Adi, on the punt block, I mean, is that just the way that goes sometimes? It's a game of inches, and if you don't get it, that's the risk. There's a lot of if ands and no buts when it comes to that play. Ideally, it starts with me as a coach, continuing to work on our fundamentals and our techniques when it comes to being in those positions, understanding the down and the distance. And we don't want to run into the punter, and Adi wasn't trying to run in the punter, he's trying to make a play. But those things, when you don't give an opportunity for the punter to land, those penalties are going to get called. And we got to do a better job starting on myself, putting our players in better positions to go make those plays when we're in those positions. So, you know, Adi's been working his butt off, he's been great for us on teams and on defense, and he continues to get better. And we're just looking to put ourselves in a position to help our team on offense with the field position. Stephen Sims, in that Cougar return, what challenges did they approach all? Stephen Sims, dual-returner, dynamic, coming out of Kansas, played at Washington, he started his career in Washington, did a really good job. Actually, he did a great job for these guys in the pre-season. He had a really big return versus Seattle, I believe, on punt return. He's very dynamic with the ball in his hands, he's always looking to improvise and get to the edges, and he's fearless getting north-south with the football. So it's a great challenge when it comes to going against Sims, because he does a good job of flipping the field for their offense and putting their offense in a really good field position. I'm writing something about McCullough. And I'm curious, why did y'all sign him? What did you see in him that you thought he would be a good fit at Long Snapper? His ability to snap the ball, snap velocity, location, athletic ability, his attitude, his mindset when it comes to playing the game. We look at, in our special team's room, we look at guys that are athletes that snap, hold, punt, kick. And he fit those characteristics when we talk about athletic ability, his mindset, his snap velocity, snap location, and all those things came into play. And he's done a great job for us this year, and he continues to get better each and every week with his reps. He said that his goal is to never be noticed. Do you never notice him? I don't want to say I never notice him. There's only so many guys in the specialist room. I wouldn't say that. But that job, when you're a snapper in the NFL, there's only 32 of them. And sometimes people don't notice what you're doing until something happens when it comes to his position. Yeah, you try not to be noticed. And it's underappreciated the job that snappers do in the NFL until something bad happens. And we really appreciate the work that he puts in each and every day to help our units out. This is a big picture question and maybe a little odd. But when it comes to the return game and the schemes, the return game, is there anything new left out there? I mean, do you spend any time in the off-season looking at 1930s film, or trying to come up with something that hasn't been done, or is it just a matter of, you know, everything that could have been tried has been tried? We just need to perfect three or four things. There is, I mean, history does repeat itself. And we do look back at various tapes. Now, the rules have changed on punt return and kickoff return. So we had to adapt to the rules, but when you talk about fundamentals and our technique, those, it goes back to when football was invented, when it comes to those basic fundamentals. So we look at a lot of different ways to put our players in positions to win their blocks when we talk about kickoff return or punt return. And we do a lot of studies on what helps the returner, whether how much space can we give them when the ball's caught. And then the evolution of the kicker, how strong and how accurate kickers are and punters are, that kind of changes the mindset on how to do different things. I used to look back, when I first started coaching, a couple, like in the NFL or even in college, if you put pressure on a punter, sometimes you could force a bad kick. Now there's times too, based on the type of punter you're going against, if a punter sees that both their gunners are double press, now they're in their head, they're like, oh, I have to hit the best ball. And sometimes that's when they hit the worst ball, because they have to flip the field. So each and every week we look at different things. We look at one type of punter we're going against, when we talk about the evolution of the game and various studies. And then we look at how teams cover, because people cover different types of ways, whether they're using their PP as a third gunner or they're using their slots or wings as a faster cover player. So those things come into play and it's week by week, they're kind of like week by week studies for us in season. And then going back to off season, we look at various things on how we could help our return team gain first downs. And I know you heard me talk about that before, whether it's on kickoff return, touchback is up to 25. So can we get the ball to the 35 in return? Pun return, 10 yards, 10 or more yards. The more first downs we could get in the return game, it puts our offense in better position to put points on the board. So we try to look at those little things and kickoff return, the game has changed so much on kickoff return, no wedge blocking. When I first got into NFL, you could wedge block. And now you don't have that and now you have to keep eight guys up front. So now we talk about double teams and wedge blocks, there's less and less, because of the rules. Because you're dealing with so much open space with soccer in terms of, you're talking about putting your guys in the best position to block, in terms of everybody moving his one unit across 50 yards. Yes. Are you ever looking? Let's say look at soccer, but it's funny cause just watching soccer last couple of days, just watching how the spacing of how they operate and how they, more so how they defend. I look at the space and how they defend, but when we talk about kickoff return, I look at it as a run play. So on our offense, there'll be times where one block away from popping a big run on offense, but they're second down. So you could have a couple more downs or on that drive to get that. On kickoff return, it's that one down and you might get one opportunity for the rest of that game. So the important is everything's magnified on the kickoff return plan when it comes to that, but we do look at how we could get guys in proper positions to win their play side number. And then also to our blockers, it's really hard because let's say you're covering downfield and I'm blocking for our CP and we're running the return to the right, I got to have a picture of understanding behind me what CP is trying to do, how he's trying to set up the block, where do I need to be, how are you gonna cover me, are you gonna try to get straight to the bar, are you gonna try to shake me in women's speed and go back door? So it may look on a piece of paper, hey, you gotta block him, but there's how are you doing it and why do we want to do it that way? So we spend a lot of time on how and why with our players, with the spacing and understanding that. Thank you. Yes, take care, appreciate it. Rick London, his usage in the past game has been down. Do you, for a rookie, give him, for lack of a better word, a pep talk, or do you feel like if he needs a pep talk, he's not the guy you thought he was? Yeah, I don't think, you know, especially in this business, young player, not young player, I think a lot of guys understand the mentality in which they go in each game and especially at certain positions, right? There's opportunities, especially at the wide outspot where, you know, your number could be called and again, for whatever reason, right? You don't get a chance to have a chance to make a play. When it comes to Drake or any of our young players, I think they all have approached OTA's training camp and they're rather seasoned the right way. I mean, they've got a great professionalism about them. They understand that it's a team game and so when you look at the makeup of the young players that we have, they understand that at the end of the day, it's about trying to score and trying to win and however they can help us to do that, they will. But in terms of any of that, you know, talking to a guy or, you know, I don't think that's needed. I think it's more about the fact of understanding your role and then obviously us as coaches, right? Doing a good job of trying to get each of our players, right, a chance to show what they can do. Drake or any of the young players or any of the players on the roster, offensively. What are your reflections on just how well the team was able to run the ball against Washington that obviously has such a stout defensive front with those two defensive tackles in particular?  