 Forseiton Business� in the afternoon is a statement by Paul Wheelhouse on Climate Reading Scotland on the Scottish Climate Change application programme. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. Minister, ten minutes. Presiding officer, today I lay before Parliament the Scottish Government's final Scottish Climate Change adaptation programme. That programme is in accordance with section 53 of the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009. In my mind, there is no doubt that climate change poses one of the greatest threats to the world as we know it. The latest evidence from the Inter-Governmental Panel on climate Change sends a stronger warning than ever that human activity is changing the global climate. On 31 March, The Inter-Gvernmental Panel on climate change published the second volume of its fifth assessment report on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. The evidence supports urgent action to reduce emissions to avoid dangerous climate change but also the necessity to adapt to those changes that we can no longer avoid. Climate change is affecting every continent contributing to heat waves, drought and flooding across the globe. Heavy rains and floods are not only now common here but are also now common place in Africa with devastating effects in countries such as Sudan and Somalia, while north-east in Brazil has experienced its worst drought in the past 50 years and Typhoon Haiyan, one of the strongest storms ever to make landfall, devastated parts of the central Philippines with tragic results. The impact has also been seen in our seas and coastlines with significant threat of coastal erosion, with up to an 82 centimetre global sea level rise by the end of this century. That would displace millions and cause massive damage to important natural habitats, as well as enormous economic damage. Scotland will not be immune and we are already seeing evidence of Scotland's climate changing. Temperatures between 2003 and 2007 in Scotland were the highest since the record began in 1910. Average winter rainfall in the 1990s and 2000s was around 23 per cent higher than the 1961 to 1990 baseline, and there is a trend of increasing rainfall intensity in parts of Scotland. As recently as this past winter, Scotland experienced the devastating effects extreme weather can bring. A succession of major winter storms from mid-December to early January saw disruption across Scotland's rail network and airports, and several thousand homes without power, traffic accidents and fatalities. Dumfries and Galloway experienced severe flooding as the river Nith burst its banks, and the Gervin in Ayrshire was recorded as being the highest for 16 years. In Scotland, some places saw more than 600 millimetres of rainfall over a five-week period, and overall it was the wettest December and wettest month overall in the records dating back to 1910. Although the aggregate impacts of climate change in Scotland might be less severe than in many other parts of the world, we will be faced with new challenges. Recent evidence from the Met Office shows that, when viewed over long-term averages, the UK is expected to see more milder, wetter winters and more hotter, drier summers in the future. However, the UK has seasonal weather that also varies hugely from year to year due to natural processes. We should also plan to be resilient to wet summers and to cold winters through this century. Our climate change act is still the most ambitious piece of climate change legislation anywhere in the world, and, although there are no doubts, many challenges ahead Scotland is making progress with the biggest fall in emissions in Western Europe. However, despite our commitment to reduce emissions, the inertia of the climate systems means that some degree of further climate change is inevitable over the coming decades. That is why the Scottish Government is not only fully committed to the greenhouse gas emission targets that the act sets out, but also ensuring that Scotland is well prepared and resilient to the impacts of climate change. In doing so, it has been important to consider the statutory requirements of the climate change act when preparing the adaptation programme. The programme must set out Scottish ministers objectives in relation to adaptation to climate change, proposals and policies for meeting those objectives and the period in which they will be introduced. The programme must also set out the arrangements for involving employers, trade unions and other stakeholders in meeting Scottish ministers objectives and the mechanisms for ensuring public engagement in meeting those objectives, and the programme must also address the risks in the UK climate change risk assessment. Our programme delivers on that. In terms of where we see our role in addressing climate change, Scotland does not lack ambition. As a nation, we can all take pride in that. The impacts of climate change will affect Scotland as a whole, and we all have a role to play in ensuring that Scotland is well prepared and resilient to change. Wider engagement will be key to delivering our adaptation objectives. Adapting to the impacts of climate change will require a mixture of actions at local, national and international levels, and responsibility for adapting risks with organisations, businesses and communities across Scotland. While it is neither appropriate or feasible for the Scottish Government to directly prepare every organisation for the impacts of climate change, our adaptation programme provides a framework for everyone in Scotland to contribute towards the delivery of the objectives within their own organisation, business or community. Adaptation is about understanding and managing the risks and opportunities. It is about taking action through collective and mutual support, collaboration and partnership working, and it is about evaluation and review and being flexible in the face of uncertainty. Our programme does this by integrating adaptation within Scottish Government policies and strategies. It does this through helping people to understand and plan for the risks and opportunities that are presented by the changing climate and encouraging and facilitating partnership working, and it does this through regular monitoring and reporting. Committee scrutiny and responses to the public consultation have been invaluable in the development of the final programme, highlighting the strengths of the programme as well as areas where the programme could be developed further. Where appropriate, we have addressed those in the programme, and where that has not been possible, we will consider other areas in the longer term and for future programmes. Some areas where clarity was sought by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee and consultation respondents were on timescales, funding and responsibilities. On timescales, the schedule of work to develop and implement each policy and proposal in the adaptation programme will start from the position that the policy or proposal presently occupies in relevant Government programmes. There are inevitable uncertainties in exact timescales across the broad range of policies and proposals in the programme, which is why the programme offers a broad definition of timescales. That is consistent with the approach that was taken in the report on proposals and policies published last year. With regard to funding, we are investing in and planning for the changing climate by firmly embedding climate change adaptation and related costs into the policies and proposals that are set out in the programme. We are also providing support and core funding for adaptation through the development of a robust evidence base, including annual funding to the climate exchange adaptation research programme, programmes to develop adaptive capacity, including adaptation Scotland, and policy-specific action, including annual funding to the Scottish Flood Forum. With regard to responsibilities, while the Scottish Government as a whole is responsible for the policies and proposals in the programme, we will work collaboratively with a wide range of partners to deliver the programme work set out. Our adaptation programme contains many examples of adaptation actions in Scotland. That demonstrates that a wide range of organisations across Scotland are already taking responsibility for their share of action and working collaboratively to achieve results. Our programme provides a framework for activity, but it is not a statement on everything we are doing. The wide-ranging nature of impacts, the complex interactions and the emerging evidence means that our response must be adaptable. We should not be tied to a specific course of action. Work will continue outside of the programme as new evidence emerges and our understanding of the effects of climate change and their impacts develops. Of course, the programme is not an end in itself. Due to the inherent uncertainty in some aspects of climate change, adaptation policies need to be flexible and adjusted as and when new information becomes available. Our policies and proposals will evolve and develop during each programme, providing the flexibility needed in order to adjust to new understanding and information as it becomes available. We will use the framework set out in the programme to continue to integrate adaptation within Scottish Government policies and strategies and encourage and facilitate partnership working. This on-going development of the Scottish Government's action will be reflected in regular reports in progress and in future adaptation programmes. Work is already under way with the climate exchange and the adaptation sub-committee of the UK Committee on Climate Change to consider indicators against which progress can be assessed. I believe that Scotland's first statutory climate change adaptation programme contains a comprehensive package of measures that makes clear the Scottish Government's on-going commitment to ensuring Scottish Government policy as far as possible. It helps Scotland to adapt to the effects of climate change, creates a more resilient country for us to live and work in, and helps to protect Scotland's much-loved natural environment. In closing, I thank all those who have helped to shape the programme that we have laid before Parliament today, and I look forward to taking questions. The minister will now take questions on issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow 20 minutes or so for questions after which we need to move on to next item of business. It would be helpful if members wish to ask a question or to press it against people, but now I will call Chloe Bimyship. Scottish Government is, of course, legally required to produce the climate adaptation programme. The overarching aim being, I quote, to increase the resilience of Scotland's people, environment and economy to the impacts of climate change. However, I have to say that I am disappointed in the process this afternoon, because it really has been impossible to assess in any real sense the actual final programme, which we only received 20 minutes before this statement. I hope that there will be further opportunity in the future in the chamber to scrutinise the document. We are, I must stress, very keen to continue to work in a cross-party manner on these important long-term issues. Thus, there are some brief initial questions. How does the minister envision that the programme will help to achieve the future annual emissions targets after some initial difficulties? In the statement that the minister does highlight, I quote, a broad definition of timescales in view of the criticisms of the programme by some stakeholders being too short-term. What plans does the minister have to extend it beyond the first five years in line with the RPP structure? Monitoring is essential, and the minister agreed with the rural affairs committee, I quote, is crucial to develop indicators that effectively measure progress towards the aims and objectives. Beyond the organisations involved, can the minister give some details of what the plans are for monitoring? In the minister's statement, he recognises the challenges faced last winter. Given that roughly 18 per cent of Scotland's coastline is highly susceptible to erosion, our committee heard that careful targeting of areas is needed to make them more resilient. The minister confirmed, and I quote, that this was actually being considered by the Scottish Government. Has this been developed? Lastly, I think that you're way over time, I think that I'm being extremely generous. I might just finish with one sentence. I'll allow the minister to answer your questions. Right, thank you. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'll do my best, and I do apologise to Claudia Beamish and other members if there were technical problems getting the documents to them today, but I'll endeavour to answer the other questions that Claudia Beamish has raised if I don't get through them all. How does it help to inform the achievement of emission targets? Clearly, the more that the public understands the importance of climate change, how it's going to affect our lives, how it will affect communities, businesses and the wider society that we face through the adaptation programme and the influence that it has on behaviours, I think that that will then lock in potentially positive behavioural change to help us with our emission targets. I hope that it will help communities to understand why certain things have to happen from an adaptation point of view and, indeed, a climate mitigation point of view as well. I hope that it will set a more positive narrative that there has been perhaps in the past, but why certain investments, certain land use changes have to occur in order to facilitate climate mitigation because of the unapproved understanding of adaptation and why it's so important to us as a society. In terms of timescales, there is a mixture of timescales set out in the document. That reflects the nature of the document. It is an organic document. It will change over time. It refers to land use strategy, it refers to other key government documents that will change over time, such as planning policy and land use strategy, which is shortly to be under review, as Claudia Beamish will know. It would be a mistake to have specific text in from those documents or to be too rigid in how the document was structured. We have maintained a degree of flexibility so that it can evolve over time and reflect change as it happens. However, there are some specific details in there about Scottish Water's investment programme, page 74, which is quite specific about the timelines. Similarly, there is a historic Scotland's action plan over 2012 to 2017, but there are other areas where we have a deadline for the end of year for local strategies to be developed. In other areas, we have been more flexible because those are strategies that will be evolving and timelines are not yet certain. Of course, we do not know at this point in time exactly how climate change will unfold because a lot will depend on how much action the world takes to address climate mitigation and therefore what scenario in terms of temperature rise we face as a society. What actions will the Scottish Government take to ensure that each governmental department will put climate change and climate change adaption high enough on their agenda to effectively mitigate the public sector's environmental footprints? What can be done to incentivise peatland retention and restoration as a way of absorbing more CO2? The adaption programme suggests that parts of Scottish agriculture and forestry might experience positive change as a result of changes in our climate. Can the minister give details of what research is being done on this so that some producers might be able to benefit? Lastly, with regard to the farming for a better climate programme, how will the Government highlight the financial savings that have been achieved on the focus farms to all other farmers and crofters in order to spread best practice? I should have known better than to stand up after the first question when Jamie Greger started. I will try to answer as best I can, but I will pick up anything that I missed today. In terms of leadership, we have the Public Sector Climate Leaders Forum. At its most recent meeting, Claudia Beamish attended this as an observer for the committee, and we discussed adaptation and the five key steps that we can take in terms of the public sector to help to address adaptation. I can assure Jamie Greger that it is something that does feature in terms of the cross-government-departmental conversations about how we adapt to climate change. Indeed, the document itself had extensive input from every Government department in terms of its own specific portfolio interests to make sure that it reflected both what could be undertaken but also the risks and challenges that each area faces, and most obviously in areas such as transport, that is critical that we understand the impact and critical infrastructure energy sector in other areas and then get feed in from the specialist. That has been a core part of producing the document that was laid before Parliament today, by assuring Jamie Greger that we will continue that cross-portfolio engagement and adaptation. Farming for better climate, I know that the cabinet secretary was making an announcement today about further funding for that. It is certainly a very important programme, and just to give a flavour of it, I know that at least two of the monitoring farms had between them 11 and 10 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, and financial benefits to their underlying business as well. It is not only good for the environment but very good for them as businesses, but I will undertake to give further feedback on the points that Mr Greger raised. We have 11 backbenchers who wish to ask a question of the minister. Can I ask at the questions—a short i.e. one question—and can I ask at the answers, an equally brief? Rob Gibson, followed by Cara Hilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Turning to the climate ready society section, this adaptation programme includes the need for effective public engagement in meeting the adaptation objectives. Can the minister expand on the triggers that will make action possible beyond Government so that the crucial involvement of families, communities, public bodies, private business and local authorities are taken into account? Rob Gibson is very right to raise this. I alluded to it in my opening remarks, but clearly communities, businesses and individuals all have an extremely important role to play, and if we can, as I was responding to Claudia Beamish's influence on behaviours in adaptation, it will have a knock-and-impact on tackling climate change itself. Public bodies and local authorities can play a vital role in helping to support communities and businesses in that respect. The Scottish Government is helping to facilitate that in a number of