Subordinate Legislation
Student Fees (Specification) (Scotland) Order 2006 (draft)
Item 3 is consideration of the draft Student Fees (Specification) (Scotland) Order 2006. I welcome the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Allan Wilson. I remind the committee of Mark Ballard's declaration of future interest.
Good afternoon, minister. We have 90 minutes for the debate, and the committee is entirely at your service. I invite you to make any comments that you would like to make. The committee has considered the matter already on two occasions, so please speak to and move the motion.
I am sure that 90 minutes will be wholly adequate for the purposes of the debate.
I am grateful for the opportunity to move the motion. As you know, I was here a number of weeks ago to explain our proposals for tuition fees in the academic year 2006-07. We propose to increase the annual tuition fee for new entrants to full-time degree courses and initial teacher training courses from just under £1,200 to £1,700 and to introduce a separate higher fee of £2,700 for entrants to full-time medical degree courses.
I will briefly repeat the thinking behind the proposals. From 2006-07, a new fee regime will begin to emerge in the rest of the United Kingdom with the introduction of variable fees, which will allow institutions to charge fees up to the cap of £3,000. As members know, we are committed to not introducing variable fees in Scotland and to providing full fee support for the majority of Scotland-domiciled students who are studying in Scotland. That position will remain intact on approval of the order.
However, Scottish higher education exists—indeed, I would argue that it excels—within a wider UK market, and our overriding interest in that regard must be in maintaining the ability of our higher education institutions to attract the best students from around the globe and from the other constituent parts of the UK while protecting the interests of Scottish students and ensuring that they are not disadvantaged. That is important. Scottish students are best served by a system that makes us competitive in attracting the best students within the UK and more generally and also ensures that Scotland-domiciled residents can take up places in Scottish institutions. Therefore, there must be equilibrium in cross-border student flows. We have no evidence that suitably qualified Scottish students are being denied access to or are unable to obtain places in Scottish higher education institutions but, obviously, the prospect of a fee gap opening up between Scottish higher education institutions and institutions elsewhere is a matter of concern to us, which is why we have made the proposals that we have made.
In crude terms, following the introduction of variable fees elsewhere in the UK, the cost of a degree in Scotland could be 40 per cent cheaper than that of a degree down south. As a result, there would be a temptation for students in the rest of the UK to make decisions on the basis of the respective costs involved in the separate systems. We would be failing the interests of Scotland-domiciled students if we failed to take action and they were displaced from our institutions as a consequence. On that basis alone, we have proposed to increase general tuition fees to £1,700. As I have said, we do not want to exclude from our institutions students from the rest of the UK—indeed, we welcome them. It is best for the institutions to have such students and studying here is good for the students themselves, but we must ensure that an equilibrium in cross-border student flows is maintained.
We have proposed medical fees of £2,700, which would be significantly higher than fees for other subjects. The simple reason for that proposal is that medical schools face a significantly different situation. In general, medical degrees, whether they are undertaken in Scotland or in medical schools elsewhere in the UK, last for five years, and any fee increase in the rest of the UK without a response by us in Scotland would automatically lead to deeper disparities in the costs of studying medicine than there would be in other areas of study. We know that medical courses in the rest of the UK are likely to attract the maximum fee of £3,000 per year and that the costs of provision are significant. The costs in Scotland fall on our national health service as well as on our higher education institutions. We also know that the ratio of applications to Scottish medical schools to places stands at around 10:1 and that more than 40 per cent of entrants to our medical schools come from the rest of the UK.
We want to preserve the opportunity for Scottish students to study medicine in Scottish institutions in order, among other ways, to maintain a future supply of graduates for the national health service in Scotland. Scottish students are two and a quarter times more likely than students from the rest of the UK to stay and practise in the NHS in Scotland for 10 years.
It is an issue of national importance. The order recognises that medical training goes beyond the realm simply of higher education and places it firmly within our policies for longer-term public health provision, to ensure that we are able to meet the targets of having more doctors and better public health provision more generally. Those are important factors, but I repeat that the order's overriding motivation is to protect the interests of Scottish students who want to enter Scottish institutions and to ensure that we maintain some equilibrium in the cross-border flow in the context of the changing fee regime south of the border. That is a matter that the committee and the Executive have been discussing for some years, and I think that these measured proposals fit the bill in that context.
I move,
Thank you, minister. Members now have the opportunity to ask questions of the minister and to speak on the matter.