Everybody watches the same film. It's not like we have a different film as coaches and the players have. But I think what you see is we have an intent in which we like to play football. Guys understand it and our ability to play with a certain speed off the ball, regardless of its runner pass, I think starts pre-practice all the way through practice. And I think more importantly, guys have a belief in what we're doing and they play fast because they're thinking less because they understand what we're trying to accomplish. And usually at this level, less thinking equals faster play, which means you can typically get an advantage. Now again, are there things that Washington presented us that caused issues for sure? No different than a disappointment this week. But for us, right, it's allowing our players to think less and play faster. And hopefully that ends in good results for us. Arthur's made a couple of comments. I think you have to, but essentially, you know, all this scheme stuff is a little overrated. We could give them our playbook, we could take their playbook. It wouldn't make a ton of difference because it's more about how and when it's done. How literal is that? Yeah, I think some of that is, I think every good offense I've been a part of has tendencies. Right? There's things that you do that you do well. The teams know that. They obviously prepare for it.   They might, you might not know exactly when they're doing it, but you know it's coming because that's what they hold their hat on. But for us, it really does come down to the fact our ability to trust our fundamentals and our execution. And we try to prepare the players each week for as many different potential outcomes of looks they can get. If we feel we do that, right, then the pre-test is gonna be harder than the actual test. And so that's the goal of the coaches, position coaches and myself, is to prepare these guys going into the week on Sunday that what they faced in practice will be as hard or harder than what they're gonna see on Sunday. And again, is it always successful that way? Sometimes, right? They have different things they show you that they've never shown you before. But there's also times where as a coach, that's a rewarding part of it. Where you feel as a teacher, you've prepared your student or your player here, right? Where he's got the answer when he sees what's coming. And then you see guys play fast and guys react and then all of a sudden their instincts take over. You can't prepare for everything. This is the National Football League. There's some really, really great smart coaches all around this league. And they're smart players. And again, they devote their whole week to it. So we still try to give them the best way to make this week in terms of preparation hard for them. So when the game comes, it's easier. Some weeks, obviously, are more successful than others. Can I just go back to that last offensive play in Washington, just because there's been a lot of talk about it. When you go back and look at the film of that play, is there something that the players can do to better execute? That player is just one of those things where Winston can't do anything about Durong and getting his hand out and getting that pass away.  Again, when you look at play design, regardless of when, you ask yourself as coaches, are you putting your players in the best position? Were you able to at least schematically give yourself a chance? And then there's variables, right? It's no different than the play in that drive in which Marcus' play actions slips at the top of his drop, avoids a potential sack, and then you get a huge, huge play. That's a variable.  So there's variables in which you can never account for. We understand that. That's the hard part about coaching, right? As much as you want to control the environment, the reality is there's very little at times in those circumstances, right? That ball could have bounced any other way. Conversations, narratives could be completely different. But as coaches, right, as players, same thing, we all do introspective after games and you self-evaluate, and you go into any of those play designs, regardless if it's the last player, the first player, the third player, and you ask yourself, did we give the players an advantage? Was design good enough? And what did the defense do that presented problems for us? Because if whatever they did, we're gonna see again. But yeah, when you throw the football at any level, but especially in the NFL, right, there's things within or without your control. And you have to accept that. And unfortunately for us, right, there was a ball that got tipped and it went the direction of the commanders, and that's how it went. In terms of design and how we felt about the play and where the player is doing exactly what we asked, and did we think we were gonna get that defensive structure? Yeah, some of that play into our favorite, but obviously not the end result. Put your player hat back on a little bit and explain what it's like. You sure you don't want that? No, I do. No, they're just some of my favorites. No one wants to see that. What it's like in an NFL pocket on the play. That space or lack of space? Yeah, I think that's, I don't know if I've ever heard anybody really describe it in any way that can really help anybody who's never been in it. It's a feeling in which you can't mimic. That's the hardest part about why I think you get college quarterbacks that come in here who have really good in college football. And they get to the NFL and they're like, ah, they didn't have the same career. What did you guys miss in the evaluation? The hardest thing to mimic is an NFL pocket. You watch some college football and high school football and these guys can hitch, hitch, hitch. And all of a sudden, you know, they get through progressions and things of that nature. And then you get to the NFL. I was like, oh, we can't get through a progression. Well, most pockets, I think there was a study I did a few years ago that I had saw and did some of my own that almost 40% of the pockets are what we deem dirty, which means there's something at your feet you're getting hit after you throw. And I think that is the hardest thing for anybody to translate when you see it in college. You get to pro and then an NFL quarterback gets into here and there's things constantly around you, but it's an unnatural thing, right? So as a kid, you probably grew up and played tag or something like that, right? So anybody's coming after you. What do you, what's your natural reaction? And a look at them and then get out of there. But in the pocket, if you look at them, you take your eyes off the coverage and the receiver is a now, right? The defense