ways, principally through providing leadership. Obviously, we have the public sector climate leaders forum that I referred to in answering Jamie Greger and our support for the 2020 climate group, which provides strategic direction for action in the business sector. We can provide advice and guidance through the adaptation of Scotland, who work with public bodies, organisations and communities to take action, and our support for climate change on working with a range of stakeholders in specific research projects and pilots. Obviously, we want to provide financial support to measures such as climate challenge fund to help communities at a local level. Thank you. How does the climate change adaptation programme relate to Low Carbon Scotland's behaviour framework, and how will that be monitored? It is a good point that is raised there by Cara Hilton, because we have, certainly in outlining our action on climate mitigation, played a lot of strength on ISM, the individual social material modelling tool, which helps the Government to understand what the implications are in terms of behavioural triggers for change in terms of climate mitigation, but also in terms of adaptation. We can equally apply that approach in understanding the individual circumstances, the social context in which people are living and working, and, indeed, the material triggers some regulatory powers and things that may trigger a change in behaviour. Understanding the behavioural aspects of climate policy helps us to inform Government and other public sector agencies and, indeed, business how they can best influence that behaviour in a positive way. Certainly, ISM, which I'm happy to—if the member has not already got information, I'm happy to provide that to her, so she's got further detail. Minister, can you provide further information on the support and funding for adaptation? Well, indeed, the adaptation funding, we have outlined already a good degree of work in terms of flood risk management. As the member knows, we ride £42 million a year through local government capital settlement on flood protection, but, in addition to that, we have to provide support to public bodies in terms of implementing the climate change duties. Guidance on fulfilling, we provide informational guidance in terms of climate change adaptation duties and how they can comply with them. Guidance for public third and business sector partners is disseminated through Adaptations Scotland, which we provide core funding to the five steps to managing your climate risks that are referred to in response to Jamie Mcgregor, business climate risk management plan and supporting communities through a new resource. Are you ready and direct engagement with communities? We also provide core funding for development of a robust evidence base—about £1 million annually—to fund climate exchange adaptation research programme. The programme is to develop adaptive capacity, including funding of around £1,000,000 for Adaptations Scotland to help organisations and communities, and policy specific actions, including annual funding of £140,000 to the Scottish Flood Forum to help them to support communities that are affected by flooding or at risk of flooding. Jane Baxter, Followschurch Stevenson. Can the minister reassure the chamber that the mechanisms are in place to ensure that the Scottish Government and partners are able to assess how to adapt and respond to the needs at hand and to new research as it arises, as I argue by the Scottish Environment Link? Research is clearly very important, and that is why we fund climate exchange to undertake the work that was outlined earlier. It is very important to emphasise that we have, both in terms of the leadership forum that we held last year to discuss with business and public sector stakeholders and community stakeholders, how we work together to show leadership in climate change. However, as I say, the Public sector climate leaders forum, which has just been re-established and which the Rural Affairs Committee has observed a role in it, is a very important forum for us to identify how we can work together and learn from each other in terms of whether there is an issue that is perhaps happening. In the private sector, the public sector can learn from and vice versa in terms of steps that have been taken. Therefore, we do not have to reinvent the wheel. There are lots of good behaviours already happening. Indeed, councils, not ones necessarily, are always under the SNP control that are doing very good things. I would like to make sure that we disseminate good practice and make sure local authorities across the country are sharing that knowledge and making sure that we are taking forward. Research, both informal and formal, is very important, but sharing information and best practice is also crucial to making sure that we achieve quick results in terms of both adapting and mitigating climate change. I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of interests in relation to my membership of the IAM. In relation to objective B312, improving driver skills, is the minister aware that driving 10 miles an hour slower delivers 10 per cent cash savings and 10 per cent emissions savings for only two to three per cent average speed reduction on journeys? Will the minister commission work to identify how we might take forward a response to that in a Scottish context? I certainly know that Stuart Stevenson has a long-standing interest in this issue. In terms of the issue that he raises, yes, reducing speed will have a benefit in terms of reducing emissions through fuel-efficient driving. I know that Stuart Stevenson took close interest in the issue. We are enabling people to become responsible drivers in reducing emissions and across not only speed control but other measures such as gear selection when they are more efficiently driving. We have funded energy saving trust to provide 2,000 fuel-good sessions this year, but we are also continuing to look at demand to ensure that we can support as many drivers as possible. On the specific issue about whether we commission work, I will have a discussion with Mr Brown about that. It cuts across Mr Brown's portfolio interests. I promise to raise that issue with Mr Brown and to see whether there is a possibility of looking at what the impact could be on our climate emissions targets. Sarah Boyack filled by Graham Dey. Will the minister publish the number of houses that have benefited from energy efficiency and renewables installations year by year and by local authority so that we can monitor this key ambition of the climate change act in reducing emissions and eradicating fuel poverty and enabling us to track progress and identify obstacles to progress? I certainly recognise the importance of the issue that Sarah Boyack raises. I know that it is something that is of close personal interest to her. We have discussed it before. I am happy to have a discussion with colleagues about how we can produce that kind of information. It is more about mitigation clearly than about adaptation, but it is also an adaptation impact. I see the relevance of it because we have more erratic weather and people will be exposed to poor weather conditions, as we saw in 2010, which unfortunately impacted on our achievement of targets. I see the significance of it. However, I have not gone and answered for today, but I will need to discuss with colleague Margaret Burgess what we might be able to do in terms of what the data is that is available. I can say to the member that we are looking at publishing more information in line with the requests from committees in the Parliament about how we are monitoring or progressing against RPP2, which hopefully will help to inform that kind of understanding. Extreme weather patterns ranging from intense and sustained periods of wetness to lengthy very dry spells create difficulties for the agriculture sector in Scotland. Can I ask the minister what thought, if any, has been given to encouraging water storage projects on farmland to ensure that when the heavens open, we are banking the downfall for the far less rainy days to come and thereby protecting food production? It is certainly the flip side of something that we do discuss on a regular basis, which is about how we use natural flood management to prevent flooding in communities. There are opportunities out of the recently published flood risk hazard maps that show and clearly identify areas for natural flood management, which could potentially be used as stores of water for areas that are going to suffer erratic weather conditions and periodic droughts versus flooding incidents. I am happy to meet Mr Day to see what particular ideas he may have on that regard and if there are any particular opportunities to look at that in Angus. The minister mentioned the severe flooding in the south-west of my region on the River Nith back in January. I know that the farming community has been badly affected there, and I know that the minister will be aware of an application for funding support to construct flood defences supported by Dumfries and Galloway Council. Can the minister provide an assurance that this request will be looked upon favourably? We clearly recognised a particularly stressful situation that was faced in Dumfries and Galloway over the Christmas and festive period with the announcement of additional funding for Dumfries and Galloway Council to address the damage that had been suffered to flood defences in the area. There is a longer-term issue about what we do to help communities like Dumfries and Galloway to adapt to climate change. That is why we are looking closely at options for further extending the flood warning systems in the area. We will also look sympathetically at the bids that come forward from Dumfries and Galloway Council, but they obviously have to comply with the criteria that are set in partnership with COSLA. Unfortunately, in the recent process, Dumfries and Galloway's bid was not yet complete and therefore unable to be approved at this time. However, we will look sympathetically at the needs of the communities. Nigel Dawn fell by Graham Pure. I wonder if I can just extend that. Whether the minister would agree with me that one of the consequences of large amounts of water falling out of the skies is that they come down pre-existing water courses, so we know where the major floods are actually going to be if we accept that. Would the minister agree with me that one of the things that we could best do is to ensure that the capital is spent early rather than later, because the risk is there and the sooner we can mitigate that risk, the better? I think that we get the question, minister. Well, certainly I recognise the point that has been made. Certainly both in climate mitigation and climate adaptation, there is a very good argument to make that early action does help to avoid longer-term higher costs. That is why it is important that we maintain our commitment to £42 million a year through the local government capital settlement to support flood protection investment. Given that I am sticking to Nigel Dawn, we continue to have a very high priority on that and we will look to continue to make that kind of strategic investment. Graham Pearson, then finally Alison Johnstone. Following on from the point that Nigel Dawn has just made, communities like New Cumnock and Ayrshire know from British experience investment and flood prevention and resilience as paramount. Understanding the nature of funding for flood defence is now primarily dependent on local authorities and not central government. We are aware that significant underfunding is reported by some local authorities. Is the minister aware and does he anticipate what the impact of that underfunding might be? There are on-going discussions with COSLA about how we further fund flooding in the future, so I am reassured that Mr Pearson is on that. On flood protection funding, just to put on the record, we have provided in recent years about the equivalent of three times as much funding on capital for flood protection, as is done through DEFRA in England, Wales or England, sorry, per property at risk. We are making a high level of investment relative to the scale of risk that there is in Scotland by I assure Mr Pearson that we are working closely with COSLA and how we continue to allocate funding in the future. Will a long-term approach to the management of surface water to ensure that sewer systems are resilient to climate change encourage the use of permeable landscaping and planning guidance wherever appropriate, as well as the replacement of Victorian and other aged drainage and sewer systems, which are no longer fit for purpose? In the short answer, we were sympathetic in that point. Mr Mackay is happy to look at that, and I understand the issue that has been made, certainly the concreting over of many gardens and has contributed to overloading sewers in some places, but we will happily look at the issue for Alison Johnstone. I thank the minister and the members for your co-operation. We are finished bang on time. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 10147, in the name of Helmsley-Usserv on the impact of immigration policy on higher education in Scotland. Members who wish to speak in this debate should press to request to speak buttons now, and I will give a few seconds to allow the front benches to change over. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this important issue before Parliament. Higher education is one of Scotland's greatest and most valued assets. It has a key role in supporting and developing our country, our economy, our culture and, indeed, our society. Many of us, if not most of us, benefited from a great university education. I look at the opposition front bench. I see O'Neil Bibby, Kezia Dugdale and some of us, including myself, are a little bit more recent than others. I cannot possibly comment on others across the chamber, but many of us enjoy that great university experience. Last year, the British Council's distinctive assets report identified five key features of the Scottish higher education sector. They are joined up in the collaborative sector, quality assurance and credit recognition procedures that are owned by all universities, graduate employability and employment, innovative structures and research excellence. However, today, we wish to discuss some of the negative impacts that we can already see from the United Kingdom Government's immigration policies on Scotland's higher education asset and the opportunities that an independent Scotland would provide to address that threat to our institutions. In November 2012, Professor Pete Downs, as convener of University Scotland, rightly praised the brilliant track record of excellence-driven growth and international recruitment by universities in Scotland and in the UK, but he warned and I quote, as I scan the policy horizon, it is hard to see a bigger risk or a more poisonous gun pointed at our collective success. That was his view of the rapid and negative changes to the UK's immigration system, changes that make it increasingly difficult for international students to come to Scotland and to the rest of the UK to study. Professor Downs was right then, and today his concerns are still shared across the Scottish higher education sector by this Government. One month ago today, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning set out to the Education and Culture Committee what independence will mean for his portfolio and highlighted the very real and, indeed, the very urgent need to ensure that Scottish universities can continue to attract the brightest and the best students and researchers from across the world. I am determined that we take a positive approach to establishing an immigration system that sustains and extends Scotland's brilliant track record and removes completely the threat of that poisonous gun. Scotland is a highly attractive destination for international students. 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 in many of the countries that I have personally travelled in that role. That is often mentioned to me by the highest levels of government. People know of the five institutions that we have, world-class institutions in the top 200. Scotland's research is cited by other researchers around the world more than any other country in comparison to our GDP. The British Council also highlighted last year that the overall learning satisfaction of international students in Scotland was better than that of the rest of the UK and many of our European counterparts. I can tell you that we still have that. Just last week, the student academic experience survey of 15,000 students found that, of the four home nations, Scotland had the highest level of respondents, 88 per cent, that declared themselves as fairly or very satisfied with the overall quality of their course. Add to that Scotland's natural assets, its beauty, its friendly cities, its world-renowned festivals, its great infrastructure. It is clear that this country is a wonderful place to study in a highly attractive destination for international students. I am very proud that Scotland has one of the highest proportion of international students in the world. In 2012 and 2013, there were 28,305 international students at all levels of our universities from more than 180 countries of the world. Beneath those figures, the negative impact of the UK Government's immigration policies are being seen and are being felt. The number for non-EU enrolments—the numbers for all years of study—is 0.7 per cent lower than the previous year, but that also masks a very worrying drop in new entrants from countries, particularly like Pakistan and India, two countries where traditionally they have sent high numbers of students to study in Scotland and who have enriched our lives here in Scotland over the decades. In March 2011, the UK Government announced the intention to close the post-study visa route in April 2012. In the two years since then, we have seen that the number of new entrants to Scottish higher education institutes from India decreased by 58 per cent, from Pakistan decreased by 38 per cent and from Nigeria decreased and fell by 22 per cent. Liam McArthur I am very grateful to the minister for taking intervention. Will he perhaps inform the chamber whether, since the changes to visa rules were introduced, the number of students coming from non-EU countries to study at Scottish universities has gone up or gone down? As I said, the total enrolment in the remarks earlier on is decreased by 0.7 per cent. In from India, as I said, 58 per cent, Pakistan 38 per cent and Nigeria 22 per cent. Kezia Dugdale I can help the minister by telling him that the actual number of students from outside the EU has gone up every year since 2007-08. It went up by 11 per cent in the last year alone. Unfortunately, the number of people at college, the number of international students from outside the EU going to colleges has halved. Did he regret that colleges are not featuring as part of the debate today? No, I will certainly speak about colleges as my remarks continue to go forward. Scotland's colleges provided a very good briefing on how they have also been impacted by UK based policies. I saw their brief before I came in and I will happily mention colleges as I go on. I will make some progress and I will let my good friend in later on. Those figures demonstrate, as I said, the real threat, but it is not just in Scotland that we feel that. Also, the largest decrease in England was in the first-year entrance from India. That was down 23 per cent in a single year. Daniel Stephens' NUS international students officer said that many international students feel unwelcome in the UK as a result of the Government's hostile and overzealous policies. It is not just comparisons with other parts of the UK but, if you look at Scotland's position relative to our key competitors across the globe, while the number of international students in Scottish HEIs has fallen between 2011-12 and 2012-13, the figures for our main competitors in the English speaking world and university markets has increased. 