I would like to probe you, minister, on the cross-border flows. I have three questions. First, is the measure designed to maintain cross-border flows at current levels? In other words, is it a preventive measure? Secondly, how do you intend to monitor the cross-border flow situation to show that the measure is adaptable—that it can be changed, approved or whatever—to meet changes in circumstances? Thirdly, how are you and your officials working to address additional issues—highlighted by Calman in his report—such as the five highers entrance requirement for courses and the reduction in the number of Scots who are applying to study medicine?
The draft order is designed broadly to maintain equilibrium in the cross-border flow. It is not our intention unfairly or unnecessarily to penalise students from the rest of the UK who come to study here. Indeed, in terms of fee charges alone, there will still be an advantage to students from the rest of the UK in applying to study in Scotland. The draft order is designed to protect the interests of Scotland-domiciled students in accessing places in Scottish institutions. We will monitor the impacts of the draft order in so far as there is a direct correlation between the two things.
A variety of factors will affect an individual's choice of institution or course, including location. The most recent figures show that there was an increase—albeit at the margins—of 1.14 per cent in the number of applications received from the rest of the UK by Scottish institutions at a time when the number of applications overall was falling, both north and south of the border. That supports our contention that, if we left the situation alone, that figure would increase markedly as the incentive to move north was multiplied.
The turnaround in fee costs for medical students, for example, would be about £9,000. The committee considered that that would act as an incentive, and Mr Fraser said that we should consider the prospective as well as the retrospective effect of the policy. That is fundamentally correct. In general, we must act before issues arise.
Fees are clearly not the only issue to consider in relation to medical school applications. A board of medical education has been established and is involved with all the medical schools in considering the range of access issues, including the requirement for five highers at the first sitting, which is a matter of contention. The board will report to the Executive and the Scottish funding council on those issues. As with the measures in general, that board is a product of the Calman review.
Does Jamie Stone have any follow-up questions?
I may come back later, if I can reserve that right.
I draw attention to my entry in the register of members' interests, which refers to the fact that I am on the board of management of Dundee University Students Association, which may be relevant.
We have discussed the issue at some length previously, so I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments. I simply want to say that I oppose the draft order, although not because I oppose any measures that are designed to create a level playing field on fees between Scotland and England. I understand the situation that the Executive is in, which is not of its own making, and I acknowledge that the Executive is endeavouring to prevent Scottish students from being disadvantaged as a result of a large influx of students from south of the border. I appreciate that the Executive is required to take action to try to prevent such disadvantage. However, I have a concern about the additional fees that medical students will be charged under the order.
The Executive proposes to introduce increased fees for the academic year 2006-07, which will apply to students who arrive at university in September of this year, a few months from now. My concern is that the measure is at best premature, because the application process for places in the 2006-07 academic year closed a long time ago, in the autumn. I presume that most, if not all, places have been awarded. I cannot see a risk to Scottish students in the coming academic year and so cannot see the justification for introducing the measure for that year.
In a previous committee meeting, the minister and I debated the issue at some length; clearly, we did not have a meeting of minds on the issue. I do not see a risk to students who will commence their studies in the coming academic year and the minister was unable to convince me that such a risk exists. It would be premature to press ahead with the changes now. The most recent Universities and Colleges Admissions Service figures show a 6.5 per cent drop in applications from people in England to medical programmes in Scotland, whereas applications to the same courses from people within Scotland rose by 12 per cent. Therefore, the prospect of a gap emerging in tuition fee levels has not generated a sharp rise in applications from south of the border.
The Executive has not investigated properly possible measures that would be alternative or complementary to the rise in fees. Some such measures are mooted in the Cubie report and are supported by the National Union of Students, including that of providing incentives for medical graduates to remain in Scotland to practise. The Executive should have done a bit more to investigate those options. The Executive argues that the fact that the draft fees order has been in the pipeline has had the desired effect of deterring a huge influx of fee refugees but, frankly, there is not much empirical evidence of that. Further research must be carried out so that we can find out whether it is necessary to introduce the measure for the coming academic year. The provision in relation to medical students is at best premature. Accordingly, I will oppose the draft order.
We have debated the subject at some length and it is fair to say that we have agreed to disagree. The only point that I will draw to Murdo Fraser's attention is the inconsistency in his argument. After our previous discussion, I read the debate on 17 March 2004 about the Scottish solutions report, in which Mr Fraser was correct to say that the Higher Education Act 2004 would not have an impact in Scotland only from 2006-07. He said:
"Academics and lecturers might already be looking at their prospects; they might be tempted to leave posts in Scotland"
to obtain a better pay rise elsewhere. He also said:
"Conversely, there might be increased pressure on places at Scottish universities as students seek to avoid paying top-up fees at English universities. All those things are starting to happen already, which is why the Executive must act quickly to allay the concerns of people in the sector".—[Official Report, 17 March 2004; c 6725.]