has you. They know you're looking down at the rush and you're basically toast. So you're trying to fix someone's eyes and their natural reaction, right? Which is keep your head up, move, feel. And that's why when you see some of the greats, literally the pocket passers that have lasted in this league, the uncanny sense of their ability to move in just the right amount of space and keep their eyes down the field is why I think what separates guys who can play in this league for 10, 15 years and guys that can never make it. And it's as much as a potentially learned trade as it is just a natural feel. Because we talked about this a few weeks ago. Like the hardest thing about pocket presence is this. When you're a young quarterback and you're really athletic and someone's coming at you, what's your first natural reaction? Well, you're probably faster than everybody else on the field. You're probably the best athlete. So your natural reaction or your instinct is to go. But when you grow up and you can't do that because you're not as fast as everybody else and maybe the slowest guy in the field, right? Then what do you learn to do? You learn to play in that pocket because you know you can't survive outside of it. And so I think at times when you bring in guys or what a pocket feels like, there's a lot of natural feel, but there's some of those things where you have to basically, you have to make a decision with yourself that's gonna say, I'm gonna stay in here to the very last second, even though I know I'm gonna get hit and I'm gonna deliver this football because that's my job requirement. In the same token, right? You still want that player to be able to take off if needed. So you're walking the tightrope, but in terms of what that pocket feels like, I've never been around another contraption, drill. We've done VR in other places I've been and nothing. I mean, nothing, it's a surreal feeling also, right?  That's what I was gonna ask you, some of your senses go, other senses you lean on, right? So now all of a sudden where you would trust, maybe you're hearing another thing, well, those go away, right? Because now all of a sudden your focus is on something completely else that's different. So again, I think when you watch quarterbacks that have natural pocket presence, it's something that probably, that it's a certain sense they have. Guys who, and I've unfortunately been around and I was probably one included, thanks for bringing up my playing, but I won't be able to sleep tonight. Man, I'm just thinking like, if I had pocket presence, I would probably be on a beach in the Bahamas retired here, but because I didn't have pocket presence, I'm up here answering questions about pocket presence. When you scale college quarterbacks, is that something? Have you ever benefited the doubt to the players that maybe are behind bad offensive lines, that maybe don't have the stats like? Well, I think, you know, you look at something, it's a great question because there's some, like there's some dominant teams in college football that maybe play less, you know, the opponent isn't as good as them, right?  Cause you get here, it's just like, the reality is, and that's why when you see quarterbacks play fast at a young age at this level, like that is, that does attract you when you watch it on film, like, hey, this case got it. When the kid's got to take an extra hitch or he's got to move too much or like, it's going to take some time. I'm not saying you can't eventually get there, but there's for sure. Like when you're in college, man, there's, sometimes it's just seven on seven back there. And other times you got other programs that maybe don't have those dominant guys up front and it becomes an issue. But I also think this, like, and again, I'm talking at both sides of my mouth, which I normally do up here. There's a, no doubt, right? You can never pin me down like, hey, Rags did this, but he said this. I can't use anything that he does, which is typical, this is my goal when I walk out. So, but there is a fine line though, right? Of, well, yeah, coreback stays in there, coreback stays in there. He's taking hits, he's taking hits and every coreback has a clock and every clock can be broken. So there is a fine line of, hey, my man, like we can't be taking as many hits because eventually, right, what happens when a coreback gets his too much, when that ball starts spitting out really fast and now there's nothing developing. And so there is a fine line of all that. When you're switching to the game, when you're facing two linebackers, outside linebackers like the Seawers have, that can really get up the field and then cut back again. How does that affect the RPO portion of this game? Yeah, I think, you know, you look at this team in particular and how they're built and how they've been built really for a long period of time, regardless of who's been the caller there defensively. It's amazing to see the longevity of a place. I grew up in Cleveland, right? The Pittsburgh obviously being a rival as a kid and watching, what, three head coaches in how many years? And so you just, you see the style of play. You see the players that they drafted, the players they signed and you have the utmost respect for that organization in terms of how they do their business. And then you look at that defense and it's just a certain style of play in which, you know, I haven't been the AFC in a long time. I think the last time we played him in my coaching career is about five or six years ago and a lot hasn't changed. This is the intent in which they play and how they play. Some of the players obviously have changed, right? But those, and then you look at how they've played certain teams, right? Within the division, they obviously have some great quarterbacks within that division. You see how they play them. And so there is no, we are under the impression that they'll have a plan on how they're gonna play the quarterback. We know they're gonna be well-coached and we know that we're gonna have to do our best to try to keep them off balance. But we know that they have, within their toolbox of defensive tactics, they have every pitch and this way you have to be ready for it. I wanna ask you about these rookie add-dressers who have been getting, you know, more and more incorporated in the defense, Arno, Arno-Libacatey and D'Angelo, just what you've seen from them and their progression so far. Getting better each week. I mean they, you know, started out slow, a lot of stuff and a lot of new stuff to learn. I think they've progressed and the fact that they're playing faster because they're understanding more. So the longer you're around, the more you understand faster you're gonna play when you're sitting there thinking all the time cause you're not really sure that you don't usually play too fast. So I think they're progressing very well for rookies. A kiddie picket hasn't had a turnover, I think in the past three games. Is it a matter of him just getting the experience? Have you noticed how the Steelers kind of simplified things a little bit more within their scheme or? No, I don't think they simplified things at all. I mean, if you watch the first part of the season and it's Trabisci and then now you watch here, you see the same route tree, you see the same plays, you see the same pretty much everything. I don't think they've changed a whole lot. I mean, they could have changed some things. I don't know, you know, I'm not in their meeting so I don't know that. But I'm not, I don't think that's the case. I think the guys just gain an experience getting feeling more comfortable back there. It's like anything else. Just like you guys asked me about the outside backers. I mean, the more you play, the better you feel, the faster you play. Because I've seen it now a little bit. But I think it's just him gaining an experience. When you look at that offense, just what are