Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Good morning and welcome to the second meeting in 2008 of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. The first item of business is stage 2 consideration of the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill. I welcome to the meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning.
I should point out for the benefit of members who have not been through stage 2 consideration of a bill before that we are required to debate and dispose of any amendments lodged at stage 2 and to agree each section of the bill and the long title. Members should have copies of the marshalled list and groupings.
Sections 1 to 3 agreed to.
I will now pass over to the convener, who has just arrived.
After section 3
Amendment 1, in the name of Richard Baker, is in a group on its own.
I hope that the committee will agree to amendment 1. According to the policy memorandum, the bill has been introduced as part of the Scottish Government's agenda of widening access. The Government seeks to abolish the graduate endowment because, it argues, the policy has not succeeded in widening access.
I realise that neither the Parliament nor the committee has reached consensus on these matters, but there is consensus on the need to ensure equity of opportunity with regard to studying in higher education. Amendment 1 seeks to give Parliament the chance to examine in future whether the graduate endowment's abolition had played a material role in widening access to higher education and to find out whether students from poorer backgrounds who went to university made progress when they got there.
It should not be onerous for the Scottish Government to report annually to Parliament on such issues. After all, much of the data are already available. However, collating the information, assessing its relationship to the Government's policy and laying it formally before Parliament will help the Parliament in its future deliberations on these important issues. We all accept the need for on-going scrutiny of and debate on these vital concerns, and such reports would undoubtedly help the committee's post-legislative scrutiny. On that basis, I hope that the committee—and, indeed, the cabinet secretary and the Government—feels able to support the amendment.
I move amendment 1.
Even though Richard Baker and I have had our differences over the bill's general principles, I support amendment 1. During its stage 1 consideration, the committee was struck—not, I should stress, in a positive way—by the level and quality of the Government's information. Given the paucity of information on access, the committee should support the amendment, as it seeks to put into legislation the means for the Government to provide Parliament with further information on an issue on which there is general consensus—the need to increase access to higher education for people from poorer backgrounds. Of course, the Government might have to introduce other policy instruments to bring that about.
It is for ministers to decide whether the level and quality of information is such that the Government needs to commission new research or simply continue collating the information while finding a way of presenting it accurately. I hope that if the Government does not support amendment 1 it supports the reasons behind it.
I hope that the committee supports amendment 1.
I, too, support amendment 1. Like my colleagues, I felt at stage 1 that the bill was predicated on assumptions that were not borne out by the evidence that was presented to the committee or to Parliament. Given that all parties agree that widening access is important, I am concerned that we have such different approaches to achieving the objective. The cabinet secretary believes that the bill will help to widen access, while some of us believe that it will have quite the reverse effect. Amendment 1 seeks to address the provision of information in future, and will allow us to check whether the bill is achieving our joint objective of widening access.
I agree with some of the sentiments that have been expressed, in that we all want to widen access to higher education. Richard Baker stated that much of the information is already publicly accessible, so I do not see any point in duplicating the work if we, as parliamentarians, can access that information and see for ourselves whether or not the abolition of the graduate endowment widens access. I firmly believe that the graduate endowment's abolition will widen access, as do many of the people from whom we took evidence.
I would like to challenge the assumption that everything about widening access should be contained in the bill. The bill is only part of a package. It is doing a specific part of the job of moving towards free education. I am surprised that, with the resources that are available in Parliament, members feel the need to lodge amendments such as amendment 1. The relevant information is easily available from the Higher Education Statistics Agency. The HESA papers are available for everyone to read, and the tables in HESA reports clearly show the trends.
The committee will scrutinise many such issues throughout its life, and they will normally come up when we consider what happens in education annually. I believe that there is no need for amendment 1. The information that it seeks is easily accessible and can be discussed in other fashions. The provisions of amendment 1 would clog up an otherwise simple bill.
As a minority Government, we accept that every piece of legislation is subject to the will of Parliament. That means not only that Parliament must approve the principal behind each of our legislative proposals, as was the case at stage 1 of this bill, but that parliamentary committees will wish to exercise close and careful scrutiny of the detail. I am happy to appear before the committee this morning to discuss the two amendments.
On Richard Baker's amendment 1, on assessing the impact that the bill will have on widening access, my position on the issue has been clear and consistent throughout the process. Debt and the fear of debt have an adverse effect on the decisions that young people make about entering university. That in turn influences how successful all universities, agencies and Government can be with widening access initiatives. Debt is a particular disincentive for people from low-income backgrounds.
The Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council has been given a particular role in widening access to higher education. The council's corporate plan for 2006 to 2009 sets out seven broad aims. First among them is access to higher education
"to offer … fair access to a diverse range of learning programmes suited to individual learners' circumstances."
The corporate plan embraces the recommendations of the "Learning for All" report and sets out 15 targets on widening access under the broad objectives of reducing the barriers to enrolment and progression that still face many people and of improving the pattern of the supply of lifelong learning programmes. It is open to the Parliament and its committees to take evidence on that at any time.
The Scottish funding council has two main strands of widening access funding: the widening access premiums that are paid to institutions and funding for the four regional widening access forums. In 2007-08, specific allocations for widening access initiatives represented £25 million to all Scotland's higher education institutions. As well as substantial Government investment, the institutions themselves are active in funding and in pursuing widening access initiatives.
As I said, the funding council funds the four regional widening access forums, which cover access to college and university and are charged with developing policies and delivering collaborative projects to meet local and nationally set priorities. The forums are managed by representatives of colleges and universities.
Each year, as Rob Gibson indicated, the Higher Education Statistics Agency publishes performance indicator figures showing widening access performance by individual institutions. The figures show the number of students from lower socioeconomic groups—both from state schools and from low-participation neighbourhoods—and are important analytical tools in monitoring performance. I agree with those members who have stressed the importance of our analysing widening access initiatives. The figures fluctuate from year to year, but they have not improved over the past four years.
In addition, the Scottish Government publishes data on entrants to Scottish universities from deprived areas, which I think is mentioned in amendment 1. The data were produced for the first time in 2007, and over time they will enable us to track progress on widening access.
The main driver for widening access policy is the report "Learning for All", which was published in 2005 by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and the Scottish Further Education Funding Council, whose successor body, the Scottish funding council, has developed an action plan and holds an annual conference on widening access. The second annual conference will take place in March, and it is open to members of the committee to attend, to receive a report from it or to take evidence. The conference provides an opportunity for all stakeholders to consider the action plan and options for the year ahead.
Given that background, I query the benefits that would be gained if amendment 1 were agreed to. A reporting requirement would probably have been more appropriately included in the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Act 2001, which set up the graduate endowment fee, the explicit policy intention of which was to widen access.
Debt and the fear of debt have an impact. As I have consistently said, the abolition of the graduate endowment fee is only one element in our plans to reduce student debt, therefore it might be difficult to draw out and assess the direct impact of abolition of the fee on widening access. However, it goes without saying that if the committee agrees to amendment 1, I will fulfil the requirement on the Scottish ministers to report on the bill's impact and effect. As Rob Gibson said, we should bear in mind the fact that many direct and indirect factors are at play, and abolition of the graduate endowment fee is only one factor. A report on the bill's impact would need to be very much within the broader context of other activity.
I would be concerned if the allocation of resources to the production of more reports on widening access meant that fewer resources could be put into action to widen access. The Government thinks that amendment 1 is unnecessary and bureaucratic, and suggests that the committee reject it. The bill is short, but amendment 1 would increase its length by 25 per cent, while doing nothing to widen access.
A substantial increase in the length of a two-page bill should not be a huge concern for the committee.
I challenge Mr Gibson's assertion that all the information that would be required is easily accessible and highlighted in the way that it should be. It is important to draw together all the information, so that we can focus on the impact of the policy on its goal of widening access. That would deliver an important service to parliamentarians and to all people who have concerns about the policy and want to ensure that it is properly scrutinised in future.
I am disappointed that the Scottish Government, which says that it is committed to widening access, does not agree that an annual report on how its policy is driving that agenda forward would be desirable. Such a report is necessary, in particular given the paucity of research and evidence that was provided with the bill, which Mr Purvis mentioned. The cabinet secretary said that not all data on widening access have been published regularly. The committee should send a clear message that such data should be published regularly.
Parliamentarians would be quite able to weigh up the effect of other activity on the outcomes in the report. I press amendment 1.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
McIntosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Against
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Group 2 is on the effect on student support. Amendment 2, in the name of Jeremy Purvis, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 2—which contains only 64 words, cabinet secretary—is significant and I hope that it will gain the committee's support. The Government was elected on clear commitments to dump all student debt and to replace all loans with grants. One of those policies has been arbitrarily dumped and there is considerable concern among students about the other.