0.4 per cent growth in Australia, 7 per cent growth in the United States and 11 per cent growth in Canada. According to University of Scotland, the number of students going from India to Australia has increased by 70 per cent. I strongly believe that the crucial difference between Scotland with our falling numbers and our competitors with their strong growth is the ability to set our own immigration policies that supports and enhances our higher education sector. The view that I say is also—oh, sorry, yes, I will let my colleague in. Thank you very much. I just wondered that I know that you went to Indian Paxxan very recently and on your return I understand that the Scottish Government reduced its marketing budget by 50 per cent for Indian Paxxan. Do you think that that has had an impact and the reduction in numbers? Minister, can members remember to speak through the chair, please. The international marketing actually in Scotland, if you look at the progress that we have made, we are higher up the brand index that we have ever been before. The Lonely Planet said that we were third in the 2014 guide behind Brazil and Tartica. I think that we are doing well, even though the fact that our budget has been slightly reduced. That is a direct impact of the cuts that we have received, but still Scotland has managed to do very well. I would say that it would be ridiculous to equate that with the very overzealous and regressive immigration policies, which I know that the member also has concerns about too. The view from the sector is very much shared. Professor Anton Muscatelli wrote that the UK Government, and I quote, is trying its best to destroy a global brand. There might not be quotas for overseas students in the UK, but the impact of the Government's anti-immigration rhetoric has had the same effects. That is the view that this Government shares also. In the same article, Dr Scott Blinder, director of the Migration Observatory at Oxford University, said that its public opinion research has shown that a large majority of Scots would like Holyrood rather than Westminster to make immigration policy for Scotland. Lord Krebs, the chair of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, said in April this year, and I quote again, that the overwhelming evidence led us to conclude that changes to the immigration rules in this country have played a direct part in putting overseas students off from choosing the UK, and we call on the UK Government to overhaul its immigration policies. In particular, it needs to do away with the new rules on working after studying. I think back to my own student days and I reflect on them. I think of the many friends that I still have to this very day from across the world that enriched my university experience. The Richard Ford report by University of Scotland in September identifies a number of key qualitative benefits of internationalisation of our higher education sector, but perhaps even easier to quantify is the significant economic contribution made by international students. Scottish HEIs received an overall income of £374 million in 2012-13 from non-EU international students and their tuition fees, but international students pay accommodation fees, contribute to the Scottish economy in other ways and round about to the tune of £441 million per year. However, it has a longer-term impact on the economy of the immigration policies that are also important to take note of. The director of the Institute of Directors, David Watt, said earlier this year that we have an immigration policy in the UK that is largely led by the south-east of England, and it is a significant problem for Scotland. Not my words, but the words of David Watt from the Institute of Directors. In fact, even Theresa May over the weekend, the Home Secretary, seemed to dismiss the arbitrary cap that the UK Government has put on reducing immigration numbers by, quote, tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands. That Government completely rejects the negative rhetoric with regards to immigration and welcomes the contributions that migrants make to our society, to our economy and to our future. That is why, in Scotland's future, the white paper divisioned for an independent Scotland with our taking the responsibility of immigration, we promised to introduce a controlled immigration system, but one that meets our social, economic and cultural needs in an important part of that will be the reintroduction of the post-study work visa. That fresh talent visa is so popular that it was first introduced in 2004 by the previous administration, one that we welcomed enthusiastically at the time, so popular that it was replicated by the rest of the UK, but for that crude arbitrary cap that the present UK Government wishes to fulfil, of course, it removed and withdrew that post-study work visa. That is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. International students and some of our universities tell me that they value very much and valued that post-study work visa. Wherever I travel across the world and countries like India and Pakistan in particular, there is, if nothing else, at least a very negative perception that the UK is closing its borders. In conclusion, I am clear that the current UK approach on immigration is damaging Scotland's ability to compete in the international student market. Scotland is a welcoming place, open for academic and research business, and more than willing that those talents stay with us for those who wish to build careers here and build livelihoods here. Student migration is positive for Scotland in economic terms, academic terms, social terms and cultural terms, too. With the levers that independence will afford us, we will be able to move away from that negative rhetoric of the UK Government and its restrictive immigration policies. We will also be in a stronger position to promote Scotland and her universities overseas with a dedicated diplomatic trade network, as well. We will ensure that the immigration policies that we introduce, including the post-study work visa, will allow Scotland to attract and retain world-class talent, contributing to our education system and the Scottish economy. I move the motion. The Labour Party always welcomes the chance to discuss how we improve higher education in Scotland, and we therefore welcome the debate this afternoon and the opportunity to examine the role that immigration plays in our higher education system. On the side of the chamber, we recognise the important role that international students play and also make clear our opposition to the coalition's Government's approach to immigration, particularly with regard to higher education, but also to raise our belief that the Scottish Government could also be doing more to attract international students. Much of the Government's motion today touches on the damaging effect of the Tory-led UK Government's immigration policies on universities, and I do not disagree, but it would be extremely naive to believe that it is only our universities that are facing up to this challenge. I share the view of Mary Senior from the universities and college union, who told the education and culture committee in the 25th of March that the UK Government's immigration policy is holding back not only universities in Scotland, but universities right across the UK. The Labour Party acknowledges the huge contribution that immigrants have made to Scotland and the UK over many decades and continue to make today to our universities and colleges. I mention colleges deliberately, Presiding Officer, because the Scottish Government has yet again ignored further education in its motion today. To colleges Scotland briefing for this debate highlighted that there has been a significant drop in the number of foreign students in our colleges, but when the Scottish Government has overseen a staggering 140,000 cut in the number of students from anywhere going to college in Scotland, that should not come as a surprise. That trend needs to be urgently addressed and it is the Scottish Government that is responsible for that trend. It is precisely because the Labour Party recognises the positive contribution that international students make to our education system and our communities that the First Minister, Jack McConnell's administration, introduced the fresh talent initiative in 2004. The fresh talent initiative was a bespoke programme designed specifically to address the biggest challenge facing Scotland, a declining population. Central to the initiative was the plan to allow overseas graduates from Scottish universities to express an intention to live and work in Scotland to stay on for two years following the completion of their course to seek employment. It is important to recognise that that requires the Scottish executive working to secure the powers to do so within a devolved Parliament. Despite what the Scottish Government says, we can agree that the situation that we have at present is simply unacceptable, whereby an administration may well introduce something as laudable as the fresh talent initiative, only for another UK Government to come and completely withdraw it against the very interests of Scotland. It may not be better to have the power here to retain it so that no other Parliament and no other Government could get rid of that policy intention. I think that it would surprise the minister a great deal if I was to suggest that we should become independent and have our own immigration policy. I do not subscribe to that view, because despite what the Government says, we can week out. It goes to show where there is political will to achieve change. That is possible. That was what was achieved back in 2004. What is more, although only announced in February 2004, the fresh talent working Scotland scheme was operated by the following summer and covered students who were graduating that year. On this side of the chamber, we are proud that we took that approach in 2004. We are proud that we secured the agreements to make that happen as quickly as it did in 2005. In 2008, as the minister said, the scheme was taken over by the UK wide scheme that looked to bring immigrants in a positive, engaging way. Our connection with that initiative and our commitment to encouraging international students to help Scotland flourish is all the more reason why we disagree with the changes that the coalition Government has made since. However, the success in creating fresh talent initiative shows that we can tackle that issue using the force of political will and using creative policies. The First Minister was talking about— I agree with his point about the importance of political will, but can we concede that an infinite amount of political will is of little assistance when there is no constitutional power with which to use it? No. The reason for that is, if members will care to listen, the First Minister was talking about Wales today. He was talking about Wales in terms of the NHS. Perhaps the Scottish Government should look at Wales in terms of attracting international students and see what lessons can be learned there. In Wales, Labour has the largest proportion of international postgraduates in the UK at 41 per cent, compared with 36 per cent in Scotland. After the coalition Government brought in end to the fresh talent initiative in 2010-11, many would have expected to see a drop in overseas students coming to study here. The various statistics have already been mentioned. On the view of the figures, it suggests that the number of international students the following year of 2011-12 rose 2 per cent from 27,880 to 28,500. However, I accept, as the minister has said, that we need to look at that in detail because there is a variance in levels from different countries. In looking at those statistics, we must acknowledge that, as the Tory amendment does, the student visa system has been open to abuse in some circumstances. We need to look closely at the issue of temporary student visitors for short courses, if they are being abused and Labour accepts that. I know that that is in the Conservative amendment, and I am sure that all parties would agree with that. The SNP wants to use this debate to talk about the coalition's immigration policy as a threat to the future of our higher education system. As proud as I am of Labour's delivery of the very system that has been rolled back, the numbers show that overseas students are continuing to come here to study. Indeed, their numbers continue to increase after the change in the system. As much as I disagree with the Government's policies, that is what the statistics show. However, we do fear that it could be damaging over time. However, the reality that we believe is that independence is the biggest threat to higher education in Scotland. Just two weeks ago, I spoke in a debate on life sciences and highlighted the benefits to Scotland of a single research system across the UK—a funding system that gives a disproportionate level of research funding to our excellent universities. The facts speak for themselves. In 2012-13, Scottish higher education institutions secured £257 million of UK research council grants. That represents 13.1 per cent of the UK total, which is significantly more than our 8 per cent of UK gross domestic product and 8.4 per cent of the UK population. The reality is that the best way to keep being part of the UK research council funding is to keep being part of the UK. It would also be remiss not to recognise the positive role that UK embassies play in promoting our universities around the world. The foreign and commonwealth office operates in more than 170 countries, given our universities a global presence and actively encouraging people from all over the world to come to Scotland and study. Leaving the UK means leaving the global network. I certainly give way on that point. Why does a member, while reflecting on the good work that is done by UK embassies, think that an independent Scotland's Scottish embassies that promote Scotland 365 days a year would be incapable of doing that job in a much better scale? I think that the UK embassies promote the UK and Scotland freedoms in 65 days a year. However, the fact is that they are operated in 170 countries. I welcome perhaps more details from you, minister, on how many embassies an independent Scotland is going to have, because it certainly is not going to be the same level that we have in the United Kingdom at the moment. We do want to attract foreign students. We want to make it possible for people from overseas to come to Scotland to work, study and live. We want Scotland to be a welcoming and inclusive country, as I am sure everyone in the chamber does. That is why we believe that it is counterintuitive for the Scottish Government to want to discriminate against English, Welsh and Northern Irish students if Scotland was to become independent. Not only is there a white paper policy of charging students from the rest of the UK tuition fees, but not other EU students are legal under EU law. The reality of independence is that our higher education funding will be left with a massive black hole of at least £150 million as a result of that. Where is the money going to fill that gap? Our ambition is to see an open and welcome and tolerant Scotland, which does not discriminate on the grounds of nationality. I noticed in his opening remarks that the minister did not refer to that part of our amendment. The member uses the phrase discrimination on grounds of nationality. He will, of course, be aware that both Belgium and Austria have made very similar arguments to those being advanced by the Scottish Government on objective justification for discrimination, not on the grounds of nationality but on the grounds of residency when it comes to students from other parts of the EU. Neil Bibby, I can give you another minute to come to a conclusion. In terms of the arguments around residency, I refer the member to the recent spice briefing on our UK tuition fees and the University of Scotland legal advice, which the Cabinet Secretary for Education relates to, which says, that any residency requirement, if objective justification could be argued and successfully, which there are very major doubts about, the residence requirement would need to apply to all students, not just those residents in other parts of the UK, essentially meaning what is said in the white paper is inaccurate. Presiding Officer, in order to achieve our ambitions for higher education, we must face up to the challenges that currently exist within the sector. We have the worst drop-out rate, the worst retention rate and damling the low levels of student support. Scottish students are being let down by the Scottish Government. Whilst recognising the issue of student visas that needs to be addressed by the UK Government, I would urge the Scottish Government to address the important issues that it is responsible for in higher and further education. Presiding Officer, in closing, we want to have a system of higher education and further education in Scotland, which is out looking and meets the needs of our students. We recognise the difficulties faced by our universities across the UK as a result of the coalition Government's policy, but we also know that something can be done about it here and now. The stakes for higher education institutions are high and the students are high. We hope that the UK Government and the Scottish Government will work together, as Labour did in Government, to address the issues that our students face. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my own name. I am grateful to the minister for bringing this debate to Parliament. It is important to debate this topic, and it is a controversial one. Just like yesterday's debate that we had in the chamber on childcare, it is important to debate it in the context of what is right for our higher education institutions, rather than just in the context of the referendum debate. Notwithstanding the past and current ability of the sector to attract international students in what is an increasingly competitive international market, one cannot fail to listen to the warnings from university principals and university Scotland and indeed universities UK who have deep-seated concerns about some aspects of current Westminster policy, which they see as unnecessarily restrictive. If the cabinet secretary was here, he would know that from two public debates that we have had on this issue in recent times, one I think was on the BBC and the other one in Dundee University in the presence of Peter Downs, I agree with some of those concerns. I made those plans to David Willits and to Theresa May on separate occasions back in 2012. In particular, I think that our universities are absolutely right to be concerned about the lack of flexibility within the timescales for the award of visas and, just as important, the lack of transparency when it comes to visa refusals. Most especially for PhD research staff contracts, which run beyond an 18-month period. Indeed, I think that it is these two issues that have been so central to the concerns of many of the universities in Scotland, since they leave doubt in the minds of students and staff about post-study work arrangements and they can hinder future planning and investment. I heard those concerns from myself probably most forcibly in the Aberdeen medical school and they have also featured at cross-party groups on colleges and universities in this Parliament. So there is a real issue and I hope that it is not too late for the Home Secretary to pay attention to the extent of the concern included that raised within six Westminster committees that international students should not be included in the UK Government's net migration targets, because it is simply not acceptable that restrictions mean that our post-study work—or what is called tier 1 arrangements—is not on the same competitive basis as it is in countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I personally believe that the University of Scotland makes a very strong case for extending the length of time that international graduates are given to get a job, not indefinitely—that would not be acceptable, but certainly by at least a year. That said, I think that it is very important to set this whole debate in context and to spell just some of the myths that have crept into the debate. That is not just myths from political parties. I think that there has been a lot of misunderstanding about the issue. Neil Bibby is quite right to say that this has its foundation actually in a debate about colleges, because the UK Government, the coalition Government took action because the number of bogus students who were entering further and higher education created considerable difficulties. It was not just a case of the actual students. As we all know, there were some bogus colleges as well. For me, immigration policy needs to be balanced. It needs to be wholly welcoming to those who can make a substantial economic, social and cultural contribution to their institutions just as the minister has outlined and to their wider community. However, it should be punitive towards those who merely wish to take advantage of it for their own ends. There is no question that, four or five years ago, that was the case. If last week's European elections tell us anything, it has demonstrated how careful politicians have to be when it comes to handling the whole issue of immigration and the rhetoric that accompanies it. Of course. I thank the member for giving way and I welcome thus far her speech in her comments, but it is not that very point that is fundamental. You have to challenge the negative rhetoric that often comes with immigration—it is a very sensitive issue. We saw that in the European elections that she talks about. Up here in Scotland, the Government has been unashamed in challenging that rhetoric, and therefore we won the European elections with UKip in fourth place. Other parties have panned into that and substantially got beat in the European elections. Does she not think that it is time to challenge it as opposed to conform to that rhetoric? I am sorry, but I do not really accept that particular analysis. I agree with the minister—indeed, it is—but I think that we have to be very sensitive about the issue of immigration and the rhetoric that has gone with it. What I am pointing out in terms of the actual policy development is that the reason that the Westminster Government has had to take significant cuts and changes on the migration issue is because of the extent of the influx. It was an influx between 2008 and 2009 of bogus students. That is the central issue here. That is why this policy was put in place. That is not acceptable to any of our institutions. I do not believe that that is acceptable to any of our political parties, but it is not good for our higher and further education institutions if those bogus students are able to take advantage of it, because that is a disadvantage to those who are able to do that. In the last minute that I have, the fresh talent initiative is a very important one. That was a Scottish innovation. It is something that I believe ought to come back. I think that the doctorate extension scheme, which is now being brought in, is a good thing. I think that the graduate entrepreneur route into PhD thresholds is something that ought to come back. However, let us be absolutely clear about this. The problems that we have must be set in context, because if we do not do that, then we are going to end up in very considerable difficulty. It is not helpful to say that everything about immigration policy and everything else about coalition government politics is bad for our universities. That is completely untrue. I move the amendment in my name. I thank the minister for bringing this debate to Parliament. Let me start, as others have done, by acknowledging the impressive track record that our universities have when it comes to attracting students from all over the world. By any measure, in a highly competitive environment, this record of success is no coincidence and reflects the high quality of the learning, the research and the overall student experience for which our universities are rightly renowned. In return, as University of Scotland reminds us in its briefing, those international students contribute an estimated £800 million in fees and wider expenditure within our economy. More than that, they provide a cultural and social infusion to our universities that undoubtedly broadens, deepens and enriches the learning experience for Scotland's almost all students. The issue matters, and it matters that we find ways to enable our universities to deliver greater success in future against the backdrop of increased competition from a host of other countries. On that, there will be unanimity across the chamber, and I can assure the minister that, like Liz Smith, in what I thought was an excellent contribution, he will find no disagreement from me that aspects of current UK immigration policy and the way in which the debate around immigration is framed at times are acting as an obstacle to achieving the subjective. My amendment quotes my colleague the business secretary, Vince Cable, who has been particularly critical, as have I, about the inclusion of students in the net migration figures. Given the wider policy in terms of net migration, this has the potential to send both conflicting signals and inhibits the development of sensible policy on higher education. However, we should also be clear, and here I think that the minister and the education secretary need to take care that they are not part of the problem. There is no cap on genuine students coming to Scotland or the rest of the UK from outwith the European Union, none at all. When universities in Scotland talk about the risks associated with the perception of UK Government policy, they should give Mr Russell and Mr Yousaf pause for thought that, in their eagerness to demonise all things UK, they could be accused of contributing to those very same risks. Mr Russell's assertions at the education committee recently said that international student numbers at Scottish universities have gone down since visa rules changed back in 2010. We are wrong. The numbers have gone up, albeit not as much as one would have hoped, and with a worrying drop, as the minister rightly pointed out, from key countries such as Pakistan and India. However, it is an illustration of the dangers of Mr Russell's approach, as well as further evidence of a somewhat cavalier attitude when it comes to knowing whether figures are going up or down. I give way to the minister. I regret what the member has to say. When I was in India and questioned on that, I put right some of the misconceptions—you can read that in the times of India and some of the interviews that are still there. However, does he not agree with Professor Anton Muscatelli—not us—that the UK Government is trying its best to destroy a global brand? There might not be quotas for overseas students, but the impact of the UK Government's anti-immigration rhetoric has had the same effect. Does he disagree, then, with Anton Muscatelli? Liam McArthur. I have just set out the evidence to the contrary. To an extent, while I understand the concerns of Anton Muscatelli and others in the sector, I think that we need to be careful with the language that we use. I agree that changes to policy, presentation and perception are an instance of higher education across the UK, including here in Scotland. It has also reflected in Liz Smith's amendment, not least in relation to the need for greater flexibility in the student visa system. Liberal Democrats helped to secure improvements just over a year ago, enabling an extension to post-study work, yet we need to go further, recognising that countries such as Australia, the US and Canada have up their offer in increasing their attractiveness to international students as a result. I will continue to argue the case for change, change that enjoys cross-party support as the University of Scotland acknowledges, where the consensus falls apart as ever is over the nationalist insistence that, only by breaking up the UK, can this situation be improved. That is not only untrue, it actually offers a potentially toxic remedy, as Neil Bibby's amendment rightly identifies. For example, leaving the UK, we have put at risk our ability to access critical research funding. Scottish universities currently punch well above their weight in the context of UK research council allocations, as well as funding from major UK charities. The council's Professor Boyle has told this Parliament that there is no international precedent for the scale of research collaboration across borders. While no one is questioning that Scottish universities currently attract a proportionately higher share of funding based on the excellence of their research, it is naive to pretend that those arrangements would simply continue to be unaffected for Scotland to lead the UK. Indeed, I suspect that the SNP knows this. Why else would they feel the need to misrepresent the views of Professor Boyle as they have? Restricting the access of our universities to the vast network of UK activity? He says misrepresenting. The quote is pretty clear. I do not know if the member has had a chance to see it or not see it, but it is a pretty clear quote if I can find it. The quote here from Professor Boyle says, We strongly support Scotland retaining its position in a single research ecosystem. We would like to see a single research system continue whether there is a yes vote for independence or not. In which way is that possible? Liam McArthur, and I will give you time back. Thank you very much. I am sure that he would, as indeed we would all, but I think that what he also goes on to say is that there is no international precedent for it and therefore it is naive to simply assume that it would take place. Restricting access of our universities to the vast network of UK embassies, consulates and overseas trade support would also do nothing to enhance the ability of our HE sector to compete for students in this highly competitive environment. As for nationalist claims that students from elsewhere in the UK would continue to be charged tuition fees for studying Scotland, the commission has made quite clear such discrimination would be illegal under EU law, saddling Scottish ministers with a bill of around £150 million. There is even evidence that the appeal of our universities to international students could be diminished by our not being part of this union. Roddick Campbell last week raised concerns, highlighted in a recent survey of international students about independence, but Mr Russell chose to entirely ignore this question, presumably on the basis that such impertinence from Government-backed benchers is not worthy of a response. Of course, the answer that Mr Campbell should have received is that the concerns he raised are valid and underscore the importance of retaining what the authors of the survey called brand UK. That said, as I have already accepted that this is not an argument for the status quo, we need a change in the rhetoric and a more consistently positive welcoming message and in that context I agree with University of Scotland that the Prime Minister's statements in India were helpful, more of that is needed. In terms of policy while stability is desirable, again we need to see further movement. Students should be taken out of the net migration figures and improvements to post study work opportunities provided. The previous fresh talent initiative shows what can be done and we could do worse than look at that model once again. In conclusion, I recognise the economic, social and cultural benefits that we gain from our universities being able to attract large numbers of international students. Likewise, I understand and accept the sector's concerns about how their efforts to do more in this area are being constrained and I will continue to do what I can on a cross-party basis to help to deliver the changes that we need to see. The SNP needs to accept that independence is not the answer to every question or the solution to every problem. Indeed, in this case, the medicine that the SNP is presiding is simply a poison pill and I move the amendment in my name. Many thanks. We turn to the open debate speeches of up to six minutes please. Jim Eadie to be followed by Jane Baxter. Thank you Presiding Officer. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this afternoon's debate which is an opportunity to recognise the vital contribution that international students make to higher education, research excellence, the wider economy and the cultural diversity of Scotland. Scottish universities have an excellent track record of attracting international students and have a teaching and research offer which allows them to compete successfully in a fiercely competitive global recruitment environment. Scotland arrives huge social, economic and cultural benefit from the 28,500 international students that study in our 19 universities and higher education institutions. The economic impact of international students to Scotland is estimated by universities Scotland at £337 million every year in fees and an estimated £441 million a year in off-campus expenditure. 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 Edinburgh Napier University, both of which have campuses within my constituency. Over 30 per cent of Edinburgh Napier's student population are international and the University of Edinburgh has perhaps the largest total cohort of international students in Scotland. According to their most recent annual review of 2012-13, 12 per cent of their students are EU domiciled, excluding the UK, and 27 per cent are internationally domiciled, excluding the EU. One of the strengths of the higher education sector in Scotland that contributes to Scotland having some of the world's top-ranking universities is its ability to attract and retain some of the finest academics and researchers from across the world. Scotland performs very well in foreign direct investment, leading the way in the UK on projects and jobs created outside of London. Our universities are among the key pool factors that contribute to Scotland's attractiveness to investors with their key outputs of skills and research, cited by almost half of all companies as a key reason for their investment in Scotland. As the MSP for two universities, I wish to highlight the issue of UK immigration policy and its effect on higher education in Scotland. The university sector in Scotland speaks with one clear voice that the UK's regressive policy on student immigration and its obsession with lowering immigration from outside the EU presents a real and immediate threat to the entire higher education sector in Scotland. It is encouraging that, on that point, there appears to be a consensus across the chamber this afternoon. That point was made forcefully by Universities Scotland, which has stated, that the UK's visa regime is now significantly more restrictive than that applied by a range of competitor nations who are vigorously seeking to attract talented learners from around the world. That places the UK, including Scotland, at a competitive disadvantage. Key competitors such as the United States, Canada and Australia have continued to expand their international student numbers, as Liam McArthur acknowledged. Between 2011-12 and 2012-13, international student numbers in three other key English-speaking university markets increased, with 0.4 per cent growth in Australia, 7 per cent growth in the United States and 11 per cent in Canada. The fact is that the number of first-year students studying at Scottish universities has fallen significantly. According to the UK Higher Education Statistics Authority, applications, as the minister said earlier, from India fell by 58 per cent, from Pakistan by 38 per cent and from Nigeria by 22 per cent. That fall in admissions from some of the most important emerging economies from around the world not only places a stranglehold on a valuable revenue stream for Scottish universities but also threatens to damage Scotland's well-deserved and hard-earned international reputation. It is ironic that a recent survey of universities UK of international student recruitment offices in higher education institutions across the UK found that only 30 per cent of Scottish institutions were meeting their own targets for international student recruitment. That demonstrates that there is the capacity within institutions to recruit higher numbers of international students, but that ambition is not supported by the current policy environment. The Scottish Government's white paper pledges to take a different approach to immigration from that of the Westminster Government. The Scottish Government quite rightly sees