Of course, that is what we did. We consulted back then on the proposal, which has had the desired impact of better regulating cross-border flow. Even though the number of applications from the rest of the UK to Scottish institutions has increased modestly at a time when the number of applications north and south of the border is decreasing, our statement of intent back in July last year has had a major impact.
As I said to Jamie Stone, we will continue to monitor the situation—we do not intend to reduce overall the number of students from the rest of the UK who study in Scotland. We want to maintain that important cross-border flow, which is good for students and institutions. All that I am doing is what Murdo Fraser urged me to do all those years ago.
I am never disappointed to be proved wrong by events, if that turns out to be the case. Whether the Executive's statement of intent caused the drop in the figures is a matter for debate. The point that I was making was simply that there is no risk in delaying the measure for a year to see what the effect may be, given that places at Scottish medical colleges for the forthcoming academic year have all been awarded.
You also made that comment during the previous discussion, and we checked the position. You quoted Universities Scotland to aid your proposition, but it wrote to us subsequently to say that it wanted the changes to be effected now and that it wanted no further delay, because it believes—as I do—that implementing the measure expeditiously is in everybody's interests, although we understand that that will place administrations and those who are involved in the process in difficulty in ensuring that the system is administered effectively. The measure should be implemented now. It was probably the cross-party consensus that emerged in 2004, which Murdo Fraser now seeks to break asunder, that influenced the figures over the piece.
I am conscious that the issue has been debated extensively at previous committee meetings. The minister gave a full and detailed statement to the committee on 2 May and he has not really added anything to what he said then. I agree with him about the principle of ensuring a level playing field for Scotland-domiciled students to access places at Scottish higher education institutions, but as he said on 2 May and has repeated today, there is
"no evidence that … Scotland-domiciled students are … unable to obtain places at Scottish higher education institutions."—[Official Report, Enterprise and Culture Committee, 2 May 2006; c 3033-34.]
The shift in fees that the minister proposes should at least have a clear evidence base. As Murdo Fraser said, places for the academic year 2006-07 have already been offered to students. Universities Scotland discussed the pragmatic proposal of deferring the change for another year in order to see whether evidence shows that it is required. On the basis of what I have said, I will not support the motion.
Does the minister want to comment?
What distinguishes Michael Matheson and his colleagues from us is that the Opposition has the luxury of being able to say that difficult and perhaps unpopular decisions ought to be deferred or delayed for whatever reason. In Government, it is necessary to confront difficult situations, act before more difficult situations emerge and take steps to ameliorate the impact.
It is logical to assume that if a £9,000 differential in the fee regimes for medical students north of the border and those south of the border were to emerge, that would lead to an influx of applicants from south of the border who were as well qualified as students from north of the border. Given that there is already a 10:1 surplus of applicants over places and that 40 per cent of applicants currently come from the rest of the UK, it does not take a genius to work out that Scotland-domiciled students would be under even more pressure in their attempts to access a place in a Scottish medical school. That would, in turn, place our national health service at a disadvantage in years to come. That is what we are seeking to avoid and justifies the measure's introduction.
This is obviously the first time that I have participated in this debate at a meeting of the Enterprise and Culture Committee. I apologise for coming to the matter as a newbie.
I was surprised by the unanimity of the concerns that have been expressed about the measure in the evidence from different bodies. My personal position is that I am against variations in fees, whether by university, by course or by country of origin, which is effectively what is being proposed in this case. I am concerned that the draft order will introduce a variation in fees.
I have listened to the minister's evidence. As I came to university in Scotland from the English and Welsh system, despite the fact that it was significantly more expensive for me to study in here than it would have been for me to study in England or Wales, I am not sure that there is a precise link between the cost—whether in relation to fees or anything else—of an education in Scotland and cross-border flows. As Michael Matheson and others have pointed out, there is no evidence that Scottish students are being crowded out, so it seems precipitate to assume without any evidence that variations in price will automatically lead to such crowding out in the future.
