Official Report 191KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is the taking of oral evidence as part of our stage 1 consideration of the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill. Following the evidence that the committee received from Scottish Government officials at last week's meeting, I decided to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning in advance of her appearance in front of the committee on 28 November to seek clarification on a number of issues that had been raised. The cabinet secretary's reply was received this morning and has been circulated to members by the clerks. A copy of it has also been put on one of the committee's pages on the Parliament's website.
It will be brief.
Thank you, Mr Syme. I am sure that we do not expect you to tell us what will be in the mind of the cabinet secretary today; nevertheless, you can tell us what you would like him to say this afternoon. Hopefully, that will be reflected in his statement.
It is always difficult to get concrete evidence to prove why people are not doing something, but I can give you three indicators. First, our recruitment figures—for recruitment to the largest provider of part-time higher education in Scotland—have fallen since 2003-04 in a way that is not reflected in other parts of the United Kingdom. There is something different about the position in Scotland. Secondly, we have conducted market research of various kinds and there is no doubt that the cost of study is a factor in the decisions that people make early on. They may not even get to us, so we cannot discuss with them the options for financial support. There is a perception that studying will cost more than they are prepared to pay. Thirdly, although it is not in my territory, I note with interest the concerns about recruitment to higher national qualifications in one way or another and the place of part-time study within that. There is evidence that part-time higher education is under pressure.
Is there a difference in the level of support that is offered to students who embark on part-time higher education in Scotland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, which might account for the difference in Scotland, or is the situation more complex than that?
I will answer that in two parts. First, yes, there is a difference. In Scotland, students may benefit from the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council's fee-waiver scheme, which is an excellent scheme and something that I hope will be kept in being. However, the scheme has quite limited thresholds—basically, it covers people who are on benefits of various kinds. In addition, students in Scotland who are eligible can take advantage of individual learning accounts, the threshold for which was increased this year to individual incomes of £18,000. That would cover most forms of Open University undergraduate study to the level of £200 support.
Is it your view that the new Administration needs to address that issue to ensure that potential Scottish students who want to enter part-time education are not disadvantaged because they live in Scotland rather than in another part of the United Kingdom?
You will not be surprised to learn that my answer to that question is yes.
Is there any indication that there has been a greater lack of knowledge about the support systems for students, which you have just described, in the past two or three years? Has the problem become worse?
I do not think that it is down to anything that anyone has done, and I am not sure that I have strictly comparable information. There is a problem, however, in the fact that there has been a lot of noise around top-up fees in England, student debt and various types of financial support that might or might not be available. It is quite a confusing picture for people. For that reason, people can pull back at an early stage either because the system seems too complicated or because they do not think that the financial support is available.
Are you suggesting that there is a growing fear of student debt and the cost of taking up higher education in any form?
There is no doubt that there is debt aversion among our students who come from areas in which there are financial pressures.
Are you aware that the Scottish National Party's election manifesto said that it would review the situation of part-time and postgraduate students and that it would support efforts to attract more international students?
We took great heart from that.
Therefore, you would expect that something will be done about that.
I would very much welcome that.
That would set a tone for expecting that the anomaly that you have raised will begin to be dealt with. Of course, the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill is nothing to do with that directly.
No. I can operate only on what is in front of me at the moment, and I take great heart both from what was in the manifesto and from what I read in the economic strategy yesterday.
Do part-time students perceive debt any differently from full-time students? Has any research been conducted into debt aversion and the different impacts that it has on those who enter full-time and part-time courses?
I know of no research that makes that direct comparison. It is difficult to sort the issue of debt aversion from attitudes towards price in one way or another. All that I can tell you is that a price that may involve people in indebtedness is a deterrent.
I am sure that the Open University paid close attention to everything that was said in all the parties' election manifestos, but you will be particularly keen to look at the new Scottish Government's manifesto. Am I right in believing that, if the commitments in the present Government's manifesto are not fulfilled, that will be a cause for concern for the Open University?
