I am pleased to open the debate for Scottish Labour. I am sure that we will find much agreement across the chamber.
I welcome the report that was published at the weekend and I thank all those who took part in the research for and production of it. The analysis and the argument are well made, and the debate gives us an opportunity to endorse the report.
Scotland is a small place. I worked in and around the Parliament in the early days of devolution, and I remember the launch of the fresh talent initiative by Jack McConnell as First Minister. It was an early example of the Parliament taking a different decision within a devolved settlement. It took negotiation with the UK Government to agree the policy, but a strong case was made and accepted. It was a Scottish solution to a Scottish problem. It provided flexibility for immigration policy within a cohesive UK policy that retained the integrity of a UK system.
Since the Parliament’s creation, Scotland has faced—and it continues to face—challenges with an ageing population, skills shortages and maintaining public services, alongside a desire to articulate who we are, what kind of country we want to be and what we value. The fresh talent scheme was introduced to respond to such questions. If bright, educated and ambitious people come to our country to study and take advantage of our excellent education institutions and to contribute to our economy and our society, can we not have a system that gains some further benefit from the situation?
The flexible, attractive and workable fresh talent scheme was a new approach, and it was adopted throughout the UK until it was revoked in 2012. There appear to have been two reasons for that. First, that was part of the approach to dealing with bogus colleges. A number of bogus colleges were bringing into the country people who had no intention of studying for a degree or a qualification, although none of those colleges was identified in Scotland. Bogus colleges are unacceptable and exploitative, and it is right that action is taken to deal with them, but that action must be proportionate. Making it less attractive for people to study here is not the correct response.
Secondly, the scheme was revoked as a consequence of targets to reduce immigration. The removal of post-study work visas was a simple way of contributing to meeting the targets, but the decision ignores the benefits of immigration to our economy and society.
The impact of the decision is clearly laid out in the post-study work working group report, which has been published in the past few days. Since the removal of the visas, we have seen at best stagnant international student numbers and, when the figures are examined more closely—as the minister highlighted—we see a disproportionate reduction in students from Nigeria and India. An impact is also starting to be experienced in numbers from China, which is a target growth area for many of our universities. Those countries are all growth areas for international students. Our competitor countries—America, Canada and Australia—are all seeing increases in numbers, and all those countries offer attractive post-study work options.
It is not only Scotland that is falling behind. Earlier this year, the UK all-party parliamentary group on migration published the report of its inquiry into post-study work opportunities in the UK, which identified the same recruitment problems at UK institutions. The group highlighted that small businesses are particularly affected under the current system, as they find it more difficult to get a sponsor licence and to pay the Home Office’s entrant’s salary. It also found that the majority of sponsor licences are in south-east England, with other regions—along with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—being badly affected by the lack of uptake from small and medium-sized enterprises.
The group found that, even by its own measure, the UK Government had overstretched its policy. As part of a target to reduce immigration, the UK Government’s estimate that its policy would reduce the number of those securing visas by 49 per cent significantly underestimated the policy’s impact. The real reduction is closer to 88 per cent. That is why our amendment calls for the immediate removal of international students from net migration targets. It is a flawed policy that is counterproductive.
Voices across the UK are questioning the sense of this restrictive and damaging policy. By holding the debate today and—through the Scottish Government, with the Parliament’s support—arguing the case with current UK ministers, Scotland can lead on the agenda again.
We all know that international students make a considerable contribution to our economy not only through the fees that they bring into our universities but through their substantial off-campus expenditure, which significantly benefits the Scottish economy. We should give them the opportunity to become more involved in our economy, to grow it and to contribute through taxation.
I was struck by the numbers of students, as outlined in the all-party group’s report, who want to set up their own businesses and be enterprising and entrepreneurial. However, we know that the contribution that international students make cannot be measured only in pounds and pence. They contribute to a rich, diverse and multicultural educational sector and country, and we benefit from their choice to come to Scotland. International students contribute to our economy and our society, and those who wish to stay and work, contributing positively to our economy once they have gained their qualifications, should be afforded the opportunity to do so.