I share the concerns raised by Murdo Fraser about the timing of the measure. I am interested to know what evidence the minister has that the fee variation that we are voting on in June 2006 will act as a deterrent for students who will potentially come to Scotland in 2006-07. Applications will already have been put in and places will already have been offered at medical schools for 2006-07. How will voting for an increase now affect students who have already been offered places at medical schools in Scotland? It seems that the minister has not explained that.
The evidence from the Student Awards Agency for Scotland refers to the complexity of the change and the difficulties of timing it in relation to the application process. Given that the matter is so complicated and technical, why was it not possible to wait for more evidence to come in and to give the SAAS and the Scottish funding council more time by bringing the measure in not in 2006 but in 2007?
What consideration was given to ways other than a fee variation of increasing the retention of medical graduates in Scotland?
I answered Mark Ballard's final question directly in my response to Jamie Stone's original question about the outcome of the Calman report. As I said, a range of measures were considered by the expert committee that advised us and the funding council.
The measure is not precipitate. Although Mark Ballard may have come relatively late to the debate, the issue has been discussed by the committee, as I pointed out to Murdo Fraser, since 2004 and we expressed our intent way back in summer 2005. Indeed, higher education institutions in Scotland advertised the courses to which Mark Ballard referred with the proviso that they were potentially liable to subsequent fee variation. That has, I believe, had the desired impact of better regulating cross-border flows.
I repeat that we have the evidence. The number of cross-border applications has increased at a time when the number of applications north and south of the border overall has decreased. In part, that is due to the fact that Scotland already has a preferential fee regime in situ.
As I said in response to Jamie Stone's initial question, I entirely accept that fees and student support regimes are only one factor among many others in the equation. If Mark Ballard does not, as he claims, support variable fees, he had better support the draft order because, if it is not approved, we will have a completely unregulated fee regime under which institutions would be free to set whatever fees they wished. That would be the consequence of voting against the draft order. Mark Ballard and any other member who is considering voting against the draft order should be aware that, if they do not believe in a variable fee regime, they should most certainly support the draft order.
Is it the Scottish Executive's position that, if the committee rejects the draft order, the Executive will propose a free-market variable fees scheme instead? That seems to go far beyond any Scottish Executive plans that I have heard before.
Evidence from the NUS, Edinburgh University Students Association and others shows that it is more expensive to study in Scotland than elsewhere in the rest of the United Kingdom, yet the flow of students into Scotland has increased. Therefore, I do not see the logic in concluding that a clear link exists between the costs of studying and cross-border flows.
I fundamentally disagree with both those points. The de facto position—it is not what we propose—would be a direct consequence of members rejecting the draft order. The fee process in the draft order was voted for by the Parliament—if not by Mark Ballard—when it passed the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill. If the draft order is not approved, we will have an unregulated fee regime for Scottish higher education institutions. I repeat that, if members are against variable fees, they should support the draft order. Otherwise, there will be no prospective cap on what institutions can charge and there will be no bursary support. I would think twice about voting against the draft order.
Regarding the evidence from the student organisations to which Mark Ballard referred, I have said that I accept that fees are not the only factor that influences students from the rest of the UK when they are deciding whether to come to study in Scotland. The reputation of our higher education institutions and the quality of education are also factors in our success in attracting such students—long may that continue—despite the fact that, for some of those students, living costs and other factors might mean that they end up spending more on their education than they would have done down south. A difference of £9,000 per annum in the fee regime for medical students would have an influence on such decisions. Even if £1,500 was taken off that, we would still have a difference of £7,500 in the fee regime.
Likewise, the NUS figures show that there would be a £5,400 turnaround in costs in favour of students from the rest of the UK who attend Scottish institutions. I and the Executive believe that those figures would have an impact and I hope that the committee will confirm that. We are not willing to take that risk with either the future supply of doctors to our national health service or the opportunities for Scotland-domiciled students on all courses in Scottish institutions.
I will be brief because we have debated the matter at committee several times. As other members have said, the situation is not one of the Executive's making and the measure is needed to preserve equilibrium in the fees regime in relation to cross-border flows in the context of the partnership's commitment not to introduce top-up fees in Scotland.
The outcome of the measure is simply that it will not be far cheaper for students from England to study in Scotland rather than in England. Without the measure, students from England might well decide to study here on the basis of cost, as the minister said, rather than academic choice. The effect of that could be to squeeze out of medical courses Scottish students who could otherwise benefit from the bursaries regime, for which I campaigned long and hard in my days in student representation. That would be ludicrous and a negation of the Parliament's duty to our students.