in general the biggest challenges that they present to you guys on Sunday? Well, first of all, they're a good running team. They get two, they get good backs. They run hard. You know, it's similar, I think, to a little bit to last week with Washington. They're similar type guys, not just because they both went to Alabama, but because I mean, they're similar type guys, hard runners. And then the other thing is they do a lot formationally and they got good receivers. To me, they're very similar in a lot of ways. Not schematically necessarily to Washington, but I thought Washington had a couple of really good wide receivers, had good running backs, had a good scheme, a lot of motion, a lot of different things. And I think the Steelers are similar in some ways to that. Not necessarily the exact same scheme. I'm just saying, personnel-wise and stuff, I think they're good and get good, two good young quarterbacks. Not getting AJ back, you know, you've had him now for a couple of weeks now, but how does he change what you're able, what does defense is basically able to do? Well, I don't know that he's changed, you know, the defense per se, it's just you got a good player starter out there playing. That's it. It's not like, okay, when he comes back, we're gonna change all the coverages and stuff like that. It's not. It's just the guy, you know, that's why he was a starter. When you have a starter and you have a backup, the backup's usually pretty good, but he's not as good as a starter or he'd be the starter. So the fact of it is he's just playing the calls that we have better. Players like Tim, you wanted to respond to, just stepping up in place of Tehuangra. They're doing a good job. They're fighting their butt off and stepping in there. And the good thing is, is they were progressing anyhow. They were kind of in the rotation up there anyhow, even with Tehu. And so now they just got to play a little bit more because he's out of there. But I think both of them are responding very well.


The next item of business is members' business debate on motion 15707, in the name of Gordon MacDonald, on hardline visa controls impact on Edinburgh festivals. That debate will be concluded without any questions being put. May I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now? I call on Gordon MacDonald to open the debate for around seven minutes, please. The Edinburgh festival is the world's largest arts festival, and Edinburgh is well recognised as the world's leading festival city. However, our reputation is being damaged and our international positioning is being put at risk because of the UK Government's hostile immigration policy. Artists are facing a humiliating application process, their visas are being refused, and due to inaction from the UK Government to resolve the issue, artists are being deterred from coming here. Performers not only entertain us but they educate us about other cultures, and as a result our society is enriched. However, not only is the visa issue damaging for our culture but it is damaging to our economy. During the course of a year, the Edinburgh festival will see audiences of a staggering £4.7 million come from all over the world, generating an economic impact of £280 million in Edinburgh and a total of £313 million across Scotland. Whilst we see the Scottish Government, art industry and artists themselves trying to improve, grow and develop our festivals, the UK Government's hostile environment immigration system risks the future of Edinburgh festivals. Amnesty in the briefing stated that participants of the Edinburgh festival fringe and the international festival that are defined as permit-free festivals were still required to undergo an application process identical to that of a standard visitor's visa if their nationality warranted a visa requirement for the UK. Amnesty described the overall picture as grim, with visa issues posing serious challenges for those involved in organising the Edinburgh festival. Two thirds of respondents said that performers they were working with had experienced visa refusals. We need everyone to come together on this and look at developing something similar to cultural passports for individuals participating in festivals around the country. Something that will address the particular issues that the festivals are facing. Owners and visitor visa evidence requirements, long periods of passport retention, cost to UK festivals of sponsorships, short duration visitor visas, restrictive salary conditions and the inability for festivals to invite young or emerging artists. I want to highlight a few examples of how that is affecting the industry, but I also want to be clear that those are just a few examples that are many, many more. Last year at the international book festival, about a dozen individuals went through the extremely difficult process of trying to obtain a visa. They were from the Middle East and African countries. Those artists all had their applications refused at least once. Several of the applications were outstanding with less than a week before they were due to appear at the festival. One artist was told that she had too much money and that it looked suspicious for her short trip, another was told that she did not have enough, so she transferred £500 into the account and was then told that the £500 looked suspicious. Artists are being asked to provide three years' worth of bank statements to demonstrate financial independence despite festivals such as the book festival paying the artist to participate in their festival and guaranteeing to cover their costs while in the UK. Nick Barley, the director of the Edinburgh International Book Festival, described one particular situation in which one author had to give his birth certificate, marriage certificate, his daughter's birth certificate and then had to go for biometric testing. The artist then wanted to back out of his participation in the festival at that point because he could not bear it. Nick Barley has said that the relationship with authors is being damaged because the system is completely unfit for purpose and described the process as humiliating and kafka-esque. In 2017, Cachita Worst, the 2014 Eurovision winner, pulled out of the Edinburgh International Festival because her Syrian band members who had been living in Vienna for three years were denied visas. Ironically, she had been due to perform at a concert celebrating the importance of immigration in European culture. That same year, the Arab's Art Showcase had a third of the visas denied more than once. That included her technical director who was given the wrong type of visa by the Home Office, two dancers with solo shows and almost their entire marketing team. One of their shows had to be cancelled completely, and he spent around £6,000 on the process. Andy Wightman Thank you very much to the member for taking intervention. Is he aware as to whether those problems have increased in recent years? Has it been a long-standing issue, or has it just cropped up more recently? Could he give some sense from his own research? Gordon MacDonald Thank you very much for that. My understanding is steadily getting worse, but we are now at the point where visas are getting applied for the festival in August, so we will find out in a couple of months' time whether the circumstances have changed a bit or better, but my gut feeling hasn't improved at all. Sarah Sharawy, who was the project manager of the Arab Art Showcase, has said the following. How the Home Office dealt with us was appalling, and the reasons for refusal were flat out lies. We had a crew member who was refused because he had never been in the UK. When the reality was that he had been in the UK with a show in 2009 and 2012. We had a Palestinian dancer who applied twice, and one of the refusal's letters spoke repeatedly about their circumstances in Egypt. When the reality was that he wasn't based