is a source of major worry that there has been such a marked fall in student enrolments from these nations. I know that such a programme can work in Scotland because such a system has already operated under devolution. In 2005, the Labour Party introduced the fresh talent initiative, which allowed students to stay in Scotland for two years after they had graduated. That utilised the sort of co-operation between the UK and Scottish Governments that is the hallmark of the best policy on this topic that we encounter. The fresh talent scheme was contained until 2008, when it became such a success, it was rolled out across the entire UK. Sadly, however, it was withdrawn by the Tories and Lib Dems in 2012. That is the sort of myopic policy formation that puts the short-term political interests of the Conservative Party above the economic and social interests of the British people and the economy. As the entrepreneur and inventor James Dyson said of the policy, it is a bit short-sighted, is it not? A short-term vote winner that leads to long-term economic decline. When we have Governments that are willing to engage with each other and co-operate, we can ensure that, as we emphasised on our devolution commission and was typified in the Smith commission, the Smith commission report agrees that all parties will explore the possibility of allowing international higher education students graduating from Scottish education institutions to remain in Scotland. Like much else in the report, that is sensible. Similarly, the Labour Party's five-point approach to immigration includes the commitment to a smart system that distinguishes between types of immigration so that we bring benefits to our economy and tackle problems, and fair rules so that those who come to Britain contribute to our economy and society. A new approach to this issue is entirely consistent with those principles. We can also see in other countries, too, allowances being made for substrate areas within them. For example, there are such systems in Australia and Canada. In our devolution commission report, we identified that there are some barriers to setting up such schemes, but that we ultimately believe that reasons and agreed variations between Scotland and the rest of the UK are justifiable and workable. The fresh talent scheme has shown us that the way forward is through co-operation. This is the model that we should follow. I hope that Scotland's two parliaments and Governments can work together to make sure that those who choose to come to Scotland to study can continue to contribute to our culture and economy once they have graduated. I now call on Jeane Urquhart to be followed by James Dornan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is a very timely debate. It is heartening to hear that there is cross-party support for the reintroduction of post-study work visas. We have heard from everyone on the contribution made by such students, be they cultural, social, economic or educational, but we cannot assume that, in spite of the reputation of Scottish colleges and universities that these students will keep coming, we know that competition in the education sector is tough. Many of our colleges and universities are making greater and greater efforts to attract students from around the globe, even to the extent of name change. What was the RSAMD, the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, is now the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland. A change, not made because people were demanding a change to the name, but a change made to attract students and for them to better understand the work of the college and the potential that it had. No matter being the best, no matter that our universities and colleges are opening branches in many other countries around the globe and it may be that the growing number of courses available will produce those who graduate with the University of Glasgow of Edinburgh with a degree from Glasgow Edinburgh or indeed of the Highlands and Islands. What will bring those students here? Not enough to be the best, not enough to provide good student association and welcome as those institutions know, they need all the support that they can get in order to maintain or grow the international student community. The post-study work visa is only but one, but perhaps the most important one good reason to make application to one university versus another. In the Highlands and Islands University, some of the colleges, partner colleges, developed the potential for business experience to follow the course content as well as being part of the course. For example, textile students in Shetland can, whether they are allowed to stay post-graduate, access some of the equipment, large industrial knitting machine for example, to better develop business skills and experience whether there is a market for their product or not. Manufacturing must be one of the most important areas that we cover, so the opportunity of getting this kind of experience for a period after graduation is certainly an attractive option. Scotland has a great deal to offer in this respect. We have seen in all of the papers that we have received from the National Union of Students or Business Organisations across Scotland that it seems to me that there is cross sector, cross-party support for the reintroduction of the visas. I am not sure about the Smith commission. I know that it is there, but it does occur to me, particularly after listening to Lord Lang on the radio this morning, that the Smith commission might not