There is a justified debate about the timing of the order, but I have not been persuaded by those who oppose it. Places have been offered to students from England but they have not been accepted yet and those students have more than one place that they can accept. Choices on the basis of cost could yet be made. We have conflicting evidence on the extent to which there is already a cross-border flow, but the minister has addressed both that and the cost issues that others have raised.
We should be clear about the position of Universities Scotland, which Mr Matheson mentioned. Universities Scotland wrote to the committee to say that it wants to make its position clear. Its letter of May 3 states:
"Universities Scotland sees no benefit in delaying the implementation of the proposals in the Order."
It wants clarity on the issue now. That is a sensible position and I support it. I will vote today to ensure that there are no further obstacles that prevent Scottish students from poorer backgrounds from furthering their studies in any subject area. I support the instrument.
That is a sensible approach, which is in marked contrast to the previous approach, from Mark Ballard.
If we accept the data that underpin the NUS's argument, under the current system—with the quality of our institutions and the quality of teaching on offer—the extra cost of studying in Scotland relative to the cost in the rest of the UK stands at £3,190. The NUS accepts that, under the Executive's proposals, that gap will close to £990. According to NUS figures, were we to maintain Scotland's current fee regime, it would be £2,210 cheaper for a student from the rest of the UK to study in Scotland rather than at an institution in the rest of the UK. The turnaround in the figures is £5,400. That would be a substantial benefit and I think that it would lead to an increase in the number of students from the rest of the UK who come to study in Scotland on the basis of cost.
I repeat that, for medical students, the gap is about £9,000. Even if fees for medical courses were held at £1,700, the cost of studying medicine in Scotland would be £6,500 less than it is elsewhere in the UK. I maintain that that would significantly increase the pressure on places at Scottish medical schools, which would reduce opportunities for Scotland-domiciled students. I—and we, collectively—are here to represent Scotland-domiciled students in this context. Without the order, students from all backgrounds would be adversely affected.
A number of questions have been asked about delaying things until next year. In a couple of sentences, will you say why you believe that that would be bad for students and for universities?
As I have said in response to other questions, as Richard Baker and others have confirmed and as Universities Scotland has confirmed in writing, there should not be any delay. A delay would send out to potential applicants from outside Scotland all the wrong signals about the fee regime, and we would inevitably have to address the problem again next year. In the interim, there would be an unregulated fee regime north of the border, in which institutions could charge whatever they wanted to.
I have already given an opportunity to members who indicated that they wanted to speak; I now invite the members who have not yet asked a question to do so if they wish to. Two members have indicated that they want to come back in.
Having listened to the debate, I want to make two points that I think are important. I should perhaps declare an interest: I have a son and his twin sister, one of them at Edinburgh completing third year and one of them at St Andrews completing third year.
We should not make any apology for not having fees of any form for our constituents who are attending Scottish higher education institutions; in fact, we should be proud of that. It allows some of the poorest folk to realise their potential. We should make no apology for protecting places for young Scots with their futures ahead of them.
We have heard arguments about waiting for evidence. I have no doubt that the minister is right and that the £9,000 is staring us in the face. I see students in the public seats shaking their heads, but I can tell you that my children would strongly disagree with what is being said. Is it morally right that we should wait until we have the evidence? During the delay, five, six, 10 or 20 young people would not get places because we were waiting for evidence. That is pretty chilly and I do not agree with it. For that reason if no other, I will be voting for the instrument.
Minister, you said that Universities Scotland did not want a delay. In evidence to the committee on 2 May, you said:
"Universities Scotland argues for a year's delay on the ground that there is a need for more evidence and more time to introduce such complex changes."—[Official Report, Enterprise and Culture Committee, 2 May 2006; c 3037.]
Are you now saying that, when you gave evidence, that was not really Universities Scotland's position, or are you saying that it has since changed its position?
The point was picked up by Richard Baker in the debate. Since the debate on 2 May, the director of Universities Scotland, David Caldwell, has written to the committee to state his support for the introduction of fee changes in the current year. In the process, he emphasised to committee members that Universities Scotland saw no benefit in delaying the implementation of the proposals in the order. That was in a letter from Universities Scotland to the committee—in response, I think, to comments made by Murdo Fraser.
Are you saying that Universities Scotland has changed its position?
I am not here to speak on behalf of Universities Scotland.
Well, you referred to Universities Scotland in your previous evidence. You clearly now believe that it has changed its position.
I am saying that it wrote to you on 2 May. If Universities Scotland wants to clarify its position, that is a matter for Universities Scotland—I am not here to represent it.
