Subordinate Legislation
We move to item 2, which concerns the regulations for the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Act 2001. I shall first outline the procedure that we have agreed with the minister. The minister will give a 10-minute introduction to the regulations, after he has introduced his officials. We will then have a question-and-answer session of up to 30 minutes to allow him to answer questions from members of the committee. I shall then open up the debate, after which I shall put the question on the motion at 3.30 at the latest. Obviously, if we get through proceedings more quickly, that will be fine. However, I want to allow members the maximum time to ask questions or to make any contributions that they might wish to make.
I will make a suggestion. We have discussed the issue at least three times and we have had formal debates on it. We have had a chance to air our views on the subject. In no way do I want to limit debate, but I would find it more useful if, following the minister's introduction, we could go straight into the formal debate. We cannot change or amend the instrument; we can either agree to the motion or not. It would be good if members could have the debate and raise any points or questions at that time.
What do other members feel?
Marilyn Livingstone makes a fair point. The subject has been well aired. If it were a question of providing and considering subtle amendments or specific points of information on the regulations, which could then change, that would be a different matter. However, as the committee is expected to say only yes or no, we should just do as Marilyn Livingstone suggests.
Okay. As there seems to be all-round agreement on that, we will proceed in that way. We are cutting down your work load, minister, although we might still grill you until 3.30pm. I invite you to introduce your officials and to speak to the regulations.
The committee has met Jim Logie, Lucy Hunter and Chris Graham previously. I thank the committee for inviting us to the meeting. I am glad to have the opportunity to begin the formal debate on the final stage of the Graduate Endowment (Scotland) Regulations 2001.
The regulations are the first to be made under regulation 1 of the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Act 2001, which received royal assent on 3 May. Throughout the progress of the bill, we provided the committee with illustrative drafts of the regulations in order to enable members to familiarise themselves with the regulations' main provisions. The final set of regulations was laid on 15 May. We have also discussed the detail of the regulations with our advisory group, for whose input we are grateful.
The regulations cover the arrangements for payment of the graduate endowment by liable graduates and they specify which graduates are liable to pay and when. The regulations also specify the amount of the graduate endowment that is to be paid and they make provision for loans to be made available to graduates to enable them to discharge their liability.
I am conscious of the fact that the Subordinate Legislation Committee asked us to reconsider the balance of detail in the act and the regulations, which we did. The Subordinate Legislation Committee acknowledged the need for flexibility in the detail of the scheme to the extent that, if more detail was included in the act, it would need to be in the form of what is sometimes called a Henry VIII clause. In other words, the act would have to be open to amendment by secondary legislation. We do not believe that that would have been an improvement and it could have become more confusing over time.
I shall deal with the regulations in order. Part I merely covers the citation and commencement details. The regulations' coming into force on 1 August 2001 will ensure that students who start degree courses in the forthcoming academic year will be liable to pay the graduate endowment. Part I also provides definitions for specific terms that are used elsewhere in the regulations. Part II explains which new students will be liable to pay the endowment. Under regulation 3(1) a liable graduate is a person who has undertaken a full-time degree course that commenced on or after 1 August 2001 at a Scottish college or university.
The regulations recognise that there is an increasing variety of patterns of study. We want students to be as clear as possible at the start of their courses about whether they will be liable to pay the endowment. For that reason, regulation 3(1)(b) sets out the minimum periods of full-time degree study that will attract liability. In particular, we have taken account of the growth in recent years in the number of students who progress from higher national certificate to higher national diploma to degree-level education. Responses to our consultation and subsequent discussions with a variety of higher education representative bodies indicated that students should, as far as possible, be treated in the same way, whether they gain their degree through the conventional route or they begin their studies on a sub-degree HE course—for example, on what is sometimes referred to as the 2-plus-2 model.
Regulation 3(1)(b) therefore provides that, for students whose study has been undertaken wholly on a degree course, the period of full-time study that will attract liability should be three years. For a student who moves from a sub-degree course
"as part of a continuous programme of higher education",
only two years on a full-time degree course are needed. We are aware that a number of students follow the 2-plus-1 model of study, taking one year after an HND to reach ordinary degree standard. We received forceful representations that that is a valuable way of encouraging non-traditional students to degree level study and that making those students liable for the endowment might risk preventing the further development of that approach. We agree that the development of the 2-plus-1 model is especially valuable in widening access; therefore, regulation 3(1)(b) will ensure that those students will not be liable to pay the endowment. We expect patterns of HE study to continue to evolve, and we think that it is right that the rules are contained in regulations, rather than in the act. In that way, liability for the endowment can continue to be adapted as necessary to reflect the changing nature of HE provision.
Regulation 3(1)(c) deals with the residency rules for liability, which are almost identical to the residency rules for the receipt of bursary and other support from the Student Awards Agency for Scotland. The only difference between these rules and those that are applied by SAAS is that refugees are exempt from liability for the endowment, although a refugee might be entitled to support from SAAS for at least part of their course.