just be the quickest method by which we are going to see these developments happen. I think that it is incumbent on everybody in this chamber to show that there is a real urgency about this. Fresh talent, and it has been mentioned, has been referred to this afternoon, and all credit to Jack McConnell and the Labour Party. It is important to recognise that they brought it about, but it is also important to notice that, given the powers of immigration that Scotland needs and clearly deserves fresh talent surely, we would still be in place and we would not need to be having this debate. I think that it is disingenuous of Liam McArthur to try and link somehow all of the evidence from academics, business and agencies who support the post-study work visas to suggest that there is a danger that, quote, not everyone will agree. By way of evidence, it cites the BBC Scotland's research that people in Scotland are not unlike people south of the border with reference to immigration. I am very grateful to Jeane Narcourt for taking intervention. The point that I was trying to make is that the assumption that somehow the population in Scotland takes a radically different approach to immigration than those south of the border is not borne out not just by the BBC's survey but by attitude surveys over a number of years. That is not to say—I think that Kenny MacAskill made a fair point—about the leadership that we need to show, but I think that it is worth acknowledging that we do not somehow work with a more enlightened or progressive population at large. I thank you very much for that. In fact, I was just going to go on and refer to exactly the point that Kenny MacAskill made, that it is up to us, but it ill behoves us, I think, to constantly harp back to, in some ways, a bigger issue. We had the debate on immigration last week, which I think that we were all very much agreed about that, and those points were made and well-made by members at that time. I think that Joan McAlpine's point about MIT is a great example. Where creativity is developed, it can flourish, and Scotland will need to have the control of immigration if we are to realise that to our full potential. Members, I believe that we should, first of all, I would suggest that we must push for this to be considered outwith the Smith commission. I think that it is a seriously important issue for Scotland and for our colleges. More than that, I think that it is seriously important for the kind of economic development that we really want to see. Why on earth would we see that talent? We have acknowledged how many thousands of students we are talking about educated in Scotland and then insist that they leave. That cannot be right, and I hope that we will really push to have this enforced in the House of Commons and our case made outwith the Smith commission. After that, we will move to closing speeches. Six minutes are there by please. Throughout this debate and post-study work visas, one thing is clear. This chamber has a firm belief that international students and immigration more broadly is fundamentally good for Scotland. We want and indeed need international students who have studied in Scotland to stay and continue their lives here. To do that, we have to make it much easier for them to apply for visas that allow them to work and contribute properly to this society after they graduate rather than the restrictive way that it is done with the four-month time limit and restrictions thereafter on the visas that it can be applied for. We need more people to settle here post-study because, as we know, Scotland has an ageing population, which requires us to grow our working age population to support and strengthen our economy. More than that, it is about putting in place a system that says that we recognise that there is more than just a clear economic benefits to international students studying and staying in Scotland that there are massive social and cultural benefits to. In 2013-14, there were more than 48,000 students from outside the UK studying in Scotland. That equates to 21 per cent of the student population coming from almost 200 different countries that are here to study. The lifeblood of universities is the free exchange of scholars and students and everyone benefits from hearing about different experiences, exchanging different ideas about how to do things and broadening minds. These are all the bedrock in which our education system is built on. To put an artificial barrier to that in the form of punitive immigration policies that are based on political rhetoric rather than any sort of need is frankly absurd. It is absurd because it has a knock-on effect on the number of international students who want to come to Scotland in the first place to study, share their experience and exchange their ideas. As principal of the University of Glasgow, Professor Anton Muscatelli has remarked about the removal of those visas, it is a message that says, do not come here, we are close for business, close for education. It is exactly the opposite message that a number of other countries are sending, including the US, Canada and Australia. I do not think that we should be there as a country. He mentions Canada. The Government has been focusing on offering post-study work visas, which has seen the number of international students increased by 7.3 per cent, in contrast to the closure of the post-study work visa route. There has been a significant fall in the number of students coming to Scotland from countries that have traditionally sent high numbers of students, including Nigeria and India, by 29 per cent and 63 per cent respectively over the past three years. The University of Scotland conducted a survey on international students. The survey found 90 per cent of all respondents in favour of bringing back visas for international students. Business support for the reintroduction of PSW rose to 94 per cent among those who had hired an international graduate under previous post-study work schemes. 