in Egypt, one letter was simply empty. He didn't remember to fill in the reason of refusal section. Following the number of visa denials in 2017, Amnesty International in Scotland surveyed Edinburgh Festival organisers and companies to find out the impact of the visa process in the UK on their work. Festival organisers reported multiple visa denials and the knock-on effect of cancelled shows and considerable stress and pressure within organisations. The issue is not just affecting artists and festivals in Scotland, it is UK-wide. English Penn has said that the visa process is complex and humiliating and presents the UK as a place that has closed its doors to international culture. John Mason I realise that A is focused on festivals, but we agree that that is also a problem for conferences and a range of other reasons that people would want to come to this country short-term. Gordon MacDonald Absolutely, I would agree with that. Directors of Britain's biggest international festivals came together last year to sign an open letter warning the UK Government of the risk to festivals because of home office visa application procedures. The letter, signed by 25 festival directors from across the UK, said that the current visa application process for artists is lengthy, opaque and costly. It went on to say that the situation has led to artists now telling festivals that they are much more reluctant to accept invitations to come to the UK due to the visa process. That is unacceptable. Scotland is known as an inclusive and welcoming place, but our reputation as a global gathering place has been put at risk by narrow-minded xenophobic Tory policies. As my Edinburgh colleague, Deirdre Brock, MP has said that musicians, writers and performers have become collateral damage cut up in the Tory's hostile approach to immigration. Unless things change now, this situation is only going to get worse as the Tories continue hell bent on a no-deal Brexit. An immigration bill is currently going through the Westminster Parliament. It should bring in amendments to tackle the issues that are raised and act now. If it will not, it should devolve immigration and let the Scottish Government get on with building a fair and functional immigration system that is fit for the 21st century. We move to the open debate. Speeches of Four Minutes, please. Andy Wightman followed by John McAlpine. First of all, I would like to apologise to the chamber. I need to leave at half past one to have a pre-standing commitment to a meeting with the minister. I know how busy ministers' diaries are, so thank you very much. I particularly welcome this debate brought by Gordon MacDonald. I think that it is extremely important and congratulate him on his own research and his opening remarks, which spell out the nature of the problem. As members are aware, as Gordon MacDonald himself said, Edinburgh's festivals are world famous. They are successful. They are a celebration of much that is good about the human spirit, and they bring together diverse cultures and peoples and continue to contribute to the founding vision of the Edinburgh international festival forged in the aftermath of the horrors of Nazism and genocide. Gordon MacDonald quoted from Amnesty's briefing. I would like to thank Amnesty for a very good briefing on the topic, which I think has helped members to get to grips with what can sometimes be a rather difficult topic. As Gordon MacDonald also said in response to my intervention, the situation has, I think, it's fair to say, reached something of a crisis point and there's no signs that it's going to improve any time soon. As he also said, the Edinburgh festival fringe and international festival are designated as permit free, meaning that performers and legitimate entourage can come here without the need for a work permit but still need to apply for a conventional visa. That seems to be increasingly out of step with the role that tourism and culture are playing not just in the economy of Scotland but in the economy of the UK as well. In recent years, in 2017, for example, we had the high-profile case of the Austrian singer Conchita Wurst, who was forced to cancel her performance after her band members were denied visas. However, it's not just high-profile acts that have issues with the Home Office. I was contacted last year by a constituent having an issue with a visa for the book festival, and Gordon MacDonald mentioned a few of those. They had a young family who, in fact, had British citizenship but, due to Home Office rules, they couldn't find a way to enter the UK from New Zealand. That was the book festival and, of course, a festival that doesn't have permit free status, but, even if it did, as Amnesty made clear, artists are still faced with the labyrinth of the visa application process. What Amnesty also tells us is that some venues and programmers are concerned, continue to be concerned, that visa issues would compromise festival programmes in the future. I think that that is a really serious issue. I'm notwithstanding the immediate problems that artists face, I think that that is the key issue that we need to stress to the UK Government. As Gordon MacDonald said, the UK cannot be a place that has an important cultural component to its economy unless it's easy for artists to travel here. Indeed, one venue said that it hoped to continue working with visa-sensitive countries, but was concerned at the high costs alone, and that alone made the venue very cautious to book shows in the future. Two venues have stated that they have forced to reconsider the feasibility of projects involving performers from certain countries, one noting that it had forced to rethink bringing artists, for example, from some Arab countries. That cannot continue. As Gordon MacDonald said, Scotland prides itself on our welcome to visitors, and those from outwith Scotland who wish to make their home here. It's not possible to realise those ambitions of some of those, with the most to offer in the cultural sphere of being denied access to perform and to attend events in Edinburgh and elsewhere. In conclusion, I thank Gordon MacDonald once again, and I and other members will be very happy to be part of a wider-focused campaign that seeks to resolve those matters as soon as possible, especially in the light of any new restrictions that may be coming in the aftermath of Brexit. I call Rachael Hamilton to be followed by Sandra White. I want to take this opportunity to thank Gordon MacDonald for bringing this debate to Parliament. Do you want me to carry on? I can sit down. Oh, I'm terribly sorry, Mr McAlpine. I don't know how I—how can I miss you? That's very good review, Ms Hamilton. Sorry. Okay, I think we'll have Joan McAlpine, and I think we'll follow her by—I'm all confused, now. Rachael Hamilton—no, John McAlpine. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would have given way to Rachael Hamilton, but I have to leave, so I apologise for that, so I'm going to take the opportunity to speak now. I'd like to welcome Gordon MacDonald MSP's success in securing this very important debate. It is now almost a year since Nick Barlow, the director of the Edinburgh International Book Festival, spoke out about the humiliating treatment of visiting authors by the UK, and he wasn't alone. In fact, he was one of 25 festival directors who last year signed an open letter complaining about the situation. Gordon MacDonald has outlined the nightmare of the current situation very well, and I want to say a bit more about how it could get even worse in the event of a no-deal Brexit, because, of course, those visa difficulties do not, at the moment, extend to the 500 million citizens of Europe who enjoy free movement to work, travel, do business and enjoy cultures right across Europe. What an added nightmare of the strong links that we have with artists from EU countries suffered the same damage that the UK seems determined to inflict to our relationships with artists and cultural tourists from the rest of the world. After Nick Barlow addressed this Parliament's cross-party group on culture on this issue last year, the CPG wrote collectively to David Lidington, the Deputy Prime Minister, about our concerns. We asked him to safeguard the ability of the cultural sector to move freely in order to continue to gain employment from European clients. We pointed out that Scotland's cultural sector has many European clients. The European industry enables careers to be viable outside of London, particularly when most of the work sector of the new sector is based. That makes freedom of movement particularly important to those based in Scotland who have less employment locally than somewhere like London, for example. We told Mr Lidington that the economic benefits of cultural tourism are well known. The cultural sector needs to be able to access European talent, and that includes performers to play at festivals, major events and companies, as well as educators to teach at our universities and cultural institutions. That is particularly the case for smaller scale enterprises, which could close, as they would be unable to withstand the potentially prohibitive visa, work permit, administration and management costs in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The European Parliament Culture and Education Committee is very much aware of the threat of obstacles to mobility for cultural workers. It had an inquiry into the topic and highlighted three areas of difficulty. One is the recognition of specific working regimes of artists and cultural professionals, another is withholding tax and social security rules, and the third is the issue of travel documents. Those are the obstacles that face cultural workers at the moment. The UK Government white paper contains a so-called cultural accord, but culture accounts, who are the secretariat to the CPG, point out that the cultural accord does not address the three barriers that were outlined by the European Parliament's Culture and Education Committee. Neither does the withdrawal agreement, because although the political declaration hints at visa-free travel, the withdrawal agreement certainly does not, and, of course, with no deal, we are completely up in the air. The UK single market is, of course, not something that the withdrawal agreement guarantees. In fact, the red lines of the UK Government means that we are leaving the single market. Of course, the single market covers services and creative industries are service industries. We did get a reply, not from Mr Lidington, but from the DCMS Minister Michael Ellis. Mr Ellis acknowledged the very important role of arts and artists. Indeed, he suggested that it was the strength of the creative sector that had resulted in the UK obtaining number one place in the Portland soft power index. How long that will last after Brexit has made Britain a laughing stock? We do not know. However, in response to the CPG's concerns about the end of freedom of movement, he had not one single crumb of comfort. His letter simply stated that the UK Government is clear that freedom of movement will end as we leave the EU. There was some mention of reciprocal arrangements in the letter for business travellers in the withdrawal agreement, which, of course, is now dead in the water, but nothing on the cultural sector whatsoever. It was of deep concern to the CPG and continues to be of deep concern to the CPG. That is why we have to ensure that we call a halt to Brexit, because a withdrawal agreement would obviously—no deal Brexit—would be disastrous for the economy as a whole and particularly disastrous for the cultural sector. We are back on track. Rachel Hamilton followed by Sandra White. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you to Gordon MacDonald for bringing what is quite a difficult subject to talk about. However, I have looked at and spoken to my colleagues about some of the issues that he does raise. I have found that not one of them has come to me to speak about this, and I just think that it is an issue that, as an Edinburgh MSP, I would like to hear more about those difficulties, because that would enable us to feed in to the future agreement. In that opportunity, I would like to say that I do not want to see a no deal, but I would also like to take the opportunity to herald the success of the Edinburgh festivals as they are fast approaching, because we must do that within this debate as well. The diversity and participation in the festivals is so important. It is an exciting time for Scotland's cultural calendar to attract more than 4 million people from all over Scotland. Just a bit of background to the festivals. Most of us enjoy the festivals, but it is the largest art festival in the world with live theatre and comedy performances. That is why speaking about the visa applications for artists is so important, because so many people are involved. On average, the festival presents more than 150 performances involving 2,500 artists, and we see huge audiences in the region of about 400,000 a year. The capital does come alive with the visitors from around the world, and overseas tourism to Scotland has risen by 10 per cent in a year, while the number of European tourists jumped by 19 per cent. The attractiveness of the festival continues to grow, and I hope that we can continue to have a positive outlook about the festival and those people coming towards us to Scotland. As we have heard today, the Edinburgh festival fringe is a permit-free festival, which means that performers and their legitimate entourage, as Andy Wightman says, do not need to obtain permits to appear in the UK. I agree that simplicity is absolutely the key. The visa application process should be one of simplicity. I am concerned that Gordon MacDonald is talking about some of the issues that some of the artists are having, but performers and entourage at permit-free festivals enter the UK as a standard visitor and do not need to apply for entry under the points-based system, or as a permitted paid engagements visitor. However, as Andy Wightman said, they may need to apply for a visa such as those from non-EU countries. Those are listed and the festival gives guidelines in order to be able to do that. Let me be clear that nothing has changed regarding EU countries. In the future, as we leave the EU, EU citizens will still be able to participate in the fringe, just as they can today, because it is a permit-free festival. However, the music industry, interestingly, is calling for the introduction of an EU-wide touring visa, and the Government should pursue that when looking into our future relationship with the European Union. Indeed, the idea again of a cultural passport is an interesting one. Andy Wightman says that EU citizens will still be able to come to the festival and the fringe, particularly as a free festival. However, many European artists do not come here in their own account. They come here as part of entourage or ensembles who include among their number people who have visa requirements to enter the UK. Does she accept that? There are non-EU countries that are listed in the festival guidelines, and yes, they have to have visa permits to be able to do that. I am not quite sure of the nature of Andy Wightman's point here, but I am happy, again, because I am very interested in learning of the issues that are currently happening, and I would very much like to discuss that with both Gordon and Andy Wightman. I was just saying that, indeed, the cultural passport is a very good idea, and perhaps should be pursued. I will wait one last point, because I know that time is of the essence, but I do not believe that negativity caused in the wording of the motion today does anyone any favours. Despite us leaving the EU, we must make visitors very welcome to Scotland