Student Minimum Income Guarantee
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3675, in the name of Margaret Smith, on a minimum income guarantee for students.
The recession is hitting everyone: it is hitting pensioners, families and many of Scotland's students, who already live on tight budgets. Some of them are losing part-time jobs or are suffering as a result of a downturn in their families' incomes, and others are struggling against rising costs.
This debate gives us the chance to focus on the financial hardship that many students feel, and to argue for a fair living income for students. It is also a chance to remember the importance of the higher and further education sectors to Scotland's economy and, therefore, the importance of retaining students in their courses.
In the teeth of the worst economic recession in living memory, we must ensure not only that we are able to weather the economic storm but that we come out the other side of it equipped, skilled and ready to meet the challenges of a different world. If we do not invest in and plan for higher and further education, we will not be able to compete in an increasingly competitive world economy, so Universities Scotland is right to challenge the Government to
"progress towards Scotland being in the top quartile of OECD countries for the percentage of GDP invested in its universities and for national investment in research, development and innovation".
I am proud of the Liberal Democrats' record in government on tertiary education funding. We reversed the pattern of most of the 1980s and 1990s, when increases in student numbers meant that funding per head was being reduced. In our eight years in government, universities and colleges received an average increase of more than 5 per cent every year and funding reached a record £1 billion a year.
However, funding student support is just as important as proper funding for education institutions, which is why we abolished tuition fees. Because of that, nearly 200,000 Scottish students entering Scottish institutions have not paid fees, which represents a total of £4 billion less debt for Scottish graduates. We also helped the Scottish National Party Government to scrap the graduate endowment. That has also reduced the amount of debt for Scotland's students. I give the SNP credit for that but, in other ways, it has let down students. Many students voted for the SNP because it promised to drop student debt, but no sooner was it in government than that undeliverable pledge was dumped. The SNP did not even try to bring plans to Parliament, claiming that it knew that they had no support. It is a pity that it does not feel the same way about many other things, including the referendum on independence.
Getting student support right is crucial not only so that potential students are not put off higher education because of the cost, but so that students are not forced to suffer financial hardship or to jeopardise their educational performance by working excessive hours to support themselves. That is why we have supported the National Union of Students Scotland's call for a minimum income guarantee for Scottish students for the past few years. Such a guarantee would make a real difference to students who suffer hardship during their studies.
Thanks to the Liberal Democrat amendment on the motion to pass the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill, the SNP has included a proposal for a minimum income guarantee in its student support consultation. However, we know that it is not the Government's preferred option. Instead of dumping all Scotland's student debt, which could cost around £2 billion, the SNP has allocated £30 million to assist with the transition from student loans to grants. Given the total cost of a move from loans to grants, it would clearly be many years before the shift was complete.
The SNP Government is resistant to any suggestion that includes increased access to student loans. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning will say that it is wrong to encourage students to get into more debt, but it is also morally wrong to leave students living in poverty—and members should make no mistake that that is where many of them are. Currently, the maximum support that a student in Scotland can get is £4,510 per year. That is £2,000 less than their English counterparts get for maintenance but, more important, it is also nearly £2,500 below the United Kingdom poverty line. Students are the only group of people that Government policy leaves in that position.
NUS research shows that more than half of students have considered dropping out due to hardship and that those who are from poorer backgrounds are twice as likely to drop out due to poverty. That is why, along with Scottish students, the Liberal Democrats call for a minimum income guarantee of £7,000 per year to bring students up to the income levels that reflect their cost of living.
Will the member give way?
rose—
I am spoilt for choice. I will give way to the minister.
What would be the Liberal Democrats' policy for the minimum income guarantee? How much could be loans? Could it be £6,000 out of £7,000? More important, how much would it cost and how would they pay for it?
The cost would depend on the ratio. We do not rule out the possibility of an increase in loans. That must be part of the minimum income guarantee because we cannot afford to pay for £7,000 in grants. Neither we nor NUS Scotland says that we can afford that. Widening access is not only about getting more people into education; it is also about supporting them to stay there. The guarantee would be fulfilled through varying combinations of bursaries, loans and parental contributions. It would also mean that fewer students were compelled to take out expensive commercial, credit-card type loans. There is no such thing as "good debt", but the student loan—which is payable when the individual starts earning £15,000—is probably preferable to commercial loans.
Students should be given the choice about what they need to get them through their studies. We know, and the NUS knows, that no Government or Parliament would be able to deliver the minimum income guarantee at a single bound. We will not be able to bring all Scotland's full-time HE students up to a minimum income of £7,000 with the £30 million that the Government has set aside, but we should set that minimum income as our target. We could make a start with a hybrid of increased grants for poorer students and access to greater loans. That would be a step in the right direction towards a fair minimum income for Scottish students.