immigration as an aid to healthy population growth in Scotland. Unlike those on the far right of politics, I do not believe that Scotland is full and our immigration policy and our attitude towards international students should reflect our values as a welcoming and inclusive modern country. Reflecting on the UK's policy of curbing the entry of international students, Professor Anton Muscatelli, principal of Glasgow University, stated that the policy was 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. Presiding Officer, given the positive benefits to Scotland's economy, culture and society, the impact that our universities make across the world and Scotland's reputation as a country that welcomes those from overseas with open minds and open arms, I cannot but agree wholeheartedly with Professor Muscatelli. I thank the Scottish Government for bringing forward this debate. It is an issue that is rightly at the forefront of minds across this chamber. I would also like to make the minister aware that, like my Labour colleagues, I have a degree but I gave my degree as a mum who was working full-time at the time. I went to Napier College, which became a university class that I was there. I am very grateful for the opportunities that I got at that college and probably would not be here today had I not got that chance in life and that chance to work really hard. In that sense, it makes me even more disappointed that only higher education is mentioned in the motion. It flags up a little bit of the SNP's attitude towards Scotland's colleges, an attitude that has delivered unprecedented cuts in college budgets and therefore opportunities of people like me for progression, especially for those returning to the workforce, upskilling or from traditionally marginalised groups. As my colleague Neil Bibby has outlined, the current decisions that have been made by Governments in both Holyrood and Westminster have resulted in drastically fewer foreign students attending our colleges and numerical and financial impact much greater than on our elite universities. With that caveat that I think we should be talking about much more than just higher education in this debate, I would like to speak to several interrelated points in the rest of my time. The first is that I share the Government's concerns about the impact of the current Conservative immigration policy. In particular, I have concerns about including students within the blanket immigration cap. This policy treats all legal immigration in the same way as something bad for Britain that should be reduced and that's wrong. I and the Labour Party strongly believe that it's deeply damaging to the UK's diversity and economy that the number of fee-paying overseas students has fallen at a time when international market of universities in comparable countries is growing. That's why university students should be removed entirely from the net migration target. Secondly, however, I'd like to emphasise that, as always, changing the constitution is not the way to solve these problems. In this area, to achieve social justice, erecting a border is not the place to start or end. The solution is to elect a Government for the whole of the UK that is committed to exempting university students from any net migration target, creating a managed system that is in Britain's interests, and it just so happens that we've got a political party that can do that in 2015. We don't need independence to implement positive policies that make allowances for Scotland's differences, while still allowing us to be part of a strong partnership in research and teaching. In the past, we created schemes in which we cooperate rather than simply take pointed stances against the UK Government. Indeed, it's in the Government's motion today that a post-work study visa scheme is needed to meet Scotland's educational, social and economic ambitions, and I couldn't agree more that such a programme can work. However, where I differ with the Government is that I know that such a system can work under devolution. We saw such a system implemented in Scotland—fresh talent—in 2005, following the exact kind of co-operation between the UK and Scottish Governments that I've been talking about. That scheme was continued through to 2008 when it became such a success that it was rolled out across the entire UK, but sadly it was withdrawn by the Conservatives in 2012. When we do have Governments willing to engage each other and co-operate, then we can ensure, as we emphasise on our devolution commission, that we properly account for distinct Scottish needs. In other countries, too, we see allowances being made for the different needs of areas, including systems in Australia and Canada. In our devolution commission report, we identified that there are some barriers to setting up schemes like those, but that we ultimately believe that recent and agreed variations between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom are justifiable and workable. Fresh talent has shown us a way forward through co-operation. It is up to the Scottish Government to show that it is willing to agree. The third point that I would like to make is one that I think the SNP should reflect on, as it is crucial to the proposed immigration and higher education policy. Hust all of the discussion today has focused on international migration, the Scottish Government's proposals on international and EU fee situation, post independence, has in particular been doubted by many. I find it shocking that a Government that paints itself as open and egalitarian, wishing to co-operate with the rest of the UK post-separation, is happy to discriminate against those from one specific other state. Our nation's most respected academics, including the chair of European Union law at Edinburgh University, have lined up to criticise the white paper's failure to unpick the layered system of derogation and justification. The legal test is not simply an attempt to show objective justification that some SNP members would have us believe, rather that the newly independent Government would have to show that their policy is not directly discriminatory. Direct discrimination simply cannot be justified by any objective justification. It is a much narrower set of derogations that are allowed. The Scottish Government has not even attempted to engage in what derogations it may seek following independence and because the residence requirements outlined only target those from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, it seems that even the objective justifications that Mr Russell has outlined in the past rest on a shugly peg. The European Court has only once accepted in Bresel and others that a member state can limit access to university courses and even then this is in the specific circumstances related to public health, not cost grounds. The prospect of a blanket treatment on residence of one single member state being found proportionate are frankly a little far fetched and it is unfair not to face up to this major challenge prior to September. Thank you. Thank you very much and I now call George Adam to be followed by Christina McKelvie. Thank you Presiding Officer. I welcome today's debate and I always welcome the fact that Scottish to debate the Scottish Government's record in higher education and the value contribution of international students. I'll incidentally say at this stage Presiding Officer I don't have a degree but I still value what it can give to our community because in Scotland's towns and cities throughout the country the international students are making that difference not just economically but also as part of our society and one of the things I always get a difficult time in here because people say I always talk as if all roads lead to Paisley but it's what I know and it's what I've experienced over the years and UWS in Paisley obviously had to do well when it comes to international students. We've managed to retain quite a few of the students over the years as well and also from the point of view that we'll be even in Renfrewshire Council every single year they have a get-together acalia welcome to the town sponsored by Renfrewshire Council in order to actually try and encourage them to enjoy town most of the time these events are actually alcohol free which is something we could all possibly learn ourselves when you see how much they enjoy the actual event as well as they get involved in Scotland's culture but they come over here because of our establishments because of the experience that they can actually get from that and one of the things is where I mentioned earlier on is you know what what do they actually give to Scotland well around £441 million of campus expenditure in my own constituency the university makes a massive contribution to the town in itself because we now have moved there was a situation where a couple of years ago the students and international students were outside in the outside of the town now they've got a campus in the centre of town where they can stay as well and that's made a difference that was designed in order to make sure that we could get people to actually stay within the town and I think that that's an important part when you're encouraging students from abroad as well as the fact that you're welcoming they want to be part of your community as well so not only are they a part of our community I would just like to mention some of the things that have been said during this debate here like the fresh talent initiative you know the SNP were extremely supportive when the for the previous Scottish executive put that forward and thought it was way forward it was adopted by the the Westminster Government as adapted slightly some would say watered down but it was adapted by the Westminster Government but then the problem is the situation is it was taken away by another Westminster Government now I said this yesterday but we constantly hear this argument in Scotland is one more push for a Labour Administration and we'll make all things different now Labour members in here accuse us of saying that independence will be the answer to everything well I'm accusing them of saying another Labour Government will make everything better and it doesn't happen it clearly does not happen every single time they've had opportunities it ends up the same Westminster compass going back and forward between the big two parties so our ideals our belief is to actually try and make things different take that great talent take these abilities of these students are coming from all over the world saying that scotland wants scotland is open for business and we want to actually be part of the global economic world you know one of the things that was said by during the evidence that we received in the education committee was the most academic said that you know the academic world sees no boundaries they actually work with each other all the time and what this is very important when you talk about research and the fact that Professor Peter Boyle who actually said I was there he did say that we strongly support Scotland retaining its position as a single research ecosystem we would like to see a single research system continue whether there is a yes vote for independence or not because that makes sense because that's been sensible because our excellence in our universities for research does not become non excellent if I use a Bill and Ted almost reference there overnight we will still retain that level of excellence no one will stop coming to your door to actually ask you to go be involved in the research it's quite obvious it's quite simple but again it's and I'm seeing this lightly because I think we can all find some form of we working together in all this it's just another more of the scare tactics and the negativity we are saying that the opportunity for us to be able to actually be part of the world move things forward is if we have independence and we can take full control of this yes we will Liz Smith I think the member for taking intervention there are no scare tactics no I'm sorry there are no scare tactics what I'm asking is how would the subscription system of academic research in an independent Scotland exceed that of the research that you would get under the current system George Adam negotiations are negotiations and things would actually be sorted out during that period because having been in a position in a former life where negotiation was quite important part of it I'm pretty sure that things could be sorted out eventually but what I want to say here is that you know when some of the members say about discriminate against UK students when we talk about the objective justification it's complete nonsense it's complete nonsense because as certain members were told quite bluntly at the education committee it's about residency it's about residency it's not about actually saying that there's any discrimination well yes it should be fun mr bibby conform your policy if it's not about discriminating the grounds of nationality it's about discriminating the grounds of residency George Adam briefly now an objective justification is exactly what the argument is you know I think mr bibby makes a demolishment of his own argument when he talks about these things here you know because at the end of the day we have to look at this situation so what I'm saying presiding officer is we have to look at a mature way of taking this forward the only way I see it is for Scotland to be independent take the full controls I don't believe this non-stop Labour Tory nonsense down south is going to do us any better anywhere else thanks now call on Christina McKelvie to be followed by Stuart Maxwell six minutes please thank you very much presiding officer the topic of immigration has preoccupied most of the UK during the EU elections with the wall to wall media coverage of UK we in Scotland have also been subjected to a tirade of one subject campaigning all of it completely distorts the reality here only since 2003 have the number of people coming to Scotland consistently exceeded the number of those leaving it will take us quite a while to make up the deficit nor has the natural population growth helped to make up for the loss of people to emigration England's position interestingly is diametrically opposed while we added an average of just 2,667 people a year during the last three decades net migration into mostly England was 2.92 million in just one decade between 2001 and 2011 we need people especially young people to come here and make a positive contribution to our culture our economy and our communities without immigration we're going to find it hard if not impossible to sustain a workforce large enough to help pay the pensions of those retiring and maybe some of us a bit closer to that than others but Westminster seems utterly determined to restrict the number of people coming to the UK in any way it can the UK has dumped as we've heard tier one post-study work visas replacing them with graduate entrepreneur visas capped at a thousand students and making it increasingly difficult for non-EU systems wishing to work here and rather than offer these students many of them taking courses in modern business methods including MBAs an easy opportunity to start their careers in Scotland we're sending them straight back into the arms of our competitors abroad it's a crazy policy on one driven by a perceived problem which doesn't even apply in Scotland but of course as we know immigration policy is a reserved matter and if the home office wants to festoon Scottish buses or visa offices with go home advertisements there is absolutely nothing we can do about it and if any Westminster government wants to take any policy it's implemented at any time they can just take it back they can just stop it and that's the point here and that's the point of this whole debate we can only develop new and appropriately designed policies with the leverage that independence will give us because without that independence we can't stop the Tory Westminster government from taking away the fresh talent initiative we can't stop them for capping student visas we can't stop any of that this is yet another example of a big and crucial example of how we are definitely not better together at an economic level there is established evidence from the IFS board report which is in chapter 4 that a Scottish migration system can improve our fiscal balance by some £1.6 billion a year just last month we heard from the principal of the university of Glasgow we've heard a lot about him today he criticised Westminster's approach to migration legislation saying that the university's links across the world were under threat you begin to see and I quote you begin to see how people have perceived what the UK has been doing in immigration the immigration space so negatively he said that it's like putting up a closed for business or closed for education don't come here sign that's strong words and powerful words from the principal of Glasgow university along and millennia centuries long sorry tradition of providing education we already know that in Scotland we do punch well above our way in terms of equality and ambition of our further and higher education institutions and I can make the point on research grants research grants are best based on merit not geography so can we just get rid of that red herring here and now Scotland has been an educational leader since the early part of the 15th century it is home to some of the world's oldest and most prestigious universities as well as some of the finest specialist vocational and modern institutions graduates of working age highly educated and likely to be keenly ambitious that means they will generate more taxes that means they will settle in this country that means they will have their children in this country that means they will contribute greatly in many ways not just financially to this country scotland attracts over 40 000 students a year from across the world these students are net contributors to the economy during their studies some 779 million pounds annually but most are compelled to return home once they graduate because of a daft shortsighted policy that doesn't then use the brains that these young people have and an independent scotland we could create incentives that would encourage these young people to establish themselves in scotland as a nation we would benefit not only economically but across the cultural and social spectrum of having an international mix of identities Westminster is damaging our economy both university scotland and the university college union scotland have criticised the draconian approach to immigration and student visas it makes no sense to train experienced gifted graduates in scotland only to force them to leave as soon as they're qualified and one thing that i have to finish with presiding officers they can't do attitude of the better together parties here today epitomises the very reason we need our independence to to maintain that scotland that can do attitude