70 per cent of respondents said that when a post-study work comes to an end, individuals should have the ability to move on to a longer-term visa, and the majority of respondents across business and education providers believe that international students should be free to remain and work in Scotland for at least two years after graduation. NUS also concluded that many international students feel unwelcome in the United Kingdom as a result of the UK Government's hostile and overzealous policies. What is worse is that the UK's removal of those post-study work visas is because of politics rather than need. It has been seen as an easy way to reduce the number of immigrants to meet an artificially politically motivated quota that has no bearing on the realities of life across the UK and which, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research, has come at a high economic cost. As Jane Baxter said earlier on, that is not even working. We have a different way of looking at immigration in Scotland, as David McCollum from St Andrew's University has said. The character of immigration in Scotland is distinctive in terms of both the nature of immigration flows and social attitudes to immigration. Scotland is dependent on migration for democratic stability and growth to a greater extent than the other constituent countries of the UK. That policy is coming at a much too higher cost across the whole of the UK and has an even worse effect in Scotland. It was effort good to see the Smith commission recommend that the UK and Scottish Governments work together to explore the potential for a post-worthy study visa programme in Scotland. It would have been better if it had taken it to the next level and proposed that the powers necessary to introduce such a scheme were transferred to the Scottish Parliament, which would act in the best interests of the country by looking at the best way to attract and retain talent here in Scotland. That is crucial because bringing back the post-worthy work visa into effect would allow us to attract students from all international backgrounds. Like many MSPs, I have taken on student interns from across the world who fall in love with the city, make lifelong friendships and have a connection to the Scottish Parliament. Some, such as my current intern from Ireland, get the opportunity to stay because of the EU. We should always protect that right and recognise the contribution that they make to our economy and our diversity and vibrancy that they bring to our nation. It cannot be right that others do not have the same opportunity. It is easy to see why international students are turned off from dedicating their time to a place only to have to leave when their course was over, when they could go somewhere else, be more warmly welcomed, get comparable experiences and then get to settle their post-graduation if that is what they wanted to do. It is a dilemma that faces too many international students when we should be showcasing Scotland. It is a time that we had an immigration system in Scotland that meets our needs rather than a negative and harmful system that we have in place now. Bringing back post-worthy work visas would be a good place to start. Many thanks. We now move to the closing speeches and I call on Mary Scanlon. Eight minutes or thereby, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. May I just take this opportunity to commend all speakers, in particular Liz Smith, who I think set out our stance to this debate in a very thoughtful, considered and measured way, as we have all come to expect from Liz Smith. I know that it has been a little bit painful to have almost three hours of consensus this afternoon. I appreciate that it has perhaps not been as entertaining as usual for people in the gallery, but we do share what has been said in the tenor of this debate. There is no doubt, as others have said, that international, EU and European students all benefit Scotland. They are not just here for the money. Many have mentioned the money that they spend. Of course, that is welcome, but it benefits Scotland in so many other ways. Culturally, in terms of productivity, in terms of skills, economically and academically, and in so many other ways. They are not just here to learn from us, they are here so that we can learn from them. That is an important point that we should also say. I will go back on immigration. I remember when John Reid was home secretary, he described the border control agency as not fit for purpose. There was recognition that bogus visas were studied and bogus colleges had to be addressed. For an immigration policy to function properly, it must welcome those who are willing to contribute to society while acting against those who seek to exploit the system for their own ends. First of all, I just wanted to go over a couple of figures. Many people have mentioned the reduction in international students from India, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We agree that the post-study work visa should be reintroduced. I also put on the record that there has been an increase from