By contrast, the SNP's plans to shift from loans to grants would need Treasury approval to work and would not put a single penny more into the pockets of hard-pressed students when they need it most.
No one can be in any doubt that students are struggling. The costs of the sorts of things on which they spend their money—rent, food and heating—have all risen faster than general inflation. I will resist the obvious comment about minimum pricing for alcohol, and I speak as the mother of two students. Many students have turned to their institutions' hardship funds for help. Although we welcome the fact that universities and colleges were able to get access to emergency in-year redistribution funds in November, it remains the case that only six of the 32 colleges that asked for more FE funding at that point got the funds that they needed to help students. We also know of students who do not even bother to ask for help because they think that the answer will be no, and we have already highlighted our concerns about problems with discretionary child care funding that mean that student parents can be discouraged from starting courses because institutions have run out of discretionary funds.
We call on the Government to conduct more research into hardship so that we can get a better understanding about the widening access picture and, crucially, a clearer national measurement of drop-out rates, which would help to drive a new approach to student retention.
It is impossible to solve all the student support issues right away, but we must do what we can to simplify the support system and we must take the first step towards providing a £7,000 minimum income guarantee by helping Scotland's poorest young students as soon as we can.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the importance of the higher and further education sector; notes the outcome of the New Horizons: responding to the challenges of the 21st century report and the need to involve key stakeholders in discussions about the funding of the university sector; believes that Scotland's students have been let down by the SNP government's failure to deliver on its manifesto pledge to dump student debt; notes the Supporting a Smarter Scotland consultation on student support and rejects its proposals for not adequately addressing student hardship, and calls on the Scottish Government to deliver a simplified support system, which includes a minimum income guarantee of £7,000 per annum for full-time higher education students made up from a combination of grants, loans and parental contributions.
The Government believes that access to higher education should be based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. During the parliamentary process to abolish the unfair graduate endowment fee, we agreed that we would consult on the minimum income guarantee. We are doing that through our consultation on supporting learners in higher education, which runs until 30 April 2009.
The consultation paper "Supporting a Smarter Scotland: A consultation on supporting learners in higher education" focuses on the mainstream support that is available for students who undertake full-time undergraduate study in higher education at college or university. It seeks views on replacing the current system of student loans with a fair and affordable system of means-tested grants and other means of student support.
I feel very strongly that it is disrespectful to ignore the views of the many people who have already responded, or who are still to respond, to the consultation. The Liberal Democrats asked for a consultation in the first place in an amendment to the motion to pass the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill. They got one, but now they want to ignore and bypass it.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No.
I warn the Liberal Democrats that, if the Labour amendment is agreed to, they will have made a tactical blunder that would allow the Parliament to reject the minimum income guarantee, because targeted support for the poorest students is contradictory to a guaranteed minimum income for all.
Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that the consultation proposes a minimum income guarantee of only £5,500—an increase of a mere £500—and does nothing to address the serious issue of student hardship?
The Labour Party has confirmed in its amendment that it does not support the minimum income guarantee but wants targeted support for the poorest students. I know what is in the consultation paper, which makes the minimum income guarantee clear. If Claire Baker had listened to Margaret Smith, she would know that she said that the initial increase would not be to the full minimum income guarantee of £7,000.
The paper sets out a number of options to improve student support by using the £30 million that has been made available with a view to either increasing the amount of support or reducing levels of debt on graduation. We believe that the suggestion from the Association of Scotland's Colleges is worth further consideration, so we have included it in the consultation paper. It could be argued that that option may become increasingly attractive as the recession gathers pace.
The Liberal Democrats' motion has the effect of dismissing the college option completely out of hand. The Liberal Democrats are not giving college students a fair hearing, which flies in the face of Hugh O'Donnell's previous statements in which he asserted that his party supports college students who face hardship. Is it the case that the Liberal Democrats do not really want to hear college students' views?
What we are suggesting is help for full-time higher education students, many thousands of whom are learning in Scotland's colleges.
On the basis that the Liberal Democrats have yet to outline the content and costing of their policy, I do not think that Margaret Smith's answer gives college students any confidence whatsoever.
The financial restrictions facing us are real. We have had the tightest spending settlement since devolution. We had to meet the unpaid bills of £60 million a year for the previous Government's promises on public-private partnership school buildings and—yes—we had to make hard choices. Despite all those real and difficult pressures, we have still managed to find £30 million that will make a real difference for students in the future.