that scotland has thanks thank you now call on Stuart Maxwell to be followed by Hanzala mallick six minutes please thank you president officer today's debate on the impact of immigration policy on higher education in scotland is i believe a very timely one in recent years we have seen the UK government's approach to immigration policy become illogical and damaging to different aspects of society particularly to our higher education sector in a bid to appease the Tory rebels on their back benches and in a vain hope of scuttling the rise of UKip in england david Cameron Theresa May have pursued a politically motivated immigration policy rather than one that is functional and addresses the needs of the constituent parts of the UK this immigration policy has manifested itself in the desire to cut overall migrant numbers the ability to cut migrant numbers regardless of the impact on business or education is now the self-defined measure of success for the UK's government's immigration policy to meet these targets the UK government knows it cannot cut numbers from the eu so it's imposing increasingly strict immigration criteria on non-eu citizens who wish to come here including many of the students who would like to study at scotland's world leading universities and colleges the decision to impose further restrictions on non-eu migrants as a perceived solution to EU migration epitomises the UK government's increasingly nonsensical and dysfunctional approach to immigration policy as a result the number of students from India to scotland has fallen by 58 percent while the number of students moving from India to Australia has increased by 70 percent other english-speaking countries like the united states and canada have also enjoyed healthy increases in international student numbers scotland on the other hand is now lagging behind the non-eu student numbers decreasing the impact of the UK government's policies have not gone unnoticed indeed they have been doggedly pursued in spite of the criticism of industry specialists in 2013 the high court rule that UK visa rules were unjustified and disproportionate infringing on both the rights of British citizens and those wishing to come here in recent evidence to the european and external affairs committee professor right of university called the current UK government policies on international students a disaster which made us less competitive the principle of the university of glasgow professor anton muscatelli is of a similar view stating that UK government immigration rules are damaging to the higher education sector in scotland and create an international perception that students are not welcome here the UK government bluntly reinforced this point with their high profile go home poster campaign which was subsequently withdrawn after the advertising standards agency ruled that the campaign was predicated on misleading and inaccurate statistics professor muscatelli continued by saying that the message that we were closed for education was and i quote exactly the opposite message that a number of other countries are sending including the us canada and australia i don't think we should be there as a country yet ultimately scotland has no say over this matter scotland attracts 40 000 students from 180 countries every year students who contribute more than 779 million pound to the economy annually however the benefits of international students are not simply quantifiable in monetary terms foreign students develop an international outlook amongst their own homegrown students and enrich the learning experience for everyone in the education sector n us scotland's evidence to the education and culture committee succinctly stated the case by saying that immigration including for the purposes of study provide huge benefits to scotland and the UK and should be wholly encouraged it is therefore difficult to understand why we should allow the benefits of migration to be threatened by the politically motivated immigration policy being imposed by Westminster scotland can should and must choose a different path and a yes vote in september will ensure we have a sensible measured and proportionate immigration policy as outlined in the scotland's white paper on independence studies undertaken by the migration observatory at oxford university found that a majority of people would prefer immigration decisions to be taken by hollywood rather than at Westminster the study also found that there was public sympathy for the scotland's position of encouraging international students to study here now one measure that we could immediately reintroduce with independence is the post study work visa the UK government made a short sighted decision in withdrawing the scheme which allowed many highly skilled and educated migrants to remain in scotland it makes little sense to train graduates only to then tell them to leave the country now i'm delighted there seems to be a universal agreement in this chamber that we should introduce a post study visa the problem with the opposition's argument is that what the UK government giveth the UK government then take it away that is the problem while there's universal agreement here we can do nothing about it while the powers rest with Westminster the reintroduction of the post study work visa will help to attract international students to our universities and colleges and to deliver the economic prosperity that could be achieved with independence independence will also give us the full range of powers to incentivise innovation and to encourage research investment in our universities it will allow us sorry it will allow our higher education sector to compete effectively for the best international students and to create a country that is welcoming and open to international researchers it is clear that there's little hope of reform while scotland is part of the UK our colleges and universities can only watch powerlessly as events in the south of england negatively impact upon the future prospects of the education sector in scotland scotland would be better served by an immigration policy tailored to suit scotland specific circumstances rather than the one size fits all approach taken by Westminster scotland's needs are different from those of the south of england and independence will allow us to create an immigration system that is fair proportionate and works in conjunction with the higher education system rather than against it. Presiding Officer it is important for international students to know that scotland is open for business that they are a welcome addition to our society and that the negative and damaging voice of Westminster does not reflect the views commonly held here in scotland many thanks no column hands a la malik to be followed by clear adamson thank you very much and good afternoon Presiding Officer it is an honor to speak about the impact of immigration policy on higher education in scotland scotland is historically known to produce skillful and original individuals furthermore scotland is rightfully proud of its historic excellent education system and our universities are amongst the best in the world over the last decade Scottish universities have excelled in increase in a number of Scottish European Union and international students currently figures indicate that scotland has a higher share of students attending from a higher education who come from countries out with the UK than the UK as a whole that speaks volumes for our education system and it also gives me an opportunity to thank all the teachers lectures and professors in scotland for the dedication the hard work they do for our students and students from overseas but the basic fact is that Scottish undergraduate degrees take a year longer than in England and Wales you cannot tell me that students having to pay an additional year years worth of face and living costs to study in scotland has no influence on the decision to study here another point is that excellent international reputation of the British high higher education system as a as a whole benefits us a survey carried out by Chinese students at four of Scottish universities found that 200 overseas students surveyed from had 46% of national said that they would be less likely to choose a university in an independent Scotland because they wanted a British degree and that survey actually surprised me myself more than a third feared that the repetition of a Scottish degree would be not be considered as valuable as a British degree that I suppose needs to be put to the test however nevertheless there is a perception that a British degree would be more valuable many students automatically begin their search for a course by contacting a British council or an embassy they look through all the British universities and apply for a course that meets their needs Scottish education institutions are able to make themselves identifiable and take part in that system the Scottish the if Scotland if Scotland leaves the UK then it is no longer have the benefit of the experience and the network of embassies and councils in 170 countries around the world yes I will while the member makes many very good points I struggle to understand some of the arguments he's most recently been making and if it is the case that only a British degree holds attractions why is it that despite the what what well primarily holds attractions and in the view of what he said there why is it the case that Canadian universities are having so little difficulty in attracting students from India and other countries and perhaps is he making a case that that Canada shouldn't shouldn't have taken the decisions that did about self-determination well the member will the member will appreciate that canada did have an action to separate and they didn't however that said I'll go on to say that in terms of having advantages of so many outlets does give us an advantage there is absolutely no no doubt about that however I do agree with Humza Yousaf in terms of difficulties in immigration issues but I think that the the cut in marketing costs in Indian Pakistan by the Scottish government didn't help because under the day it's all about marketing it does play a role we can't pretend that it doesn't have an effect it does and it would be unfair and unjust to suggest that it doesn't we would like to see the Scottish government also play its own its own duty by paying Scottish colleges and universities more money so that our own students can have places Humza Yousaf and myself have constituents who've received letters from colleges to say there's 600th in a queue for a place I wonder how long and how old they will be when they get a place eventually this is a country where and the government is saying it's free education I don't believe it's free education if you can't get in and it's the same for universities there are students who have all the qualifications they can get entry into but they've been denied a place because the Scottish government has not paid their fee for them once again a promise made by the Scottish government and denied and you know we really need to look at ourselves first of all to see whether we're being honest with ourselves rather than be disgenuous with students I'm sure many of the students who didn't get places this year will think twice about independence because they know that the government that has made promises to them in terms of free education have not delivered on them. Roger close please. Yeah, thank you, Presiding Officer. So finally, Presiding Officer, what I really want to say is I'm really very keen to see the Scottish government actually deliver on the promises they've made themselves rather than look around who to blame and who to use as a tool as a political tool to try and sell the idea of independence because it just isn't true. Thank you. Many thanks. Now I call on Claire Adamson to be followed by Roderick Campbell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to begin my contribution this afternoon by reminding the chamber of how successful, how unique and how important Scotland's education is to the collective intellectual international world knowledge economy. In October last year, the British Council published a detailed and comprehensive assessment of Scotland's higher education system and its distinctive and defining strengths. It was authored by Neil Kemp and William Lawton. The report finds that, overall, learning satisfaction of international students in Scotland is unmatched worldwide, reflecting the Scottish ethos of a higher education as a public good. The Scottish system is world class and rated highly not only against the rest of the UK but internationally. The report picks out defining characteristics of Scotland that are unique to Scotland, the primacy of the learner and the stress on lifelong learning, an integrated and inclusive sector that is internationally active, a no-feeze policy for Scottish and EU undergraduates, high employability rates for graduates, strong links with business and industry, an innovative system of research, pooling and research investment, high levels of research impact, including many spin-off companies, success in winning research income and the strong recruitment of international students. On its publication, Lloyd Anderson of the British Council Scotland said, the report tells a remarkable story of a national academic system that is world class, highly innovative, a story of which Scotland should be very proud. The nation's assets include a higher than expected number of world class universities as rated by both academic indicators and the students themselves, and a uniquely joined-up, collaborative and inclusive sector. Professor Nigel Seaton, the vice chair of the international committee at the University of Scotland and principal and vice chancellor of the University of Aberty, said, this report confirms the distinctive strengths that put Scottish higher education on the world stage, especially emphasises on our integrated approach to lifelong learning as supported by the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework. In section 3.11 of the report, which looks at non-EU international students, it highlights some of the successes that Scotland has in this area, it particularly looks to US and Canada as successes, and it also says that other successes have been the increased enrolments from China and India, although the rate from India has fallen recently, and recent indicators are that Indian enrolments have been adversely hit by changes to UK immigration policies. In June 22, 2005, the fresh talent initiative was launched in Scotland. Jack McConnell said a year earlier, I lead a challenge down to Scotland to challenge of growth. I set out the economic and social case for increasing Scotland's population through promoting ourselves within the UK's policy of managed migration. The policy statement describes how Scotland's devolved government will begin to reverse the population decline that threatens our future prosperity through the modern scheme of managed migration. Today, in this chamber, Jamie MacGregor was asking a question about the demographic challenges and the decrescent population in that area. Those problems are well known and well understood within Scotland, and if ever there was an argument for why we need constitutional change, it is this very issue. We had a policy that represented what the needs of Scotland were. When we negotiated that policy, it was delivered and worked for Scotland. Nothing has changed in our challenges. What has changed is that, in the whim of a Westminster Government with political pressures that are not relevant in Scotland, it took away and cancelled that fresh talent initiative. There has also been quite a bit of discussion this afternoon about the objective justification in the white paper, but there is very little discussion about why that objective justification is there. We must remind ourselves that it is there because of the obscenity of charging students up to £9,000 a year south of the border for their education—something that we do not agree with in Scotland and do not want to have to introduce. That is something that we have been forced into because of the poor decisions about charging for education elsewhere in the UK. Of course, the future is not about the status quo versus what is in the white paper, because the very likely outcome of the political changes that we are seeing as a result of last week's election is that the EU relationship will be renegotiated and voted on. We have no no clearer future as to how the rest of the UK and its relationship with the EU will go forward. I am less worried about that than the rest of the Opposition members seem to be. I have many many quotes here from submissions from Colleges Scotland in the evidence about that issue. I am very sorry that I will not be able to have many of them today, but I can just point to Professor Wright, who is from the Department of Economics and the University of Strathclyde, where he says that, in English-speaking countries of which there are many, say five or six, the issues critical of Scotland because higher education sector is a huge compared to the sector in England and many other countries and it is very more important to our economy. He goes on to say that he is losing students to Canada because they cannot work within the visa system that the UK Government has set. Thank you very much. No, Colin. Roderick Campbell, after which we will move to closing speeches. Thank you. Minutes, please are there by Mr Campbell. No, thank you, Presiding Officer. Last Sunday, like curtain as others, I bought my Sunday paper, which contained an interesting insert from a group called Better Together. It contained the following comment, quote, with more universities in the world's top 200 per head of population than any other country on the planet, Scotland's universities are thriving as part of the UK. Well, I can agree at least that Scotland's universities are thriving and, of course, it's absolutely true that Scotland's universities are a vital part of Scotland's economy. Indeed, even the Scottish Affairs Select Committee acknowledged that the excellence of Scotland's higher education institutes meant that they attract a disproportionate share of UK research funding. Attracting, as others have said, just under 30,000 international students, not including the EU, and 12 per cent of all students from overseas not including the EU. Scotland has five of the top 200 universities in the world, including St Andrew's, of course, where 2,625 students or 33 per cent of the total are from overseas. Those universities are global institutions. As Alistair Sim of University Scotland has said, however, the UK offer to overseas students is not as attractive when compared with competitors in Canada, USA and Australia. The absence of post-study work visa, the inability to be accompanied by family members and other issues play their part in the students' consideration of the options. We know of increasing difficulties