There is a lot of self-interest in that for Scotland. We have significant demographic challenges, such as an ageing population and a birth rate that does not keep pace. As the working group’s report says,
“Scotland’s proportion of the population of working age is also untypically low and is forecast to fall by 4% during the period 2012 and 2037 whilst the number of people aged over 65 years is projected to rise by 59%.”
We are facing the sharpest demographic challenge of anywhere in the UK, and if we are to prosper as a country, we need healthy population growth.
We are also facing acute skills shortages at graduate level in key sectors. Scotland has a higher level of skills shortages than the rest of the UK, and in 2013, 25 per cent of all vacancies in Scotland were due to such shortages. The report highlights that employers identified a wide range of job areas as requiring skilled graduates, including science, oil and gas, research and engineering, as well as business, media and public sector professional roles.
If Scotland is to be a modern, growing and competitive country, we must address the crisis caused by skills shortages. The key to doing that is to skill and invest in the young people who come through our school system and to have a programme of lifelong learning opportunities, but the answer also lies partly in retaining the talent of international students so that they can contribute.
The report contains an interesting discussion about the value of students and graduates having a good experience in Scotland, which they take home with them. That creates a strong network of alumni around the world who retain connections with Scotland, which is good for our society and our economy.
The minister might wish to comment in closing on a remark in Colleges Scotland’s briefing that echoes Mary Scanlon’s comments on EU students. It says:
“Traditionally, Scotland’s colleges have been able to recruit internationally. However, priorities have changed with the move to reform and regionalisation, and colleges have had to consider carefully what international activity ... is part of their delivery plan.”
Colleges are delivering some of the key courses that address our skills shortages. Perhaps the minister can comment on the role that the Scottish Government sees for colleges in international recruitment and how they can be supported.
How do we move on from today? The report raises debates about sponsorship, eligible qualifications and length of stay, but those are all technicalities. There is strong support for the principle. I imagine that we will agree at decision time that reintroducing a post-study work visa is the right thing to do.
The Smith commission considered the policy and, as it was previously successfully introduced in Scotland, saw no barrier that could not be overcome within the current constitutional settlement to delivering it. The commission recommended flexibility and co-operation between the UK and Scottish Governments. In the chamber last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Angela Constance, said that meetings were on-going. The debate and the publication of the report can strengthen the Scottish Government’s position.
One stumbling block is continuing to count international students in the net migration target. I hope that others will support the calls in our amendment for that to be resolved. That would make for easier negotiations.
In 2005, fresh talent was new and innovative and helped to promote Scotland as an educational and entrepreneurial powerhouse throughout the world. Since then, other countries have upped their offer and, because of the current UK Government’s decision to end post-study work visas, we again face the challenges that we faced 10 years ago.
The post-study visa regime in the UK is cumbersome and restrictive, particularly in comparison with nations that we consider to be our competitors in education. While they are taking advantage of some of the best and brightest minds that the world has to offer, we face a competitive disadvantage. In a speech last week, Jack McConnell highlighted that our visa system is damaging our relations around the world and, in terms of this debate, is damaging the impression of the country in the eyes of young people around the world. The language that is used about immigration is making us look insular and negative.
Today’s debate gives us the opportunity to talk about the benefits of immigration—and yes, to recognise that we need a fair and clear system of controlled immigration. Immigration brings advantages to our economy, our universities, our colleges and our communities. The benefits that international students bring to Scotland are clear. I hope that the consensus today about post-study work visas can stretch to consensus on the benefits that international students bring and the need for us to have in place an immigration strategy that is beneficial to the country as a whole and its constituent parts.
I move amendment S4M-12763.1, to insert at end:
“; recognises the success of Fresh Talent, launched by the then First Minister, Jack McConnell, in bringing considerable benefits to Scotland’s economy by encouraging international students to work, study and stay in Scotland, and calls on the UK Government to immediately remove university students from net migration targets to ensure that Scotland’s universities can continue to compete in a growing global market”.
14:43