China, Nigeria, Malaysia, the United States, Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada and several others. At the total higher education enrolments are up 30,000 on what they were in 2010. It is still not good enough, but they have increased. However, as Liam McArthur said, the number of first year enrolments from non-EU countries to Scottish universities has actually increased, although only by 1.5 per cent. My main point is really from the College of Scotland paper, and it confirms that between 2010 and 2014, the percentage fall in EU students was 75 per cent, European students 81 per cent and international students 23 per cent. We do not want a fall in international students, EU or European, but I think that when we are looking at post-work visa for non-EU students, we should also be asking the question, each and every one of us, why has there been such a drastic cut in EU and European students? The College of Scotland briefing paper states that traditionally Scotland colleges have been able to recruit internationally. However, priorities have changed, I think that Clare Baker mentioned the point. Priorities have changed with the move to reform and regionalisation, and colleges have to consider carefully what international activity, including recruiting overseas students, is part of their delivery plan. Who decided on the college priorities? Who agreed on the college priorities? Which government brought through regionalisation and why are international EU and European students no longer a priority? Let's have a little bit of honesty here. I think that glass houses and stone slightly come to mind at this point. However, the initiative and responsibility are totally within the control of the Scottish Government, as far as EU students are concerned, and I hope that the 75 per cent fall, not the 23 per cent international, the 75 per cent fall in EU students will be addressed by the minister in his summing up. I agree with Dr Allan that we want the brightest and the best, and I agree that the post-study working visa should be introduced, but I also agree that we should be looking at further education and we should be looking at EU and European. As others have said, many of the skills shortages could be addressed by positively embracing EU, European and international students with skills such as IT specialists, technicians, engineering and others. It is particularly important, given that the NUS paper mentioned that Scotland has a higher level of skills shortages compared to other countries in the United Kingdom. In 2013, 25 per cent of all vacancies in Scotland were due to skills shortages compared to 22 per cent in England, 20 per cent in Wales and 18 in Northern Ireland, so it is for all those reasons and more that it is so important for the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government to continue dialogue and continue to come to an agreement on further devolution. The Smith commission cites additional issues for consideration to explore the possibility of introducing formal schemes to allow international higher education students graduating from Scottish further and higher education institutions to remain in Scotland and contribute to economic activity for a defined period of time. That is written in the Smith commission and all it needs is goodwill, working and moving forward. This could be two years, which is the time mentioned by many, but it could also be another period by agreement. As Liz Smith said, the Westminster cross-party group on migration also supports much of what has been said today. It went on to recommend that its report came out last month, Labour, Conservative and others, and it recommends that non-EU students remain in the UK for a period of at least 12 months following graduation cross-party group. Improvement is the tier 2 to ensure that skilled graduates can be retained in key sectors of the economy and we support that. Improving additional routes for post-study work in the UK in order to increase the access of UK employers to skilled non-European economic area graduates. As the Conservative MP Richard Bacon said, the Government's current approach to post-study work and student migration is jeopardising Britain's position in the global race for talent. We are all on the same page here. He also said that we need to adjust our policy to improve our ability to attract students from around the world. They want to restore the UK reputation as the destination for choice for international students. It will be by dialogue, goodwill, consensus, working together, putting our students first, putting our country first, putting our economy first, that will allow international higher education students to succeed to stay in our country. I hope that the Scottish Government will do this and will work with the UK Government because it is to the benefit of us all. The focus of today's debate has been the post-study working group and their report to the Scottish ministers. Many speakers have examined different elements of that report and different recommendations and different evidence in significant detail. It is worth, I think, towards the close of the debate going back to the headline recommendations from the report and noting them. The members of that group were 100 per cent united in their support for the principle of a post-study work scheme, which would enable non-European economic area students who complete study at Scottish further or higher education institutions to stay and to work in Scotland for a defined period of time after graduation. It