The cabinet secretary and others have said that abolition of the graduate endowment is a small measure in an overall journey. The problem is that members of all parties are uncertain about the Government's destination. The Government was elected to remove all student debt, but now it plans simply to reduce that debt. I am afraid that we cannot take it on trust that the sum of money that was raised previously by the graduate endowment will continue to be earmarked for its purpose and that that purpose will be retained. The statutory duty that the budget and budget documentation reflect the sum that is raised by the graduate endowment and that the money is spent on student support—grants and servicing loans—will be repealed. My amendment 2 addresses concerns about the potential negative impact of abolishing the graduate endowment on the money that is available for student support and the purposes for which it is used, as the Scottish ministers will have to state clearly in budget documentation the sums that are available for student support. Student support through the provision of grants and loans will continue in the normal way.
There are on-going concerns that such money will no longer be available. The statements of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning are on the record, but I do not think that they are sufficient. I lodged amendment 2 to ensure that the money that is raised by the graduate endowment continues to be spent on student support and that it is made clear what sums are available.
I move amendment 2.
I question whether this is the place for such a debate. Surely the proper place is the committee that debates the budget's provisions. To my knowledge, Mr Purvis's party did not raise the issue in the Finance Committee, where one would have expected it to be raised. Instead, the matter has cropped up here and is causing the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee to interfere in the budget process. I seek a ruling on whether the amendment is competent. Even if it is, it is bad practice to insert budget restraints in other legislation. It may be that the amendment falls outwith the scope of the legislation.
In addition, the cabinet secretary has already made clear that the abolition of the graduate endowment will not affect student support moneys. The Government can be held to account on that point. Those moneys are already secured in the budget, so there is no need for the amendment.
I speak in favour of Jeremy Purvis's amendment 2. Both this morning and during the stage 1 debate, the cabinet secretary asserted that claims were made that the abolition of the graduate endowment was the be-all and end-all of widening access, when it is merely part of a broader package of measures. In fact, the contrast is between the sweeping and unfounded claims that the cabinet secretary has made for the bill and what it actually does. For example, the cabinet secretary conflates the broader issue of debt, on which the Government has made sweeping and unfulfilled promises, with this specific and limited measure, which provides a post-graduation benefit to some. I am particularly concerned that the minister confuses debt with the worrying issue of student hardship, on which the bill says nothing so far. That is why I am pleased that Jeremy Purvis has lodged amendment 2.
I, too, speak in favour of Mr Purvis's amendment. It is right that there should be a legislative requirement for student support to be provided and for there to be proper accountability for the level of that support. We will debate the impact of the bill on student funding. In the context of the Government's argument—which is disputed—that the bill will not affect student support, amendment 2 seems perfectly sensible and should be included in the bill. I support the amendment.
I support the assertion of my colleague Rob Gibson that amendment 2 is not competent. Ken Macintosh and Richard Baker brought up a number of different issues that confused me slightly. Earlier, it was not accepted that the abolition of the graduate endowment is part of a package for widening access and supporting students through their studies. The contradictory response, especially from Ken Macintosh, was that the graduate endowment is only part of a package of measures to widen access. I am confused, because both points contradict each other.
I question the assertion that the bill is the right place for the amendment. It should have been brought forward in addressing the budget. I do not support the amendment.
I welcome the chance to give the committee my view on Jeremy Purvis's amendment 2. I have been consistent on the financial impact of the bill and the fact that the abolition of the graduate endowment fee will have no effect on the amount of student support funding that is available in Scotland.
To put things in perspective, student support funding for 2008-09 is planned to be in the region of £280 million, more than a third of which will go on young student bursaries. The graduate endowment fee income goes directly to the Government in Scotland, which comes to us from students who pay the fee via the student support system. Within the legislative restrictions that are outlined in the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Act 2001, that income must be used to fund student support. In practice, the Government has implemented the provisions of that act by specifically applying the income from the fees to the cost of providing student loans.
We must bear it in mind that two thirds of students add their graduate endowment fee to their loans. That addresses Ken Macintosh's point about how important the abolition of the graduate endowment fee is to tackling student debt. The previous Liberal Democrat and Labour Government used the income by freeing up some of the budget for the student loan subsidy, which could then be used elsewhere within the lifelong learning budget. The income will no longer be available to free up some of the student loan subsidy budget for other uses, but that only means a loss of flexibility, not the loss of student support.