Regulation 3(2) will ensure that students who are currently on HNC or HND courses, who later transfer to degree courses, will not be liable for the endowment—in other words, we accept that they should not be treated as new students. Such students' HNC or HND courses must commence in 2001 or later for the continuous programme of study to trigger liability.
Regulations 3(3) and 3(4) will ensure that graduates whose pattern of study involves a change of institution or course, or that involves part-time study will be liable as long as they meet the requirement of the minimum period of full-time study.
Regulation 4 deals with exemption. It provides that graduates will be exempt from liability if they fulfil the criteria that are applied to mature students at the start of their courses for the purpose of student support. The exemptions are contained in the regulations so that the definitions can be kept in line with those that are used elsewhere in the student support system, which are contained in regulations, or in rules that are made under regulations.
Regulation 5 provides that certain courses are exempt either because of their level—such as HNC and HND courses—or, in the case of the professions that are allied to medicine, because of separate funding arrangements for students who are undertaking them. A review of the funding arrangements for students who are undertaking health-related courses—which are listed in schedule 3—is currently under way and the position of those students in relation to the graduate endowment will have to be considered as part of that review.
Regulation 6 requires individuals, colleges and universities to provide information that is necessary for the assessment of whether students are liable for the graduate endowment.
In part III, regulation 7 explains that the amount of graduate endowment that is payable by liable graduates will be set at the start of their degree course, whether or not the degree follows directly from a lower-level course. Under regulation 7(3), the amount of endowment for new entrants this year will be £2,000. We considered very carefully whether those provisions would be better contained in the 2001 act or the regulations, especially in the light of the comments of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. However, we did not feel that it was appropriate to embed a specific figure in the act. Such a step is always unusual and risks tying a scheme to an out-of-date figure. We felt that the amount of the endowment and the provisions for uprating were properly matters that should be included in regulations rather than in primary legislation. As regulation 7(4) makes clear, we are committed to linking increases in the endowment only to inflation.
Regulation 8 deals with the detail of payment. Graduates will not be required to pay the endowment until 1 April of the year following their graduation. The "due date" in regulation 8(1) is defined in part I. If they choose to do so, liable students may discharge their liability by taking out an income-contingent student loan. The regulations provide that a loan must be made available to liable students for that purpose if they apply for one. The loan that is applied for must be for the full due amount of the graduate endowment. The regulations also give Scottish ministers discretion to accept an application that is made after the relevant date.
I move,
That the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee recommends that the draft Graduate Endowment (Scotland) Regulations 2001 be approved.
At the end of our discussion, I shall put to the committee the question on whether the motion be agreed to.
I want clarification on the threshold, which has been the subject of some debate. I understand that the threshold at which the endowment—
I thought that we were involved in a formal debate and that I would wind up as per usual.
Yes, but I thought that we would take the opportunity to ask some questions as well.
I understood that we would start with a formal debate.
Fine. However, I would like to make a point that you may want to comment on about the threshold. I understand that the threshold is set in separate regulations in Westminster in relation to the legislation that covers student loans. You might want to update us on whether there has been any change to the threshold or whether one is planned.
I want to make a couple of points. I welcome the provisions in relation to HNC and HND courses, which will promote inclusion because many people, particularly mature people and people who are returning to education, find it difficult to access their local colleges.
Paragraph 5 of the Executive note talks about the wide-ranging review that is under way of the support that is available to students on courses on professions that are allied to medicine. Do you have any idea of the time scale for that review?
Are there any other comments?
Do you mean questions or points for discussion?
Technically, we are speaking to the motion at this point in the meeting. Before Mr MacAskill arrived, we agreed that instead of having a separate question and answer session, we would have a formal debate. At the moment, members can raise points that the minister can answer in his summing up.
The debate has been had elsewhere. I put on record that I will not support the motion or the regulations. A tuition fee is a tuition fee, whether it is paid at the beginning, middle or end of a course. That fact cannot be masked by changing the name to "graduate endowment". The SNP has consistently opposed tuition fees on principle and opposes the Executive's current plan on the basis that it does not meet the Cubie recommendations on the threshold at which repayment should commence.
The proposal will compound student debt and so it does a disservice to students who aspire to high educational achievement and to the nation, because it jeopardises the future of those who might otherwise go on to a university career and contribute much to society. The passing of the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Act 2001 was a retrograde step, as are these regulations, which are the nitty-gritty of the legislation. The regulations represent the bill that students will have to pick up as a result of the Lib-Lab partnership deal.
In the debate in the chamber, my party expressed opposition to the graduate endowment scheme for reasons that are similar to those that Mr MacAskill has just stated. The Conservative party thinks that the proposals will not result in the disappearance of one form of charge, but in the replacement of a charge at the front end of higher education with a charge at the graduate end. Because of that, I am unable to support the motion.