that students from India and Pakistan have in getting visas at all, cap or no cap. Our loss is, of course, Australia's gain. Easy requirements in Australia has caused a dramatic increase in numbers of students from India and Pakistan, albeit from a low base. The question is, will independence help? Although Jack McConnell's comments that we need to grow the population, to grow the labour force, to grow the economy were made not specifically in connection with independence, the reality is that the UK's current immigration policy impedes entry into Scotland. Even that august unionist body, the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, grudgedly acknowledged that independence may provide scope for, quote, marginal change, which might be beneficial to the recruitment of foreign students. As Stuart Maxwell referred to, what was absolutely clear from the evidence of Professor Robert Wright, the European and External Affairs Committee of this Parliament, is, as he said, that the current UK system is a disaster. With the removal of the fresh talent initiative, foreign students have to leave six months after they graduate and have to be monitored on a monthly basis. That is making us less competitive because our chief competitors do not do that, as he said to the committee. He also said that he did not understand why, from a rational economics point of view, the UK has a system that it has and why Scotland is forced to follow it. That has to be true. Above all else, it looks like a political rather than economic decision. The UK Government could, of course, change its policy, but given the results last Thursday, perhaps that looks less likely. Even without independence, Professor Wright believes that the Canadian experience shows and the Canadian Quebec Accord suggest that responsibility could be devolved if our political opponents really believe in the best of both worlds, perhaps they should consider it. Chinese students are the most mobile on the planet, accounting for 16% of all international students, over half a million in total. They are substantial consumers of higher education. Professor Downs told this Parliament's Education and Culture Committee that China is not a country that is subject to intensive scrutiny by the immigration people at Westminster. My colleague, Liam McArthur, has already referred to the China Girl's Survey. I agree with others that the conclusions are disappointing, but I think that at the end of the day some of those concerns might be misplaced. I quote from some of the comments student A, after independence, the spending on education might be reduced. Student B would not have opportunities to explore the rest part of the UK. Student C, the UK is a comparity to developed and well-organised country in education, but if Scotland became independent it would face many issues such as currency, diplomacy and defence. Echoes of George Osborne for chat per chance. In the conclusion, perhaps the most telling comment of all is the suggestion, if you bear with me one second, I will read it. In a sense, the view of the students expressed here and the divisions between them over the future status of Scotland to parallel the arguments in Scottish society as a whole. I couldn't agree more, but I think that the truth of the matter is that a world-class institution will remain a world-class institution wherever in the world it is located. What's absolutely true is that as a society we have to ensure that we are open and welcoming to students. It's noteworthy that the NUS survey found that 50 per cent of international students feel unwelcome in the UK and that nearly 20 per cent would not recommend the UK to a friend or relative as a place to study. Those are issues that we need to tackle. I accept, of course, that universities exist in a competitive market. Universities need to market themselves under any constitutional arrangement and I'm convinced that Scotland's universities are up to that challenge. In the time remaining, Presiding Officer, I would just like to say a few words generally about migration. Growth in population terms between Scotland and the rest of the UK has been anything but equal over history. As Tom Devine has suggested, between 1841 and 1911, 600,000 Scots moved south without a similar move in the opposite direction. Today, of course, there is a move from south to north, as well as, of course, a substantial migration from Scotland to the south such that 700,000 Scots or theirabouts, born folk, live elsewhere in the UK. When we talk of increasing the working population, I think it's just possible that some of that population of Scots-born folk might want to return to a Scotland, which is at least intent on creating the conditions for a thriving growing economy and a Scotland that's keen to attract students and skilled workers from across the world. It's perhaps telling that the people talking about border controls are Theresa May and rather right-wing conservatives like the absent, Alec Johnson. Whatever else, Presiding Officer, their message is not one of hope and aspiration. We now move to closing speeches, and I call on Liam McArthur up to seven minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that it's been an intriguing debate where there has been a large amount of consensus and, perhaps inevitably, in the run-up to September, the now all-too-customary areas of difference. I think that there is unanimity across the chamber about the contribution that international students make to our universities, both economically but also culturally and socially. I think that that was reflected in the speeches made by everyone. George Adam gave a perfect illustration of that and the impact within his own paisley constituency. Likewise, Jim Eadie, in pointing to the impact of the two universities in his constituency, was right to remind us of the contribution that those universities have in term of attracting inward investment. A point that was perhaps not made as forcefully as it should in that context is the contribution that international students make to the soft power that Scotland and the UK exert through graduates from our universities. There was unanimity, too, in terms of recognising and accepting the concerns that have been made very forcefully by those across our universities sector. I think that Liz Smith was right at the outset to helpfully set out some of the background to why the changes in the visa regime were introduced. I think that they were accepted by Neil Bibby as part of his remarks as well. They were notably absent, I think, for most of the contributions by those in the Government's side. However, I think that it's helpful in terms of setting the context, not just in terms of why we are here, but in terms of the issues that need to be resolved in determining how we get from here to where we need to ensure that our universities are competitive. However, there is an acceptance that change, not just in policy but also in the rhetoric that is used around immigration, is again accepted right across this chamber. However, as I say, perhaps predictably, where the consensus breaks down ahead of September is over how we go about resolving this. I simply don't accept that independence is somehow a panacea that can be rolled out when confronted by any and every problem, that it will somehow miraculously change all the things that we want to change but leave untouched all the aspects that we want to remain the same. I think that the debate around immigration is thankfully different in Scotland or has been different in Scotland to other parts of the country. I was listening with interest to Roderick Campbell's comments about migration within the UK. However, I would make the point. I think that Clare Adamson reflected that in her comments referring to Jamie McGregor's question earlier today. There is migration within Scotland that has nothing to do with immigration policy but reflects the trouble that all Governments have in terms of retaining population in areas that are perhaps slightly remote. In the case of the debate that we have around immigration, we should not delude ourselves into assuming that this would inevitably remain the case where Scottish ministers have become responsible for immigration policy. The minister pointed to public poll support for such a move, but the social attitudes surveys and recent polling evidence suggest that public views on immigration do vary very little between north and south of the border. As the Herald revealed only last week, seven out of 10 Scots backed stricter immigration controls. Again, those facts cannot simply be glossed over in an attempt to argue that we are by instinct entirely different from those living elsewhere in these islands. That is not an argument for saying that we should pander to these attitudes. It is quite the reverse, but it should urge caution in the assumptions that we are being asked to make by the SNP. The tone of the debate around immigration needs to improve. In the face of what happened last week, not just here but across the continent, it is all the more important that politicians north and south of the border convey a message that we are open, tolerant and welcoming. Policy 2 needs to reflect on aspirations. Again, I reiterate and underscore my view that, although there is no cap on international student numbers, those should sit apart from overall net migration figures. Increasing the opportunities for the best and the brightest international students to stay on after completing their studies also needs to happen. Improvements have been made, but I strongly believe that there is a case for going further, not least to reflect as others have observed. The competition that our universities now face from counterparts in the US, Canada and Australia in particular. However, the argument that breaking up the UK is the best way of making our universities more attractive to international students simply does not add up to scrutiny. As Neil Bairie pointed out in his opening remarks and his leading academics have also made clear, there is a threat to research funding that our universities currently attract. Last week, 14 professors from all five of Scotland's medical schools expressed their quote, grave concerns about Scotland's research community being, quote, denied its present ability to win proportionately more grant funding than the country contributes to a common research pool. They go on to add, and I quote, we regard creation of a post-independence common research area as an undertaking fraught with difficulty and one that is unlikely to come to fruition. I give way to the minister. He knows what I am going to say, which is that he will be aware that 102 academics wrote into the press shortly following that point thing out that they felt that independence held out the best prospect for research funding in Scotland. I think that we can weigh up your academics to this and not our academics to that, but I do not think that you can ignore the fact that these, and as George Adam readily acknowledged, subject to negotiations, simply asserting that that will remain the case going forward, is not at all convincing. It is difficult to see how a situation would be beneficial to improving the attractiveness of our universities to international students. I am afraid that I am in my last minute. Reduced access to the UK network of embassies, consoles and inward investment support also seems to work against the objectives that we are all seeking to make our universities more competitive internationally. I do not doubt that a scale-back Scottish diplomatic operation would target key markets, but it would inevitably be more stretched and create increased numbers of blind spots. Meanwhile, the claims that the nationalists could go on charging fees to students from the rest of the UK and the event of a yes vote is believed by no one but themselves, academic experts and the commission have explained how this would be discriminatory and illegal under EU law. In the event that the education secretary is wrong, however, Scottish ministers will need to find an extra £150 million or more to cover the costs of loss fee income. Added to this, as Roddick Campbell has said, a survey of international students at four Scottish universities recently revealed that nearly half of non-EU students said that it would be less likely to come here as Scotland was an independent country. As one student put it, the UK is a powerful brand. Presiding Officer, our international students do indeed enrich our universities while providing a significant contribution to our economy. University Scotland is right to seek our support in ensuring that the vital sector remains competitive and interactive. Once we are beyond September, I hope that we will be able to use that consensus to secure that objective. I will now call on Mary Scanlon up to seven minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, I want to not just acknowledge the content of the speeches from both Liam McArthur and Liz Smith, but the tone. I think that the tone has been very fitting in such a debate. I do not think that there are the only ones, but I think that it is important that this debate has been conducted in such a manner. I would also acknowledge the agreement across the chamber. We may have our differences leading up to September 18, but we all agree on the contribution to Scotland of EU and, indeed, international students. My own daughter went to Leiden for a year as part of the Erasmus scheme in her degree, and I know how much she benefited from that, and from meeting other students there. Like my colleague Liz Smith, I welcome the chance to debate immigration policy today. While I completely understand why University Scotland and individual principles, such as Anton Muscatelli—he said many mentions today—have raised concerns about the UK Government's immigration policy. As the Conservative amendment makes clear, and I think that Liz Smith did very well to set out, it is vital to place this in context. Specifically, the previous student visa system had to be looked at. I can do no better than quote the Public Accounts Committee, chaired by the former Labour Minister Margaret Hodge, which concluded that the changes of 2009 were purely planned and ill-thought-out, and that they were implemented before proper controls were in place. The result? An estimated 40,000 to 50,000 additional migrants coming to the UK to work rather than study. A news night investigation, as well as panorama, of course, and news night were able to obtain two bogus visa documents for £350. Since being elected, the UK coalition Government has sought to address this. The measures are too numerous to mention, so I'll just mention two or three. All institutions that want to sponsor students now have to be classed as highly trusted and be accredited by statutory education inspection bodies, and rightly so. We owe it to the students coming here. There has been a shift away from paper visa applications, which were being abused, towards online print and send application forms. Credibility interviews have been established, which also assess those who apply to study in the UK. I do appreciate, Presiding Officer, that there were no bogus colleges in Scotland, but they did undoubtedly exist elsewhere in those islands. Given the huge problems with the old system, the changes were necessary. No-one could argue that they were not necessary, and I thank Neil Bibby for acknowledging that in his opening remarks. The vice-chancellor of the University of East Anglia said that the UK Government had listened to their concerns about pathway courses into universities and the need for the language requirement to be set at a realistic level that will not deter good students. Accordingly, for an immigration system to function properly, it must, it totally must, welcome those who are willing to contribute to society while acting against those who seek to exploit the system. As Liam McArthur said, a recent poll identified that seven out of 10 Scots believe that stricter controls are necessary in terms of immigration. Whatever we think about such opinions, we cannot simply wish them away. Leaving aside all the uncertainties that surround the SNP's own immigration proposals, the facts state that the UK Government came to power when it came to power the number of first-year enrolments, as I think Kezia Dugdale said, from non-EU countries to Scottish universities has actually increased year on year, with students coming here to study and we all thoroughly welcome their contribution. While there has been a drop in the number of Indian students coming to Scotland to study, equally the numbers from China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Thailand and many others continue to rise year on year. If we want to talk about India, let's look at that in context as well. Like others, I say that international students make a huge contribution to Scottish life, educationally, economically and of course culturally. I also sympathise and acknowledge the concerns voiced by University of Scotland and Professor Pete Downs when he recently appeared before the Education Committee. However, we want to welcome students, as I have said. We do not want people coming in with bogus visas that are detrimental to those wishing to come and to contribute to Scottish life. We do want to discourage those who exploit and abuse the system. The UK Government had to tackle the student visa system that was coming in for abuse and those measures must be taken in context. Finally, I think that discrimination against English students, if we go forward to an independent Scotland, is unacceptable. Any attempt to maintain good relations with our nearest neighbours has to be the worst possible policy. While Claire Adamson stands on the high moral ground and talks about how she opposes £9,000 tuition fees, she is very happy to take the £9,000 tuition fees from those coming from England. If she is opposed to £9,000 tuition fees, why is she so happy to charge that amount to English students if the independent Scotland were to come? I will close there. Thanks very much. I will now move on to Kezia Dindeil up to eight minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I be the third person to welcome the tone of the debate? If only the media had taken the same approach, we might have had a different election result last week. Liz Smith was the first to introduce the European election results and Liam McArthur mentioned them in his closing too. I take a moment to say that we should all unite against UKIP, stand up and take them on. The solutions that they put forward just don't stack up when you look at the challenges that the UK faces. I believe them to be a regressive, a reactionary and a racist force in UK politics. I take some comfort from the fact that the UKIP vote in Edinburgh was just 7.7 per cent, but it was as high as 13.6 per cent in other parts of the country. We have a duty to unite and defeat those arguments and that party with the power of our arguments