The fact is that Universities Scotland clarified its position to the committee. It wrote to every member.
I find the minister's argument that an unregulated fee regime will stare us in the face if we do not pass the order to be a red herring, at best. If, in its wisdom, the committee decided to reject the order, I hope that the Executive would come forward with an order that was acceptable to the committee.
If the committee agrees to the order, people living in my region, Lothians, studying at the University of Edinburgh will in future have to pay additional variable fees because they come from England, Wales or Northern Ireland. No student in Scotland should have to pay additional variable fees. This is the thin end of the wedge, which is why I will oppose the order. I hope that other committee members oppose it too and I look forward to the Executive introducing a motion on a new order.
I have listened to the minister's argument and his position seems to be that the Executive signalling more than a year ago its intent to introduce the measure acted as a deterrent to English students applying for medical places at Scottish universities. How was that communicated to students from England applying to Scottish universities? If we take the example of Edinburgh university, given that the new rector is sitting opposite, was it the case that the section on medicine in the university's prospectus said that students applying from England and Wales faced the possibility of increased fees?
As I have said, the fact that the fee structure was under review and that higher fee levels could apply was advertised in the context of the courses when they were introduced. Within Scotland and without, there was widespread public dissemination of the discussions—not least in this committee—on the impact that the change in the English and Welsh fee regime would have on the situation in Scotland. Mr Fraser contributed extensively to that debate and I have quoted from his comments. Jim Wallace, my current boss's predecessor, conducted a consultation and announced our intent way back in July.
All those factors have impacted on regulating cross-border flow. If things had not happened in the way in which they did, given the likelihood of the change in the regime having the beneficial impact on students from the rest of the United Kingdom that I have outlined, we would have seen a far greater increase in cross-border applications than has been the case—although there has been an increase in cross-border applications at a time when applications as a whole have decreased. We do not know what is happening in medical schools yet because the figures have not been produced.
Murdo Fraser has indicated that he wants to come back in. Murdo, is there any answer that is likely to change your mind on this?
That remains to be seen. I may be swept away by the quality of the minister's response.
I want to press this point. While I am sure that the debates of the committee and the Parliament—and not least my own utterances—are widely read throughout the UK, is the minister really trying to tell me that a sixth-form pupil in Surrey will have read a Scottish newspaper or the Official Report and relied upon that as evidence for determining whether they should apply to a Scottish university to take up a medical place? What direct communication was there with those considering applying to a Scottish university to study medicine about the Executive's intent to introduce the order?
Are you suggesting that sixth-form students in the rest of the UK who are thinking of studying in Scotland would not take steps to identify the likely cost of that study over the piece?
So the answer to my question is none.
No. There is guidance from the Students Awards Agency for Scotland and the Department for Education and Skills, as well as all the public dissemination to which I referred and the member's own warning that things were starting to happen. He should give young people more credit for their ability to source relevant information and to research such major decisions in their lives. The vast majority of students go into some depth on the question of where to study after they leave school, particularly if it might involve being uprooted from their home and family.
We have given the matter a fairly good airing. I will give the minister the opportunity to sum up later if he so wishes. Do members have any further comments? I would also appreciate it if they would give me an indication of whether they support the motion to approve the draft order.
I have no further questions, and support the motion.
I could say a lot more on the subject, none of which will convince other members who have not already made up their minds. I intend to vote against the motion.
I have nothing further to contribute and will vote in favour of the motion.
I will not support the motion.
I have no further questions. It is time for us to make a decision, and I will certainly support the motion.
I support the motion.
I see no evidence that crowding out happens at the moment and no truth in the claim that it will happen in the future. I do not want variable fees to be introduced for any student in Scotland and will oppose the motion.
We have spent a considerable amount of time examining the matter and have heard detailed evidence and sincerely held opinions from witnesses such as our young guests this afternoon. I have listened to and thought about the evidence and will vote in favour of the motion for the reasons that I have already stated.
Minister, do you wish to make any concluding remarks?
No.
In that case, the question is, that the Enterprise and Culture Committee recommends that the draft Student Fees (Specification) (Scotland) Order 2006 be approved. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Richard Baker (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Margaret Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Christine May (Central Fife) (Lab)
Mr Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Against
Mark Ballard (Lothians) (Green)
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Michael Matheson (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Motion agreed to,
We will inform Parliament of our decision.
I thank the minister for giving evidence on this occasion and on others; his official; those who have turned up to listen to the debate; and committee members.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—