I would be grateful if the minister could clarify a few points. I am unclear about what "relevant day" means in regulation 4. It is not defined in regulation 2, which deals with interpretations. I do not know whether it means the day on which payment is due or some other day. Regulation 4(1)(c) says that a graduate is exempt from repayment if he or she has
"supported himself or herself out of his or her earnings for periods not aggregating not less than three years."
Over what time scale would those three years be aggregated?
As we have just finished a general election campaign, I will restrain myself from commenting on the SNP and Tory policies on this issue—we could be here all day if we were to examine them closely.
I am sure that the minister is aware of the comment by the education editor of The Herald, Elizabeth Buie, on May 11. She wrote:
"Scottish universities are outstripping the higher education sector in the rest of the UK in terms of student applications probably due to the abolition of tuition fees and the increased profile of Scotland following devolution."
She also said that that
"may be the first real sign that the Cubie effect is taking hold – that Scottish students are not applying to universities outwith Scotland because they will be liable to pay tuition fees."
On the points that were made about the debt burden, will the minister confirm that the Executive has guaranteed that no student, even after paying the graduate endowment, will have a greater debt than at present and that the great majority will have less?
The convener made an important point about the threshold. I believe that Mr Morrison's predecessor, when speaking in the stage 1 debate in the chamber last year, recognised the problems around the threshold issue and said that there were on-going discussions with counterparts south of the border. Perhaps the minister could answer that point when he winds up.
Not only does The Herald regard the Executive's initiative as being a positive step, most people in higher education think so as well. The graduate endowment is looked on with envy by people elsewhere in the UK.
I do not know whether the mechanism to decide who are liable graduates takes adequate account of the fact that increasing numbers of students in Scottish higher education are following mixed modal courses or are moving into education in a mixed-mode way and taking some of their course on a part-time basis before becoming a full-time student later, or vice versa. For example, regulation 3 in part II is geared towards a full-time student undertaking a full-time course of education on a particular day. What are the implications for a student who has done four years of part-time study and then becomes a full-time student or one who begins as a full-time student but completes their education as a part-time student? How will that affect their liability for repayment of the graduate endowment? Is there sufficient flexibility in the regulations to allow the requirements of individual part-time students to be dealt with sympathetically and appropriately?
I will respond to the point that the convener and Tavish Scott raised about the threshold. The threshold is set for the repayment of student loans rather than for the endowment. Payment of student loans is covered by UK legislation. We think that the threshold should be kept under review and we will do that in conjunction with colleagues in the UK Government. It is an on-going process.
Marilyn Livingstone talked about the review of support for students on courses for professions that are allied to medicine. The Minister for Health and Community Care has indicated that there will be a review and I am more than happy to write to Marilyn Livingstone on the latest position on that matter. I can do that soon.
I regret that I cannot get Annabel Goldie to support our proposals. She raised the issue about a graduate who has supported himself or herself out of his or her earnings, which is dealt with in regulation 4(1)(c). The period that is concerned is the whole period prior to the start of the courses.
She also asked about the relevant date. It is defined in regulation 4(4) of part II. The definition enables the status of an independent student to be determined at a relevant point in the year, regardless of when the course begins. I am happy to follow up that point with a further letter of explanation.
Other members have responded ably to Kenny MacAskill's point. I recognise Tavish Scott's delicacy in making his point only a few days after a general election. I am happy to confirm to Mr Scott that no student will have more debt as a result of the graduate endowment and that many students will have less debt. I acknowledge Des McNulty's points about people in higher and further education welcoming what we have done over the past two years.
I have listened with interest to the views that have been expressed by committee members today. I remind members of the wider context of student support in which the graduate endowment sits. The endowment and the regulations that govern it are the result of an independent inquiry and of wide-ranging consultation. The purpose of the endowment is not to penalise graduates, but to ask them to make a contribution to support future generations of students. As everybody appreciates—or should appreciate—that is a most reasonable request. It is one that will help to ensure that the benefits of higher education are extended to those who traditionally have been excluded from advanced learning.
I urge the committee to recommend that the draft regulations be approved.
Thank you, minister.
The question is, that the motion on the regulations be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No
There will be a division.
For
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Against
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Motion agreed to.
That the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee recommends that the draft Graduate Endowment (Scotland) Regulations 2001 be approved.
For the benefit of those who are sitting in the public gallery, I say that the regulations go to the chamber for finalisation, but we do not know on which date. I thank the minister and his officials for attending the committee this afternoon. I look forward to seeing the minister again soon, when, no doubt, the subject matter will be different.
It is always a pleasure.
It was anticipated that the debate would take up more time. Our witnesses for item 3 are not due to arrive until 3 o'clock. We have two options: we can move into private session to deal with item 4 or we can have a 35-minute break. Are we agreed that we will move into private session to deal with item 4 and that we invite members of the public to re-join us at 3 o'clock?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting continued in private.
Meeting continued in public.