is a diverse group. The membership of the group spanned leaders from colleges, universities, students and a variety of business interests and all were unanimously agreed. We should note, too, that this support was based on wider consultation carried out by the group with the sectors that they represented. That also yielded widespread support for the idea. In that consultation, 100 per cent of education provider respondents were in favour of the idea and 85 per cent of business respondents to supported post-study work visas. Interestingly, that figure for business respondents rose from 85 per cent to 90 per cent among those who had already hired in the past an international graduate under previous post-study work schemes. Nan McTagar was right to draw attention to that finding because the scheme shows that those schemes provide not just workers but world-class talent, not just qualified workers but workers confident in their contribution to the companies for which they work. No wonder that this is a prospect that businesses find attractive and essential, and no wonder that there is global competition for this talent. There have been many references from speakers to the fact that this is not a new idea, and indeed that is one of the great strengths of the proposal. Between 2005 and 2008, Scotland benefited from the fresh talent scheme introduced by the First Minister, Jack McConnell. During those years, 7,620 non-EAEA students benefited from visa extensions under the scheme by definition. That is 7,500 highly skilled and qualified people who have contributed to Scotland and to our economy. Indeed, as some have pointed out, so successful was the fresh talent scheme that was rolled up across the United Kingdom, although unfortunately that led to its abolition in 2012. When we consider reintroducing post-study work opportunities, we know that they can work because they have worked before. Many speakers have paid tribute to fresh talent, but Labour believed that our motion should reflect that, too, which is why we refer to it in our addendum to the Government motion. Of course, one aspect of the scheme that has previously worked is that it shows that it can be achieved within a devolution settlement. One of the refreshing aspects of today's debate is that it has been relatively free—almost completely free—of constitutional content, and the debate has been about what can be achieved within the devolution settlement. We know from our own experience of the past that it can be done. Speakers have also given us examples. Kenny McCaskill, for example, gave us the example of Australia. Curiously belligerantly, but nonetheless the point that he was making was that in Australia it was entirely possible for South Australia to have its own post-study visa scheme. All of that is why the Smith commission, although that commission had a little appetite for devolving immigration as a whole, given the decision of the Scottish electorate to remain part of the United Kingdom. In spite of that, round the Smith table, the idea of a post-study visa system was seen as desirable by everyone. We should not be surprised that post-study work schemes are supported by businesses, because they are well aware that a number of sectors face recruitment shortages and exactly the kind of highly skilled professions likely to benefit from international students being given the opportunity to study and then live and work in Scotland. The report itself contains two telling examples of exactly that. Chick Brody talked about the example of software engineers in the games industry, but the report, more broadly, tells us that in the digital technologies industry, we will need something like 10,000 additional workers every year. The industry reports that current domestic supply is not enough. Even if measures were taken to address that domestically, that would take five or ten years to make a difference. In fact, those skill shortages are now seriously restricting growth in a core industry. The report talks, too, about the oil and gas sector. Of course, the North Sea has its problems, yet that sector continues to report difficulties in recruiting highly skilled personnel. Over 70 per cent of companies experience problems, looking for perhaps 12,000 new skilled recruits over the next five years. Another demand could be alleviated by a new post-study visa work scheme. A number of speakers have correctly drawn attention to the point that was made in the NUS Scotland briefing that Scotland has higher levels of skill shortage than the rest of the United Kingdom. Indeed, on top of that, a demographic challenge with population growth projected at 9 per cent by the middle of the century, rather less than the 16 per cent forecast for England, and that having a particular impact on the proportion of working-age people that we have as part of our population. All of that clearly adds up to the specific desirability of a post-study visa system here in Scotland. Of course, it is not just our industries that compete globally, it is also our higher education institutions. Almost 30,000 international students study in one of our universities. Although, as some have pointed out, the figure for non-EU students has increased significantly over five years, a little over the last year, there are indeed some worrying trends, particularly around falls from countries such as India, Nigeria and Pakistan. In colleges, too, we have seen a drop in non-European students of around a quarter over a five-year period. Mary Scanlon has made a powerful point