In comparison with the lack of action in the previous eight years, in less than two years in this session of Parliament, we have already made a number of real improvements for students. We abolished the graduate endowment fee, which is benefiting up to 50,000 students and graduates, saving them £2,300 each. We have removed the burden of debt: two thirds of students who were due to pay £2,300 for the fee did not pay it back directly but simply added it to their student loan. Student debt doubled in Scotland between 1999 and 2005, but under the SNP Government, it fell in 2007, for the first time since devolution. We have replaced loans with grants, with a £38 million package for part-time learners in higher education, benefiting up to 20,000 students a year. We have increased the threshold for students with disabilities and are providing institutions with £16 million a year to alleviate student hardship, which is a rise of 14.6 per cent on 2006-07 levels.
Although demand for hardship support is increasing, so have the resources to fund it, and requests for top-up funds for hardship went down this year, in comparison with last year. Only three out of the 11 universities that Labour surveyed have asked for more funds, and only one out of the four universities that The Scotsman quoted this week has asked for funds.
The Labour Party amendment does not support a minimum income guarantee. It notes the NUS position, but rejects it in favour of a policy request: that the Government look at supporting the poorest students. Has Claire Baker read the consultation? Options 1a, 1b and 3 all set out the case for supporting the poorest students. She should do her homework, but that is not Labour's strong point.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
No, thank you.
The Westminster Government miscalculated its grant policy by £200 million and now has to claw back £100 million from students and universities, threatening courses and student numbers.
I return to the Liberal Democrats. They asked for a consultation and they got one. They should have the patience to listen to the consultation.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I am closing.
The debate is premature. I respect the Liberal Democrats' right to argue the case for a minimum income guarantee of £7,000. However, in moving the Government's amendment, I ask the Parliament to respect the many people, from students in colleges and universities to parents and others, who have the right to respond to the consultation on student support and to be heard, without being pre-judged by the vote at decision time.
I move amendment S3M-3675.3, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:
"notes the Scottish Government's consultation on student support, Supporting a Smarter Scotland, which closes on 30 April 2009, and the proposals it outlines, including a minimum income guarantee; further notes that under the previous administration student debt doubled between 1999 and 2006; welcomes the falls in average student debt achieved as a result of the enhanced support on offer from the Scottish Government; further welcomes the restoration of the principle of free education with the abolition of the graduate endowment fee; commends the Scottish Government on the introduction of a £38 million package of grants for part-time learners, replacing loans with grants for up to 20,000 students per year; congratulates the Scottish Government on the 14.6% increase in student hardships funds over the last two years; further welcomes the additional support that has been made available for students with disabilities, and calls on the Scottish Government to respond positively to the outcome of the consultation."
I am pleased to open the debate for Labour. It is fair to say that the SNP has avoided holding debates on students, and it is not difficult to see why. The SNP has a list of overpromised and underdelivered policies on students. The Scottish Government was elected on several headline-grabbing promises to students that it never intended to keep. It promised full grants for every student and no more loans; it also promised, on seemingly every leaflet that it produced, to dump the debt. However, instead of writing off the debt, it has written off Scotland's poorest students.
The SNP amendment trumpets the £38 million for part-time students, but the fact is that the SNP's efforts to replace loans with grants fall incredibly far short of its manifesto commitment. The £30 million that it has made available for student support next year is wholly inadequate to address the hardships that students face.
Without apology and without shame, the SNP has reneged on almost every promise that it made to Scottish students and graduates at the most recent election. It made a series of multibillion-pound pledges that, in a typically cynical and short-term move, was simply designed to get the student vote. Not content with breaking promises, the SNP in government has made changes that contribute to student hardship.
On breaking manifesto promises, can Claire Baker outline how Labour fulfilled its manifesto promise not to introduce loans and top-up fees?
That was obviously in a different election. The point is irrelevant to this debate. Labour's record shows that we abolished top-up fees and reduced student hardship by introducing the young person's bursary. Labour's commitment is to address student hardship issues.
We now get to the SNP's record. It has made a £12.5 million cut in the student support budget that will result in fewer students receiving any support and, crucially, fewer students receiving full support. It has made a change to the means test, which has cut funding for some of our most vulnerable students midway through their course. That change will affect up to 33,000 students—thousands of mature students, and students from single-parent families who until now were exempt from means testing.
On means testing, is Claire Baker aware of the letter that I wrote to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee in which I outlined the fact that only 45 students had applied for hardship funds because of the change to means testing, and that their requests had been met?
I am aware of that letter, but I think that the cabinet secretary will share my disappointment that only five universities responded to her request for information. Current pressure on hardship funds does not mean that there are no issues with the changes to the means test.