We would welcome any step forward in the support for part-time learners, from whatever party or source.
Absolutely. Thank you.
In your opening remarks, you said that decisions on funding are clearly political decisions. The graduate endowment issue is a small component of that. Has the Open University considered how it would wish part-time students to be dealt with? What support mechanisms beyond the proposed abolition of the graduate endowment would you like to see in place?
We have argued consistently to all parties and Administrations over several years that, in practice, the distinction between full-time students and part-time students is disappearing. The logic of the argument is therefore that students should be treated the same, pro rata, whether that involves paying the graduate endowment, not paying it, or whatever. They should be treated on an equivalent basis. If the bill is passed, the objective should be that part-time students should be treated on the same basis as full-time students, so they would also not pay a tuition fee.
You said that recruitment to part-time courses has fallen since 2003-04. Apart from facing what might be perceived as a financial cost, many part-time students are in employment. Has anything changed amongst employers that would bring about a reduction in the number of part-time students? Could employers do anything to encourage people to take up their studies?
Yes. How long have you got?
As long as you need.
I will take one step back here. Much of the discussion about part-time higher education flows back to the Dearing report of 10 years ago. That report said a variety of things about the partnership between the employer, the individual and the state, in relation to part-time higher education in particular. It also took on board a range of figures and statistics that it had collected. By and large, the Dearing report was a disappointment to those of us who are engaged in adult learning and part-time higher education.
I think that you have answered a point that I wanted to get at. You have answered questions on financial issues, but I wondered whether other things were encouraging or discouraging people. If we want to widen access, we have to ensure that there are no barriers.
Employers have a very important role. They must give positive and encouraging signals that are backed up with tangible action—such as encouraging groups to discuss their studies, providing time off for exams, giving moral support through appraisal processes, and saying, "Yes, we want you to do this." They should also offer recognition in the form of reward and promotion. There are lots of things that employers can do.
The trade unions clearly have a role in encouraging people.
Yes. I am pleased that earlier this year we signed a memorandum of understanding with the Scottish Trades Union Congress at the Rolls-Royce plant at Inchinnan. We are very enthusiastic about the possibilities there.
Good morning, Mr Syme. Were you aware that the Scottish Government's skills strategy has a section on improving the support that is given to people in the workforce who are studying part time, and on increasing participation in learning among the workforce? Does that address some of the concerns that you have raised? Does the strategy offer a way forward?
Do not get me wrong: everything that I have seen—from the manifesto commitment to the economic strategy and the statement on the skills strategy—is extremely welcome. However, you will forgive me, because we have not yet seen the statement on the funding for learners review. I am in quite a difficult position: I cannot pre-empt the statement because I do not know what it will say.
I want to follow up on the convener's final question. You say that part-time study is falling, and we do not know what other measures the Government will provide to support part-time study. Call me cynical, but if those measures were inadequate, could the passing of the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill not result in an even greater impact on your potential to recruit? Could recruitment fall further?
The Open University does not do cynicism.
Of course not, but I do, unfortunately. If we could enter into the hypothesis it would be useful.
I am optimistic that something will come, although I cannot be drawn on that. If nothing happened and the bill were to be passed, the consequence would be a wider gap between the support that is available to full-time students and the support that is available to part-time students.
Would that impact on recruitment?
Yes.
In the policy memorandum, we are told that no options to widen access other than the bill were considered, although there has been talk of providing a wider package to address student support. Do you think that other options should have been considered at the same time as the bill, and what measures should have been brought forward?
How do I address that question? If you will excuse me, I will rephrase it and ask: could the money be spent in a different way with a different effect on widening participation? In the end, I cannot assess competing claims on public expenditure. Fortunately, that is your job, not mine.
If you were being partisan, you would say that £17 million could be better spent elsewhere, but you are not being partisan in this committee.
I am not evading the question: I honestly think that it is an issue of our position in a democratic society. Something has been put to the electorate, and the electorate has responded. We respect that, as we are realists and democrats.