about the fact that we have to consider what has happened in colleges with regard to EU students. The fact of the matter is that we cannot cut the income to that sector, reduce the number of students there by 140,000 and focus their responsibilities almost entirely on 16 to 19-year-olds without having an impact. That was demonstrated, although it is a slightly different issue by the figures that are contained in our briefings. However, international students contribute tens of millions of pounds of income to colleges, hundreds of millions to universities and more, of course, to the communities in which they live. However, they also bring cultural diversity to our institutions, which is a key part of the educational quality that they offer. A number of speakers have spoken of the importance of avoiding negative and prejudiced attitudes to those who come from abroad to study or work in Scotland. It is worth noting and putting on the record the point that the international students that we have all spoken of seeking do not in any way push out opportunity for Scottish students in higher education, because those places, of course, are above and beyond places that are funded by the Scottish Government. I thought that the tenor of the debate has been very, very good. I wondered whether, in the context of a general election coming up in six and a half weeks, whether there is a Labour Government in any way, shape or form, is the member confident that, if there is a Labour Government in the UK, it would reintroduce the posterity work visa here in Scotland? I hope—I know we will get his support, but does he think that that will happen? The shadow minister for universities, sciences and skills, Liam Burn, who says—and he was responsible for the introduction of the original UK-wide post-study work visa scheme—he says that he wants to see its reintroduction in some form the conditions that we would not necessarily be the same, but he wants to see it reintroduced. In the same quote, he makes very clear that other point, which our amendment refers to, is that we would like to see students removed from any net migration targets. Liam McArthur says that this is something that we have called for for a while. There is only a few days left for the current Government to respond to it, so I guess that this is indeed a statement of intent and something that a Labour Government will do after the election. The fact is that, if the principle of post-study work visas command such widespread support in the education world, the business world and, indeed, in this Parliament and the political world, it is surely—the reintroduction of post-study work visas—it is surely, in a particularly inappropriate figure of speech, a complete and utter no-brainer. It is something that we should do as quickly as we can. Many, many thanks. I think that this has been an excellent debate. I am considering last week's debate, put forward by the Greens and independent group on the diversity of communities, which was also similarly consensual and positive. The debate is being similarly consensual and largely positive as well. We are in danger of course of being a Parliament on consensus. I can practically hear the late and great David McLeachie, who often talked about the false god of consensus, toting down at us as we do this, but I think that he would essentially approve, most certainly, on this matter. I will try to touch before I get into the substance of my speech, maybe touch upon some of the contributions that were made by members, maybe touching first upon Mary Scanlon's points on colleges and they were also made by Claire Baker. I think that she is right to raise those concerns, because Scotland, of course, corrects to raise those concerns too. I, for one minute, do not view the poster, the working visa, if it is reintroduced as a silver bullet. It is not going to resolve all the problems. There are some challenges there. There is a Government, of course. We must work closely with our colleges to address them. I know that there is no block on colleges working internationally, even after the process of reform that they have gone through. In fact, I have been out with colleges before in India and, indeed, in China and seen the good work that they are capable of doing. However, she is right to raise in College of Scotland, absolutely right to raise that issue of EU students, and I am sure that it is one that we will reflect back on, take back. However, I do think that the reintroduction of the poster, the work visa, will be a positive step in the right direction. For colleges, as well as universities, College of Scotland was on the part of the group that she would have seen, so they were well represented and, of course, agreed with the reintroduction of it. However, that is not to, as she says, absolve the responsibility of other things that need to be done. There is an interesting discussion within the post-study working group report about what level of qualification the post-study work visa should be. Should it be at HNC, should it be at HND, they make their recommendations. As a Government, of course, we will be looking at that. Yes, of course. In those discussions, is there also some consideration to flexibility within the length of the visa? One of the very important points put across by some universities, when it comes to knowledge exchange and research, is that it needs to be a slightly extended length, but not for other situations. From my reading of the report, it says that it should be a minimum of 12 months, so it does