and the UK, and they continue to perform in festivals just as the way they have always done, and long may this continue. Sandra White, followed by Claire Baker. I congratulate Gordon MacDonald for securing this debate. It is a very interesting one, and, as someone has come from Glasgow, I know that the Celtic connections also have this problem, too, but that is based on the Edinburgh part. However, if I could just possibly pick up the issue that John Mason raised about the overall issue of visas, it is very, very important. Obviously, we just had the Sabears disease chief executive of the Scottish Refugee Council, and the father was refused entry. However, thankfully, with support from others, he has got that visa. I think that it is important to remember that it affects various people. The point that I wanted to make was, and I think that Rachael Hamilton not so much reminded me of it, but I think that it is the most important point. Rachael Hamilton mentioned EU citizens. Also, Gordon MacDonald mentioned the vast majority of people who refuse visas come from Middle East and Africa. I find that that is a case and that I have had a great number of people coming, particularly from Middle East, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. Those are the people who are refused visas. If I could just give you a couple of examples. I had Mr Mahmood Akbar, an award-winning photographer, who wanted permission last year in November 2017. He was not given that permission and he was exhibiting his work in Edinburgh. Glasgow was also not just in Edinburgh. He was not allowed to enter. He came from Palestine. Another person that I had, a number of people I had, was freedom to run, which was coming to Edinburgh also. That was an organisation of right to movement. They were coming to Edinburgh in May to run the marathon in Edinburgh. They were refused entry also, but similar to the previous one that I mentioned, with a lot of hard work and appeals, we managed to get those people here. Those people were sitting about for months, not known if they could enter or not. That is the biggest problem. In Middle East and Africa, it is not so much Europe, and Andy Wightman is absolutely right. They do not just come individually, they come as part of an entourage as well. That is something that we have to realise. I hope that, if we get numbers, we will see the discrepancies. I would say that we are biased against people from the Middle East. Being able to come to Edinburgh and perform individually or part of an entourage or a group at the Edinburgh festival and other festivals, Celtic Connections or whatever it may be. I recently had another application that asked me to look into the application. That gentleman came from Gaza, also in Palestine, and was asked very invasive questions about whether he would come back to Gaza. The chap has got a job, he has a family, he supports his family. Of course, he is going to go back to his home country and support his family. He is world-renowned, this particular gentleman. However, he was refused a visa also to come to Edinburgh. We have tried everything. In fact, I had booked rooms in the Parliament for the chap. He would have been here two weeks ago in May. He received permission from the Scottish Parliament to come and exhibit his work here in the Parliament, but he did not get the visa to come here. There is something far wrong when you have renowned artists throughout the world, and just because they come from a certain part of the world, mostly the Middle East and Africa, not necessarily Europeans, they are not allowed. They are asked invasive questions, they have to jump through. I do not know how many hoops and, thankfully, sometimes they are successful. However, the gentleman took four years to produce this exhibition, and in two days that was ruined, simply because the Home Office did not give him permission. However, the Parliament could email him and say that we have the event set up for you, we have sent invitations out and it could not happen. When you are talking about cultural passports, that is a great idea. I do not know how we are going to look at that, but I am thankful that Gordon raised this today. It is high time that we will look at who is allowed to come into this country and who is not. The last of the open debate contributions is from Claire Baker. I welcome Gordon MacDonald bringing this issue to the chamber. As others have said, Edinburgh festival secures audiences of £4.5 million, delivering over 3,000 events each year. It generates an annual economic impact of some £280 million in Edinburgh and £313 million across Scotland. For more than 70 years, the city has built its enviable reputation as a world leader, delivering individual festivals that have a global cultural impact. Almost a third of the annual visitors to Scotland are motivated by the cultural and heritage offer in which the festivals play a key role. With participants from eight to five countries taking part in the festivals in 2017, their ability to attract and welcome global artists is critical to their success. It is clear that the approach of the immigration service is undermining that, is damaging the reputation of the UK and consequently the Edinburgh festivals, as a welcoming destination for performers from across the world. Incidences of performers being denied visas appear to be increasing, resulting in additional costs, inconvenience and stress for all those involved. Julia Armour, the director of festivals Edinburgh, has warned the current approach risk-pooting artists of coming to the UK, while Nick Barley, as others have said, director of the Edinburgh international book festival, has spoken of up to a dozen performers from Africa in the Middle East having serious delays to their applications for last year's events, with some having to reapply several times or even cancel their plans to participate. In the briefing for this debate, Amnesty International highlighted a survey of festival organisers and venues in 2017, which highlighted that visa issues posed a serious challenge for organisers. Two thirds of those surveys, third performers they worked with, had experienced visa refusals, including a number from Iran, Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Sudan and Lebanon. Those refusals resulted in performances being cancelled or taking place with limited cast and crew. They also meant that some venues are now more cautious in terms of bookings that involve performers from certain countries. There is a clear emphasis on middle eastern artists and Arab arts focus says that half of their performers had visa applications declined. Those issues are not just restricted to Edinburgh festivals, but impact on events throughout the UK, underlining the need for a UK system that recognises the legitimate requirements of performers and other international guests visiting the UK. Organisers of the WOMAD festival, for example, have reported acts were turning down invitations to perform as a result of the difficult and humiliating visa processes that they were having to go through. While the current system attempts to make provision for entertainer visitors for specific permit-free festivals such as Edinburgh Festival Fringe and the International Festival, not all events are covered by those definitions and carrying different requirements. It is also reported that, even in instances where performers can apply for visas as entertainer visitors, the process is actually the same as a standard visitor and refusal under either scheme is a high probability for performers from a number of countries. The approach that the Home Office is taking to short-term visa applications is inconsistent, affecting middle eastern and African countries and lacking in clarity. It is clear that its impact is damaging and providing a deterrent to viable applications. The changes have already made it more difficult, if indeed