I want to ask about the Open University statistics and the numbers of students who are taking up places. There has been a slight downturn in Scotland in the past couple of years, which seems to be more extensive in undergraduate rather than postgraduate courses. Is there any reason for that?
We can pinpoint the downturn pretty precisely. Broadly, it is coming from men, rather than women, in computing and technology subjects—there are others, but those are seeing the strongest downturn—and in the middle years of life. Relatively speaking, we are increasing numbers at either end of the age spectrum. The downturn involves people who are vocationally oriented and whose family incomes might be under severe pressure, so it is a question not just of overall income but of the calls on that income.
That must be an area of concern, particularly as computing and technology industries have a high profile in the economy, and you mentioned the importance of the skill factor. Do you have any suggestions about how that specific issue could be addressed?
The answer to that question could be quite lengthy; factors on both the supply and demand sides are involved. Those factors include the signals that are coming from the employment market and the relative cost to the individual of investing in their own training. In this context, I would say simply that placing barriers in the way of people who are in work to prevent them from improving or upskilling in those areas does not seem congruent with the skills strategy.
Are some of those barriers more significant than the barrier that someone might feel because part-time students are not getting the same level of financial support? Are the economic barriers more extensive?
Do you mean the barriers from employment signals and so forth?
Yes.
I do not know how such factors could be weighed up.
You have no evidence on that.
I have no specific evidence on that, but we have little doubt that employment market signals are playing a part.
I am always suspicious of statistics. I wonder whether the decrease that you mentioned in the number of middle-aged men who are applying to do computing and technology courses is because there may have been a sudden surge in those areas in the previous 10 years, when the situation was changing quite quickly. Rather than a drop, might we be seeing a levelling off of the figures? Is that possible?
That might be the case in computing, but I am less clear that it is true in technology, in which the employment market is shifting from areas such as oil and engineering to environmental and other areas. I do not think that what you suggest is necessarily the case.
How is the Open University actively targeting or engaging with the sectors of society in which people might once have taken Open University part-time courses but no longer do so? We have seen a decline in certain areas—Mary Mulligan mentioned computing and technology. As an organisation, are you doing anything to counteract that?
Part of that is about a shift. As economic signals and the employment market shift, so too must our provision shift. One of the jobs with which we can rightly be charged is keeping our curriculum alert to changes. That is something that we watch regularly.
I thank Mr Syme very much for his attendance at today's meeting. I am sure that committee members will reflect carefully on the points that he has made.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I reconvene the meeting and welcome our second panel of the morning. We have been joined by James Alexander, who is president of the National Union of Students Scotland, and Tom D'Ardenne, who is president of the Coalition of Higher Education Students in Scotland. Thank you for joining for us.
I thank the committee for once again having me before it. I am president of the National Union of Students in Scotland. We represent 600,000 students in colleges and universities across the country. The vast majority of college and university student associations are affiliated to NUS Scotland through the NUS in the United Kingdom.
I thank the committee for inviting me before it for the first time. I am president of the University of St Andrews students association and the chairman of CHESS, which stands for the Coalition of Higher Education Students in Scotland. CHESS represents students at the University of Strathclyde, the University of Dundee, the University of St Andrews, the University of Aberdeen and the Open University, as well as students who are represented by the University of Glasgow students representative council. In total, that amounts to just under 100,000 students. It is important to say that the organisation represents three student bodies that are not currently in the NUS—those of the universities of St Andrews, Dundee and Glasgow.
The previous witness gave specific evidence on part-time students. As organisations, do you believe that student debt affects full-time and part-time students differently or is it an issue for all students?
Mr Syme was absolutely correct when he said that the boundaries that have traditionally existed between those who are regarded as full-time students and those who are regarded as part-time students are becoming quite blurred. A part-time student might attend their course for three days a week and work the other two days, but that is similar to the pattern of study for people who might be regarded as full-time students, when one takes into account tuition and the number of additional hours that it is expected will be spent on revision, essay writing and studying. Although full-time students are expected to fill their hours in that way, they often have to take on part-time jobs to make up the shortfall between the income that they receive through the student loans and grants system and what they require to be a student.