not suggest what the length should be. However, having flexibility and variation is an eminently sensible idea. There is also a discussion about whether or not that length of stay should contribute towards citizenship and definitely leave to remain. I am very open minded to that discussion, but I wanted to say that I thought that the point that was well and powerfully made by Mary Scanlon was a good one. I should say from the offset that we will be accepting the Labour amendment that I thought was very reasonable amendment to put forward. I can speak and ask Lord McConnor. I am never shy of giving him credit where credit is due and speak to him often on the Malawi question. I think that he is right to give him and others credit for the introduction of fresh talent, though I would caveat that by saying that what is being talked about by the report and the group here is not fresh talent mark 2. The fresh talent is a new scheme, which we should rightly be proud of. It did, of course, as any new scheme does have tearing problems or issues that it needed to fix. I think that it would be wrong just to assume that that is fresh talent mark 2, but I think that credit is absolutely what it is due and I completely agree too with taking student numbers out of the overall migration numbers. I think that that is a failed policy. It does not make any sense, but it is also failed because we know that migration numbers have risen, so it does not even fulfil the criteria that the coalition Government wanted it to do. On the contribution of university students and international students, I think that the contributions from the chamber on that have been excellent. Many members reflected on their own experiences, Christian Allard telling us of his romance to which I am sure all of us appreciated. Students are more than just important, not just for financial. For the financial contribution, as important as that is, the much more holistic contribution that they bring to cultural university experience. I think that Mary Scanlon is again correct to say that we also, as Scots, take a lot from international students who come to make Scotland their home. One effect of international students that was not touched upon is that they raise the standards of our universities. I know that from my own days in universities, and I have many relatives who are doctors, dentists, pharmacists, they all say that international students drove up the standards, worked harder than those who were born here, so they had to compete. To do that so many, it raises the attainment of everybody in that class as well. Mary Scanlon used the phrase that we are all on the same page in the reintroduction of post study work. I think that she is right, hence our frustration as a Government. There has been a little bit of rolling back post the Smith commission with discussions from officials, but I am hoping that that is just because there is a general election coming up, perhaps ministers maybe are a bit hesitant to sign off on things, minds are elsewhere distracted, so I am hoping that that is just a temporary malaise indeed. In terms of the tone of the debate, I think that it has been excellent. At one point, I would raise and reiterate, as I did with Liam McArthur, that perception is often reality. I have travelled to a lot of countries in the world representing Scotland, also of course working closely with UK Government ministers to promote what the UK has to offer, but it is important to have positive noises that we can make, but they can often be undermined by noises that come out from other parts of the United Kingdom, and people do read in the papers. Take India as an example, India is the most newspaper-read country in the world. The newspaper circulation is going up, not going down, and it will read international news that comes in. If the perception is that the UK is not open for business or for students, then that will become unfortunately the reality as well. I am very sorry to disappoint Ian Gray. I know that we did not put devolution in the substance of the motion, and that was purposely done so that we could get as much consensus as possible. It is no surprise that we would like the devolution of immigration policy. We have heard from John McAlpine, Kenny MacAskill and others how there is regional flexibility, but I think that that can be done within the parameters of Smith and the restrictions that we currently have. I would say that the fact that we could hopefully see the reintroduction of the post-study work visa, but it would be at the hostage of another UK Government coming in in future years and taking that away, is perhaps one of the flaws of the current devolution set-up that we have, of course. Christian Allan. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. During any of the Smith commission, I would like to know the views of the minister, head being right on the back of the recommendation of the Smith commission. Do not we think that we could have hoped that that particular issue would have been resolved before the selection, not knowing what kind of government we are going to get after 7 May? I think that, at the start of this time, there are six and a half weeks and miracles can happen, even in Governments. I have seen that it might move quicker. I think that this Parliament will send out a very strong message to say that, as a Parliament, we are united, all the political parties, I hope, will be united in this call. There are six and a half weeks to go or maybe less until the Parliament dissolves. However, I hope that, when there is a post-agenda election, wherever the make-up of the UK Government is, wherever the make-up of the Westminster Parliament is, it will move on this issue extraordinarily quickly. I would also say that there is support for this across the United Kingdom. Many members mentioned the all-parliamentary group and quoted from it. I read the report. I thought that it was an excellent report. However, again, they are saying that the perception of the UK, even if it is not the reality but, in some respects, it is the reality, but even the perception is that students are not welcome. That is having an effect, not just in the Scottish educational sector but, of course, also on the UK sector, too. Scotland cannot wait any longer for action. Our needs are different to the rest of the UK. Within Scotland, we have different needs. The needs of the north and the north-east of Scotland, of course, are very different to the central belt as well. We hope that that change will come quicker and we do not have to wait until the general election as well. The Westminster approach, I believe, is damaging Scotland. Our latest migration figure shows that net migration has actually decreased and fallen over the past year. We cannot afford that because of our economic and demographic challenges. That is why I would like to stress the importance of rhetoric and tone in many members across the chamber. I thought that it made that very point eloquently. I was at an event this morning that was looking at Scotland-Pakistan relationships. There was an exhibition there of many Pakistanis that had come here in the 1950s and 1960s. I recognised a lot of their faces. As many others would hear, the Bashir man's and Bashir Ahmad's of this world were on those pictures. Scotland and the UK were, of course, a very welcoming place. It was the first destination that Pakistanis wanted to come to because of the opportunity, but they also had the link that they had during the empire. However, now that we go to those countries, the belief is that the perception is that the UK is not welcoming. I hope that we can change—yes, very briefly. John McAlpine will notice in the brief from University Scotland that Pakistan, in 2013-14, dropped out of the top 10 list of countries from which Scotland's universities recruit. Does he agree with me that that is very regrettable? Yes, I think that the point has been very well made across this chamber that the key emerging markets that we want Scotland to connect with—India, Pakistan, Nigeria and, indeed, China, where we are not seeing the numbers that we want to come through—that is, of course, very, very damaging indeed. In some countries, we have had a very historical link with Pakistan and India being two of those, but there are also emerging markets in Nigeria and, as I mentioned, China as well. Of course, I agree with that. There are very few issues that I have seen in the business sector, including the IOD, the FSB and many others, right the way through to the trade unions, all the way through to the academic sector, the colleges, Scotland and University Scotland. There are very few issues that I can remember that come to mind, but there has been such universal agreement across this chamber, too. I hope that, in that vein and very much in that spirit, the UK Government will listen to whatever make-up of the UK Government we have in six and a half weeks' time, that it will act on this with the speed that it deserves. Our academic institutions certainly need it, but I think that Scotland needs it, too. We benefit from migrants coming to Scotland—highly skilled migrants, highly intelligent migrants coming to this country. It has been championed by members here. The Smith commission left a chink of light open in that regard, so I call on the UK Government to continue to work with us, begin the preparations for the reintroduction of the post study work visa in Scotland, and start those now, because it will be in Scotland's interests, it will be in the business community's interests, it will be in the academic institutions' interests. Of course, we will be accepting Labour's amendment to that, and I hope that the Parliament can unite in sending a very strong message that international students are welcome to Scotland and always will be. Thank you, minister. That concludes the debate on post study work visas. The next item of business is consideration of business motion number 1-780, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revision to the business programme for the week. Any member who wants to speak against the motion should press a request-speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 1-780. Formally moved. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put most of the chamber the question is that motion number 1-780, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. We now come to decision time. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at amendment number 1-763.1, in the name of Claire Baker, which seeks to mine motion number 1-763, in the name of Hamza Yousaf. On post study work visas, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 1-763.1, in the name of Claire Baker, is as follows. Yes, 93, no, 0. There were 12 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 1-763, in the name of Hamza Yousaf, as amended. On post study work visas, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 1-763, in the name of Hamza Yousaf, is as follows. Yes, 93, no, 0. There were 12 abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.