not impossible, for some legitimate performers to take part in events, to the detriment of our cultural life and expression. The House of Lords recently held a debate on the movement of people in the cultural sector, which highlighted recommendations in a committee report calling for consideration of a EU-wide multi-entry touring visa post-Brexit. The debate criticised the failure of the UK Government to respond to those recommendations, highlighting the need for a more thorough consideration of how the immigration system can and does impact on the cultural sector. The UK Government needs to change its approach to immigration, and it needs to recognise how damaging its current approach is having on the richness of our cultural events. We want Edinburgh Scotland and the UK to be seen as a welcoming place for all cultures. Indeed, that is key to the continued success of our festivals and our wider tourism appeal. Events like the Edinburgh festival rely on an ability to attract the very best talent from around the world. It offers performers an opportunity to apply their creative skills and talent and a world-leading showcase. Visa processes should be supporting rather than hampering our cultural exchange. The system, overseen by the Home Office, is increasingly hostile and a threat to the vibrancy of our festivals. They must take action to fix that. I now call Fiona Hyslop to respond to the debate for around seven minutes. I am pleased to be concluding today's debate on this most important issue. I am grateful to Gordon MacDonald for bringing the motion to the chamber and also to Deirdre Brock MP for Edinburgh North and Leith for her on-going support of Edinburgh international festivals on this issue. The Scottish Government has long-standing concerns around how readily artists and performers can come to Scotland for the Edinburgh international festivals and the problems that delayed visa processes, refusals and refusals, which are then overturned at the very last minute, can cause festival organisers of all sizes. Year on year, festivals across Scotland and indeed the United Kingdom have been played by uncertainty around visas. Sometimes even the same artists repeat issues one year to the next, and that is unacceptable. It is not simply a matter of timeliness. It is our international standing as a leading centre of global cultural discovery that is also jeopardised. Something has to change. Two years ago, I attended the new European Songbook at the Edinburgh international festival, where Eurovision Song Contest, when I Can Cheat of Worse, was due to perform alongside her band Basalt. That was the case that was referred to by Gordon MacDonald. Despite a supporting statement from the festival, each of the three Syrian band members had their visa applications denied. As a direct result, the performance was cancelled, causing last minute changes to the festival programme, disappointment for those attending and embarrassment for the event organisers. This was a Scottish Government expo funded British Council-supported Edinburgh international festival event, where the Austrian broadcasting company was the lead broadcaster and it was the Austrian performance that could not take place. It was beyond belief. Does the UK Home Office not realise how bad that looks, let alone the effect on the individual artists? Last year, I was a politician, writer and TV journalist, had our visitor visa to attend the international book festival denied, not once but three times, having started the process in April of that year. Eventually, our application was granted, but not before she had missed the original event that she was built to appear at. John Mason also asked about business events. This weekend, Glasgow is hosting the world editor's congress. We have reports of delegates being refused visas by the UK Home Office. It is now parading the hostility in front of the world's press. Rachael Hamilton referred to permanent free festivals. The duration of permanent paid engagement is only one month. It is quite clear that, if you are travelling across the world, you might want onward engagements. The visa is not open to emerging artists under 18s. Although the Edinburgh fringe is keen to retain that permanent free festival status, the route could and should be approved. Every year, it seems that the internationalism of our festivals and the open and welcoming message we strive to send risks being confused and muddied by persistent visa issues that prevent and delay those wishing to visit and contribute to the creativity and culture. The Scottish Government has regularly raised concerns with the UK Government around the challenges for international artists and performers coming to participate in our festivals. Indeed, those are issues that occurred long before the added chaos and uncertainty that was voisted upon us by Brexit. Brexit, as Joe McAlpine identified, now threatens to extend those problems to EU citizens, as detailed in the UK Government's white paper on immigration. A better solution for visiting artists, performers and others must be integral to any future immigration system. That is particularly important if freedom of movement is to end and the UK leaves the EU and European visitors are made to comply with the Home Office's increasingly burdensome and complex rules. In their white paper, the UK Government outlines a commitment to redesign and simplify the implementation and operation of the immigration system. It is crucial that they seize that opportunity to ensure that the issues from the past and of the present are not replicated in the future. The current visa application process for visitors coming to Scotland for international events is lengthy, complex and costly, with attendees or organisers sometimes spending thousands of pounds on visas and associated costs for a visit that may sometimes only last a few days. The guidance is confusing, the decision making is uncertain and there is no right to appeal to review. The Scottish Government will continue to argue for a system that works for everyone. I fully recognise the need to find solutions in conjunction with those who experience those systems firsthand. That is why I have been working with organisers of festivals, conferences and events of all sizes to ensure that their contribution to Scotland's reputation as a place of artistic diversity and exchange is recognised. Indeed, the messages that we hear each time we meet with leaders and representatives from across Scotland's cultural life is clear and consistent. Although short-term technical changes to immigration rules are a step in the right direction, a wider, more meaningful shift is needed in the way that the UK Government operates its policy towards the myriad of visiting members from the world's creative communities. I can inform the Parliament that I have written to the Home Secretary asking the Home Office to work with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations to proactively and meaningfully address the challenges of the existing visa system for artists and performers. I will be inviting the Home Secretary and counterparts in the devolved Administrations to an international festivals visa summit in Edinburgh, where, in the home of the world's biggest arts festival, we can openly discuss our shared concerns and work together to find solutions to protect our reputation as an outward-looking, welcoming country. Let me conclude by reiterating that this Parliament is committed to protecting Scotland's international cultural standing and remains proud of our capital being the world's leading festival city. To those who face challenges in coming here, we are clear that Scotland remains open, open to the unrivaled pleasure of the arts, open to cultural exchange and open to business. It is time that the immigration system recognised that. That concludes the debate, and this meeting is suspended until 2.30pm.