and the will of our work. I was pleased that the minister mentioned the role of the national union of students and the approach that they take to welcoming international students to our shores, not just welcoming them but giving them an active role in student participation and in the democratic systems that we have in place in so many of our universities. They lead much of the work around promoting a positive place for international students on our campuses. He did, however, say that he would come back to the issue of colleges in his speech and I don't feel that he did that, so perhaps he will return to it in his clothes. He was also very gracious and I believe to have mentioned the fresh talent initiative and I would like to pay tribute to Jack McConnell's leadership on that particular initiative. Jack's most successful policy is often viewed as the smoking ban, but when you look behind the scenes you could argue that fresh talent initiative was one of the most innovative and progressive things that Jack McConnell did in the sense that it was a long-term policy that had a great deal of foresight about the population challenges that we face as a country and took them head on much against the will of quite a right-wing press, so we should unite and recognise that. Of course, at the heart of Jack McConnell's fresh talent initiative however was the fundamental acceptance and belief that you could have UK-wide border controls but also a flexibility within that system that reflected local and national circumstances. Fresh talent was combined with a wider programme of promoting Scotland overseas at the time of course and the slogan was now is the time, Scotland is the place but behind that bold slogan was a serious policy and a mechanism to deliver it and although we've heard much about the fresh talent initiative we haven't heard much about the relocation advisory service which underpinned much of the fresh talent work and I'll just take a moment to mention that. The relocation advisory service was introduced at the same time as the fresh talent initiative in 2004 and it was funded by the Scottish Government as part of the fresh talent initiative. The Scottish Government continued to fund it when fresh talent was absorbed into the UK Labour Government's plans around tier one post-study visa schemes. During that period, as I say, the Scottish Government continued to support the allocation service because it offered a one-stop shop, an information advisory service for people looking to study, live and work in Scotland. It also worked with employers to provide advice and assistance when companies were looking to recruit staff from overseas and people could do that using the website www.scotlandistheplace.com. That website is no longer operational and in 2012 the Scottish Government restructured and the relocation advisory service was subsumed into Talent Scotland, a Scottish enterprise initiative and we've had a look at the talent Scotland website and there's nothing like the same degree of work and information and services that the relocation advisory service offered. I think it's quite important to recognise that in this debate. There was also, of course, the One Scotland's many cultures campaign, which ran from 2002 to 2008 and it stopped in 2009. I asked Spice about this earlier today. I asked Spice to tell me whether there were any equivalent schemes now and they told me that there is no current anti-racism media campaign in Scotland but there is marketing activity on equality issues planned for later this year. It's important to recognise those two factors because, as much as I agree with much of what Humza Yousaf has said today, if he's going to apportion the blame game he has to really look at his own record on this issue and the One Scotland's many cultures campaign has disappeared and the relocation advisory service has also disappeared. He would be in a stronger position today if he had maintained those particular services. We've heard a lot about statistics today. I heard Stuart Maxwell say that the number of non-EU students studying in Scotland was decreasing. I'm afraid that's incorrect. I've got the Heesa tables here and I'll give them to him after the debate but they show that the number of non-EU students studying in Scotland has increased every year from 2008 to the present day. In fact, in the last year it's increased by 11 per cent and that's double the UK-wide figure of 5 per cent. He's shaken his head again but these are the Heesa tables and I'll be happy to provide him with them after the debate. We, however, agree with the minister that the current Tory Lib Dem Government immigration policy poses a significant threat to our universities and the weight of concern from the university sector is considerable. I think that the minister will have more success in uniting this chamber if he doesn't overreggit and I'm afraid that his use of statistics today has suggested that he might. I'll go back to the issue of colleges again. Whilst I've proven to him now that the number of students in higher education is actually increasing, the number in colleges is decreasing. In fact, it's half what it was when the minister's party came into power in 2007. That's a 50 per cent fall. It's actually worth looking back at some institutions like Motherwell College who, during 2008-09, had a very progressive approach to attracting international students to Motherwell. In fact, they had one dedicated member of staff to work in China, specifically to draw students in China to come and study at Motherwell College. It's more of that type of work that the party that we are calling on the Government to look at today. There are, of course, some other issues behind the use of statistics today, because we just don't know the full impact of what they tell us. We don't know what percentage of international students remain in Scotland after they complete their studies. We don't know how many want to stay and draw on the policies such as a post-study work visa programme, and we don't know how many people want to stay long-term and establish a residency in Scotland. I think that we would be in a much better place if we had that information with us today. We have talked a lot about countries where the number of students coming to Scotland has fallen, and India has been mentioned several times. Jim Aidy mentioned it in particular on the impact that it is having on Edinburgh University. Again, I asked Spice about that particular trend today, and he said that one of the contributing factors to reduction in the number of Indian students coming to study in Scotland is a massive rapid expansion in the higher education sector in India. One of the reasons why there are fewer Indian students coming to Scotland is growth in the university sector in India, and Indian students choosing to stay and study in India. I am not going to suggest to the member for a second that that is wholly the reason why that is happening, but it is worth putting it in context. At the same time, I would say to him that the number of students in China is going up and the number in the USA and Canada is staying broadly the same. My colleague Neil Bibby was absolutely right, I believe, to introduce the issues of rest of UK fees into the debate. I encourage all SNP members to look at the SPICE briefing, which shows that their white paper proposal is not legal. It is very clear that that is in fact the case. I would refer them to the fourth point in the SPICE briefing, where they say quite clearly that the— Members are in our last minute. I am sorry, I very much have welcomed the opportunity to take Jim Aidy there, but I encourage him to look at the SPICE briefing. Neil Bibby was also correct to point to research councils, and I would point Christina McKelvie to some of the facts around here, because she suggested that it was done on the basis of merit and not on the basis of geography. UK research councils fund UK institutions. If you are not part of the United Kingdom, you do not have access to those funds. It really is that simple. We cannot accept the SNP's position today because there is an inference there that only independence can deliver for a more progressive immigration policy. Jack McConnel proved that that was demonstrably not the case. We cannot support the Tory and the Lib Dem amendments because we cannot endorse the UK Government's current immigration policy. I thank you very much. I thank you very much. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also share the sentiments that have been expressed by members across the chamber. I think that the debate has been generally fairly good, disagreements, obviously, but the tone of the debate has been fairly good. All of us have agreed that we value the contribution of international students, that they enrich our experience, not just what they bring economically as important as that is, but that they enrich our experience holistically through their culture, through socially and in many other ways as well. I am trying to address as many points as I can in the closing remarks that I have, Presiding Officer. I thought that touching on colleges—I was reading College of Scotland's briefing before coming here. They make mention of the UK Government's policies, but one in particular that they would like to have discussions on is about attaining that highly trusted status, the moment that they can only apply for that in that 12-month transitional period. They have asked for discussions with the Scottish Government on that. They are on-going, and I am happy to update any member, in particular, Kezia Dugdale, who raises the question on that very issue. However, staying with colleges, I enjoyed Mr Malick's speech, but I thought that he mentioned waiting lists. I want to tell him that there are no waiting lists at all for colleges. In fact, he attended a meeting with the cabinet secretary, Mike Russell, and his officials. He was after that meeting to provide evidence to this day. He has not provided any written evidence unless he has to the contrary. Of course, I will take an intervention. I can make absolutely clear that I have not been asked to produce any evidence. However, now that I have been asked, I am happy to provide it. However, I want to guarantee from the minister that he will then make places available to those students once he has the evidence. As I said, there are no waiting lists. I am happy, of course, for him to provide that evidence, as was asked before. However, there are no waiting lists, because people can apply to up to 10 colleges. That does not mean that they are on the waiting list for all those 10 colleges. I thought that Liz Smith's speech was interesting. It was very good and very measured. However, I do not think that her speech matches the tone of the amendment that has been put forward. Most of her speech was about the bogus numbers and setting the context. Her colleague, Mary Scanlon, made the important point that there were not bogus colleges here in Scotland. Why are we affected by the Conservatives' decisions in terms of removing the poster day work visa? Of course, I will. The point is that the context of the immigration policy for the whole of the UK, Scotland included, is on the basis that there was a threat of bogus visa situations. That is not acceptable because it damages the institutions both as colleges and as universities. I accept the point that bogus colleges are unacceptable and that they damage our education sector, but the point that Mary Scanlon was making was that we did not have that problem in Scotland. The point is that this is very much a case of using a sledgehammer to crack her nut. She mentioned in her speech that she wrote to David Willitson and Theresa May, but even by her own admission those calls fell on deaf ears. I appreciate the efforts that she made. However, if the UK Government is not going to listen to members of their own party at what chance do we have, why not take that power very much in our own hands? Well, the problem of this entire debate, particularly in reference to the poster day work visa, but immigration in general, was highlighted and articulated very well by Stuart Maxwell, MSP. The definition of success in the immigration system currently by the UK Government, and that would suggest even success of UK Governments, the measurement of that success has been in arbitrary caps, tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, but that is not the measurement of whether an immigration system is good or not good or whether it is effective or not effective. The measurement has to be, is it helping to contribute to our goals of sustainable economic development or not. In terms of the poster day work visa, everyone agreed in this chamber that we should reintroduce it. I suppose that the point that we are making in this side of the chamber is that it gives us the powers in this Parliament to do exactly what all of us wish to do. I want to touch on some of the points that were made by Opposition members, if I can. Neil Bibby said that we have the lowest levels of support for students that is simply incorrect. I would ask him to look at NUS Scotland, who described our package of support as the best support package in the whole of the UK. That was just in 2012. He also made mention and attacked us for access and not widening access, when 18-year-olds from the most disadvantaged areas are 40 per cent more likely to access university under the SNP than previous. To talk about access but yet he was one of those who did not vote for the post-16 bill, which mandated statutory widening access really shows audacity of some regard. In terms of research pools that were mentioned by members of the Opposition, Neil Bibby, Liam McArthur and others, Liam McArthur said that there is no international precedent for research collaboration. Let me just tell him on 8 November 2013, three days before the UK Government's paper on research was published, that two UK research councils signed an agreement with the Swiss National Science Foundation. In paragraph 7 of that agreement, the parties agreed to reciprocally open their nation's research project funding schemes to collaborative proposals involving researchers from any other country. Of course I will. I'm very grateful to the minister to take an intervention. I rather suspect that the examples he's citing involve collaborative research funding where you get back what you've put into the pool. What Professor Boyle was telling the committee was that there is no international precedent of collaborative research across-border on the scale that would need to exist for us to retain the benefits that we get at the moment from the UK research council. We're not asking for any more money, the Scottish Government. It's made it clear that we will pay our way. If you don't believe the Scottish Government, take Professor Tim O'Shea, principal of Edinburgh University. There is no reason why any form of constitutional change should preclude participation in higher order research councils. The quality of our research will determine whether it will be funded, as I'm sure it will be. On the students from the rest of the UK, we know that the terrible decision by the UK Government to charge up to £27,000 for education and to take lecture after lecture after lecture from the Labour front bench on this is unbelievable. The party promised not to introduce tuition fees then did. It promised, of course, never to reintroduce tuition fees, then it would be abolished and voted against it. Now, of course, Johann Lamont says that everything, including student fees, is on the table—so much brass neck, Presiding Officer. I'm surprised that it can even turn its head. The point that I was making in the beginning, which I'll end on, is that it's incumbent upon us as politicians and political leaders to challenge attitudes. Instead of, for the last year and a half, we've had those in Westminster disgracefully dancing to the UKip tune of immigration. Although some parties have done it more, I would say to Kezia Dugdale that it is your own MP, Diane Abbott, who warns Ed Miliband that don't be a milk and water forage. The Labour MP said that the party leader, Ed Miliband, risks alienating ethnic minority communities in the chase for the anti-immigration vote, so that's Diane Abbott who's making that warning to your leader. My point is that you can't out UKip. That is why they romped home, of course, in England, but in Scotland, where the Scottish Government has consistently challenged them. That is why they came in fourth place. No, I won't. I'm just about to finish up. I'm the proud son of immigrants, but equally I'm very proud when it comes to immigration that this Government doesn't pander, it doesn't conform, but it challenges the right-wing narrative in xenophobia surrounding immigration. Only through independence will we have the powers to create a fairer, controlled immigration system that will meet Scotland's educational needs, social needs and cultural needs. Therefore, I hope that Scotland will see the day when we have the power to reintroduce the post-studio work visa and entice Scotland, the best students across the world, to Scotland. We'll all be enriched for it indeed. That concludes the debate on the impact of immigration policy on higher education in Scotland. We now move to decision time. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at amendment number 10147.3 in the name of Neil Bibby, which seeks to amend motion number 10147 in the name of Hamza Yousaf on the impact of immigration policy on higher education in Scotland. Be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 10147.3 in the name of Neil Bibby is as follows. Yes, 29. No, 70. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. Can I remind members that in relation to the debate this afternoon, if the amendment in the name of Liz Smith is agreed, the amendment in the name of Liam McArthur falls? The next question then is amendment number 10147.1 in the name of Liz Smith, which seeks to amend motion number 10147 in the name of Hamza Yousaf on the impact of immigration policy on higher education in Scotland. Be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 10147.1 in the name of Liz Smith is as follows. Yes, 11. No, 89. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is amendment number 10147.2 in the name of Liam McArthur, which seeks to amend motion number 10147 in the name of Hamza Yousaf on the impact of immigration policy on higher education in Scotland. Be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 10147.2 in the name of Liam McArthur is as follows. Yes, 3. No, 97. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion number 10147 in the name of Hamza Yousaf on the impact of immigration policy on higher education in Scotland. Be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 10147 in the name of Hamza Yousaf is as follows. Yes, 60. No, 40. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. That ends decision time and I now close this meeting.