I concur with pretty much everything that James Alexander has just said. I think that a recent HBOS survey showed that just over two thirds of undergraduate students are engaged in some sort of part-time work to fund their time at university and their working time is often in excess of 20 hours a week. The differences between part-time students and full-time students who must take on part-time jobs to complete their courses are therefore becoming increasingly blurred, as James Alexander said.
I have a question for James Alexander. Obviously, as a democratic organisation that represents the vast majority of students in Scotland, NUS Scotland sees the financial pressures that students face all the time. During last week's committee meeting, there was a great debate on the bill's policy memorandum, which says that the graduate endowment fee and debt are barriers to widening access. What is your view on the evidence base for that?
We see struggling students all the time; in fact, our members have reported that student association welfare services are inundated with requests for small hardship loans and short-term bridging loans, and that they are inundated with various other financial concerns that students regularly face. However, there is a major problem with evidence.
Your points on other measures to widen access and on research are well made. However, the bill's policy memorandum states:
There is a need to address many different issues around the student funding system. Students currently get a maximum of £4,000 a year, although we know that it costs far more than £4,000 to study. The poverty line in Scotland is at about £7,000 a year, so we are talking about a minimum income for students of £7,000 a year to alleviate the problems of student hardship. Many students do not get prescriptions that they need and often can barely afford to buy course books and other things that they need. We need a wider range of packages to address issues around student hardship, debt and support as well as wider student access.
Your submission states:
I see the bill as being a small step in a long process towards the large package of measures that are required to address the funding problems that students currently face. I argue that the graduate endowment is not a fifth of the debt that students get into. The Student Awards Agency for Scotland and Student Loans Company debt is only a small proportion of the total debt, which includes credit card loans and bank loans that almost all students have to get to cover basic living expenses. Students are, for example, buying bread with credit cards, which is a worrying state of affairs. Our figures suggest that, on average, students have debts of £14,000 to £16,000 by the end of their studies. The graduate endowment is only a small proportion of that.
We agree that the bill is just the start.
I certainly hope so. In this afternoon's statement on the spending review, I expect to hear promises being delivered on funding for student support. I am looking for new money to be announced in the spending review to cover the cost of the bill and the additional promises that the Government has made.
The annual contribution of the graduate endowment would be around £15 million; therefore, you would expect the Government to match that if the bill were passed.
Yes.
You mentioned widening of access several times. The initial graduate endowment funding stream was intended to support those who are on low incomes or a variety of different benefits. From memory, I think that the figure was £13 million or £14 million. If that funding stream is removed, will it have a negative impact on the widening access agenda? If you think that it will, how would you like to see the funding used?
I would be very concerned if the bill had a negative impact on the widening access agenda when it is intended to do exactly the opposite and to alleviate some of the burden of debt that puts a lot of people off going into education in the first place. When the cabinet secretary refers to the bill having no net cost, or the costs being covered, as we have just discussed, that is what I expect to happen. If there is a negative effect on widening access, I expect the funding shortfall to be covered from other funds.
Do you expect student recruitment to increase following withdrawal of the graduate endowment?
I want everyone who can go into higher and further education not to be put off because of possible debt or because of the cost. The bill will have a particular impact on students from the poorest backgrounds. We talked a lot about widening access because the bill will have an impact on access.
Mr D'Ardenne, do you want to add anything to that?
You asked whether there would be an increase in the number of students. I certainly hope that there will be an increase in students from poorer backgrounds who might otherwise have been discouraged by incurring debt. However, even if tuition debt is removed, other costs, such as accommodation, general living expenses, and social and recreational stuff, will all increase and I am not entirely sure whether they will increase to the same level as the burden that is to be removed. In the short term, the bill will mean more applicants, but in the long term, consideration will have to be given to addressing all the issues that James Alexander has mentioned around student support.
Given that poorer students are exempt from the graduate endowment, why do you expect to see more of them coming forward after its removal?