I have sympathy for this committee and the Finance Committee as they have to understand the Government's accounting on this issue, which is not easy to follow. However, it is clear that only the additional flexibility to fund in-year non-baseline pressures will be lost. The previous Government did not use the income from the graduate endowment fee to fund baseline regular student support for fees, grants or bursaries. Only the flexibility to fund in-year non-baseline pressures will be lost. There will be no effect on the fees, grants and bursaries that are currently paid by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland. Because of that, there will be no adverse effect on the amount of money that is available for student support that arises by virtue of the abolition of the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Act 2001.
I accept that it will be for committee members to decide whether they agree with my view or that of Jeremy Purvis. However, the Government's position is that the proposals in amendment 2 are redundant, given that there is no actual adverse effect. I hope that Mr Purvis is prepared to take my assurance, and I urge him to withdraw amendment 2.
If he presses the amendment, I urge committee members to reject it on two grounds, the first of which is the reasons that I have just given. Secondly—this is just to inform the committee's deliberations and nothing more—I query whether Mr Purvis has got the terms of the amendment right. Budget proposals are, as we know, subject to the will of Parliament, and proposals are different from enacted provisions that have been approved by a majority of MSPs. It is important to note that the current position, as established by the 2001 act, is that, contrary to what Mr Purvis said, there is no statutory duty to provide student support in the Budget (Scotland) Bill, so there is an issue about whether the amendment could rectify anything, even if members thought that there was something to rectify.
The amendment does not address the issue in several ways. Regardless of one's position on whether the problem exists—I do not think that it does, and I have said why—and needs to be rectified, I am not sure that budget proposals would be the solution.
I have raised two grounds for objecting to the amendment and, on that basis, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn. If Mr Purvis presses the amendment, I ask the committee not to agree to it.
I invite Jeremy Purvis to wind up the debate on amendment 2 and to say whether he wishes to press or withdraw it.
Members will know that the amendment makes it clear that ministers would be required
"to rectify any adverse effect"
that arises from the abolition of the graduate endowment. That is quite clear with regard to the fact that there would be no reduction in the level of support that is provided to students while they are studying.
Rob Gibson and others stated that the bill is not the proper place to make such provision. The 2001 act—sections 1 and 2 of which the bill seeks to repeal—states clearly that provisions must be made within budget proposals with regard to the money that is raised by the graduate endowment. Amendment 2 is absolutely within the scope of the bill, and the bill is the proper place for the provision. The amendment would not have been selected for debate by the committee if it had been considered outside the scope of the bill.
Members will know that the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee included in its report to the Finance Committee as part of the budget process considerations with regard to student support and, indeed, university funding. It is perhaps for Scottish National Party members of this committee to ask why those considerations were voted down by SNP members of the Finance Committee. No doubt that will be mentioned in the debate this afternoon.
On holding the Government to account, we have heard from the Government commitments on student debt and increased support for students, but I am afraid that it is not sufficient to read the Official Report and take ministers at their word. We need the commitments to be reflected in the bill.
I press amendment 2 on the basis that, without it, there will be no legislative guarantee that the sums that have been ring fenced for student support will continue. Accepting the amendment will send a strong signal to students that, even with the abolition of the graduate endowment, the funds that have been made available to support students while they are studying will be protected. That is a strong signal for the committee to send. I hope that amendment 2 will get members' support.
Convener, can I ask whether the amendment is in order?
It is in order. The decision is made at the discretion of the convener and I do not have to explain it, but I point out that I took advice on all lodged amendments from the clerks, who advised me that amendments 1 and 2 were indeed competent. There was no question that they were outwith the scope of the bill. For your information, another amendment that was lodged was outwith the scope of the bill and it was ruled out of order.
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
McIntosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Against
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
The result is tied. I use my casting vote in support of amendment 2, which is therefore agreed to.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
May I say a word, convener? The committee has just accepted Jeremy Purvis's amendment on your casting vote. I ask the committee and particularly Mr Purvis to reflect on the technical impact of the wording that has been used. I and my officials will be more than happy to engage with him on that.
We may well return to the issue at stage 3, if necessary.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. Thank you for your attendance today, cabinet secretary.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—