It would show the Scottish Executive's well-publicised commitment to doing its very best to getting people from all backgrounds in.
Does not that really mean that we are talking about perception rather than reality, given that those students are not paying the graduate endowment?
I would have thought that that is part of it, yes.
What other measures would we need to take to ensure that people are fully informed? The matter came up when we were speaking to the representative from the Open University. We need to ensure that students recognise the support that already exists for them. How can we do that? What would go beyond removing the graduate endowment, which will probably not help the poorer students anyway?
The problem that we have at the moment is that we do not have a comprehensive student funding system that meets the needs of students—certainly, not one that meets the needs of students from the poorest backgrounds. The bill is a positive step towards making education free for students in Scotland. The next issue for us to consider is student support, which is about guaranteeing a minimum income for students. For students from the poorest backgrounds, I fully expect that income to be provided in the form of grants. Students need an income of £7,000 a year to be able to afford accommodation, transport, medicine if they are ill, textbooks, art materials and musical instruments—depending on their course. Such a grant would mean that students would be able to cover all the costs that are associated with being a student without having to find alternative sources of income. Currently, students get into jeopardy in trying to find other sources of income.
It is a novel idea that students need to eat.
We have had as many reviews as we need. We know what issues students face. To call for another review would be again to stall taking action on the problems that students face, so I would be concerned about any further review. We and the committee are aware of the issues: the financial problems that students face and the costs of being a student not matching the level of student funding. What is required is action on the issues that have been identified. The graduate endowment is part of that, but we need more policy measures to alleviate the problems once and for all. We know what the problems are.
I direct you back to the issue of students from deprived areas. In your answer to Mary Mulligan and in your submission, you have made it clear that you are concerned that there is a huge need to attract more people from socially deprived backgrounds. Mary Mulligan was right to say that a lot of students are not liable for the graduate endowment. In identifying the other financial costs that you feel are a real burden, apart from the cost of accommodation, what would you single out as being one of the biggest barriers to people from deprived areas?
Students on art courses have to pay for all their paints, canvases and materials. Those who study music have to pay for instruments and for having them repaired and tuned. I took a maths course and one of the textbooks for a module cost £100. That was just one module out of about 50 that I took throughout my course, and every module had a textbook associated with it. If we want students from all backgrounds to be able to access education, we must ensure that the funding that they receive covers the cost of the materials that they will need for their courses.
You speak to school leavers and young people who are likely to enter higher education. Do you have anything other than anecdotal evidence? Has either association undertaken definitive studies of what those young people are saying about your evidence? Is such evidence available, or are you relying on national statistics?
I would like a widening access unit to be responsible for gathering such evidence. The Parliament and the Government have a responsibility for gathering that evidence when they make such policy decisions. If that evidence is not available, the Government has a responsibility to put resources into gathering it. We try our best, with limited resources—I stress that the NUS has very limited resources—to gather as much evidence as possible, but that evidence can only be anecdotal given our other resource commitments.
Thank you for that very comprehensive answer.
Not enough is being done in that area at the moment. Young people, particularly those from deprived backgrounds or schools in deprived areas, are losing, at the age of 10 or 11, the aspiration to go into further learning, and it is far too late to intervene when they are 16, or even when they are 13 or 14. We need to intervene very early on and tell those people that they can achieve whatever they want to achieve, and then ask what they want to do and how they will go about doing it. We need to raise young people's aspirations, and then give them options, routes and pathways so that they can achieve those aspirations within the education system.
That is a very young age for people to be thinking about those things. I do not think that you have considered the financial elements. Do other non-financial issues need to be addressed in connection with people's aspirations? Perhaps they are put off education because they think that it is not for them as not many people in their area have been to university or college. Do you accept that we need to think about those matters very carefully?
That is a huge area to consider. I hate to keep going back to this but those are all things for which a widening access unit would be responsible across Scotland. In families in which there is no tradition of people going into higher education—in which neither parent has been through university, for example—it can be very difficult. Potential students can find their family discouraging, especially if their parents say that they need to get a job and earn money. Those potential students have no experience of the value of going to university, and it is hugely important to demonstrate that value to young people. More of that needs to be done.
My questions are for Tom D'Ardenne specifically. We have a heard a lot about the NUS's perceptions of what is happening. What are your views on widening access, student poverty and the fear of debt, and what would be the positive impact of abolishing the graduate endowment?
CHESS suggests that, although the scrapping of the graduate endowment is a step in the right direction, it is only one step in a process that still has a long way to go. We hope that it will open up education to students who would not otherwise have considered university education. Therefore, it is a step that should be applauded.
Do you agree that, over the past eight years, student poverty and the fear of debt have increased? You say that the bill is a positive step, but £2,289 is a huge chunk of someone's debt.
Originally, when people started racking up debts of £10,000 to £15,000, it almost became the thing to do. People expected to get into debt and recognised that having debts of £15,000 was something that they automatically took on when they became students. Over the past two years, however, students have become increasingly aware that it is an incredible responsibility to have to pay that amount back later in life. Such debt is now starting to discourage pupils of secondary school age, who no longer consider higher education a necessity and are looking at other options for their lives and career paths. They are being discouraged by the debt figure of £15,000 whereas, before, people simply considered debt part of being a student.
We keep coming back—entirely legitimately—to the issue of widening access. You may both be aware of the greater opportunities for access to learning for schools—GOALS—project, which is housed in the University of Paisley. Its funding is under serious consideration and serious threat. Do you agree that the project should be encouraged, given the fact that it deals with school pupils in deprived areas, which is where the resources should be targeted? If the bill is passed, might supporting such projects be one way in which to use funds to continue to sustain the widening access agenda for people from those communities?
I fully endorse the GOALS project. In fact, my widening access unit proposal is based on the idea of extending throughout Scotland GOALS and its Edinburgh version, the Lothians equal access programme for schools. Those projects do extremely valuable work by going into schools, speaking to people who are not planning to enter higher education and encouraging them to do so. Crucially, however, because of their size and geographical proximity, they are not able to give a Scotland-wide perspective or carry out proper research into why people are not entering higher education or what can be done to help them to enter higher education. The projects need to be broadened out into a Scotland-wide body.
Good morning. I am interested to hear from both organisations of your fears when the graduate endowment was introduced. Did you make representations to the Executive?
As far as I am aware, we made representations, but the person who did so was not me.
It was me.
Sorry. Perhaps we can hear from the two witnesses.
Richard Baker may wish to speak on this. One of the issues that we had with the Cubie review of student finance was that it was not implemented in its entirety. As a whole package, Cubie's recommendations would have delivered a lot for students in Scotland. However, as implemented, they did not and the graduate endowment did not deliver what was intended.
CHESS was relaunched only recently—in its most recent guise, it is probably only six months old. As a result, I am afraid that I cannot give you any feedback on what CHESS believed when the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Act 2001 was introduced. I am sorry.
That is okay.
We used evidence that we came across by engaging with students, evidence from student associations that work with students and evidence that we gathered through our internal evidence-gathering mechanisms. Obviously, our policies are decided through democratic processes at our conferences.
So NUS Scotland is persuaded of the merits of abolishing the graduate endowment fee.
We are certainly persuaded of the merits of scrapping it. In particular, we think that student hardship and debt are big issues for students.
Mr Baker wanted to ask a question.
I have a point of information.
Before you make that point, I remind you that this is an evidence-taking session and that you should keep any point of information short. You indicated an interest in asking about future student support. You may make your point of clarification during your question.
My questions on student support have already been asked. I supported the establishment of a graduate endowment scheme at the time and have therefore been entirely consistent. James Alexander accurately reflected the position of the NUS at the time, although it is not his job to do so.
As there are no other questions, I thank James Alexander and Tom D'Ardenne for attending the meeting and for their answers to our questions, which we will reflect on in our stage 1 deliberations.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—