The Government's 16-plus proposals include cuts in education maintenance allowances for our college students and cuts in the income threshold, which would reduce further the number of college students who would qualify. Those are all policies that take money from poor students to give to even poorer students. In addition, the SNP was set to introduce a local income tax that would have hit more than 50,000 of our poorest students who work long hours.
We are now starting to see the consequences of the SNP's actions. In just two years, the SNP has managed, through its actions and inaction, to create intolerable pressure on student hardship funds. Government support for students is inadequate. In prioritising graduate debt, it has ignored student hardship. Too many students on limited budgets have to make choices between heating, food, books and bus fares. That will do nothing to address Scotland's drop-out rate, which is the highest in the UK. All of that is taking place in the context of difficult economic times, which puts additional pressures on students' budgets.
If the SNP Government was a responsible and responsive Government, it would take action. It would drop its inadequate student support proposals. It would help students through the current economic difficulties and prevent them from falling into hardship and having to rely on a dwindling supply of hardship funds. It would help students who lose their part-time job. It would help students to meet their child care needs. It would help students who see contributions drying up from parents who can no longer afford to help. However, the SNP has not taken those actions.
The situation that the Government has created has stretched hardship funds to breaking point. The University of Abertay Dundee, for example, has exhausted its supplies of hardship funds twice, which means that it can no longer help students with serious money worries. Student support here is now so far behind that in the rest of the UK that a Scottish student studying at the University of Stirling, which is in my region, will get more than a third less money to live on than their English, Welsh or Northern Irish counterparts studying at the same university.
The fact is that there is almost £2,000 less for the poorest Scottish student. An English student with a family income of £50,000 gets more support from their Government than the very poorest Scottish student gets. The poorest student studying in England receives more in grant support from their Government than the poorest student in Scotland receives from their Government.
The student support system in Scotland is no longer fit for purpose. The overriding priority for students in Scotland is student hardship, because they need money in their pockets to help them complete their studies. NUS Scotland president Gurjit Singh said this morning that abolishing the graduate endowment had
"little impact on the day to day life of students and does nothing to tackle the issue of financial hardship students face while studying."
The SNP has failed on student hardship.
Will the member take an intervention?
Sorry, but I need to finish.
You can take the intervention, if you wish.
It will probably be quite short. Does the member accept that Gurjit Singh also said that we should support a minimum income guarantee for students?
Yes, but does Margaret Smith accept that Gurjit Singh said that that should be achieved through grants and loans, not grants, loans and parental contributions?
The SNP has failed on student hardship. It has spent £18 million on abolishing the graduate endowment and is moving £38 million from loans for part-time students to grants for tuition, but students get not one penny in their pockets while they are studying. Further, at a time of increasing student hardship levels, the SNP has flatlined general discretionary funds.
Scottish universities have the highest drop-out rates, the lowest participation of students from low-income backgrounds and the most underfunded students in the UK. That is unacceptable, and it is why Labour will work for a £7,000 minimum income for our poorest students, which represents the Joseph Rowntree Foundation poverty line and is the level called for by student representatives across Scotland.
That proposal is deliverable within available resources, and it would tackle student hardship for our most vulnerable students and support those whose financial position might discourage them from pursuing higher education. It is fair, affordable and achievable.
We have sought to amend Margaret Smith's motion, as we believe that students in Scotland have had enough of false hope and hollow promises. Although we agree with the direction taken in the Lib Dems' motion, students have had enough broken promises without more being added to the list. Margaret Smith's press comments this morning and her comments in the debate suggest that she agrees with the proposal that to start by providing £7,000 for the poorest students is the way to go. In light of that, I hope that the Lib Dems can support our amendment.
Rather than promise the unachievable, I urge Parliament to support our amendment, which calls on the Government to focus the resources that are available in the present spending review period on the poorest students, to tackle student hardship, to invest in the long term and to help students through economic difficulties in the short term.
I move amendment S3M-3675.1, to leave out from "its proposals" to end and insert:
"all of its proposals for not adequately addressing student hardship; expresses serious concern at reports of childcare and hardship funds being stretched to breaking point across colleges and universities in Scotland; recognises the calls of the NUS and other student representatives for a £7,000 minimum income guarantee but believes that a £7,000 minimum income for all students in Scotland is unachievable with the funds allocated for student support by the Scottish Government in this spending review period, and calls on the Scottish Government to come forward with new proposals that focus the available resources at the poorest students to genuinely address student hardship in Scotland."
I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of members' interests and, specifically, to my membership of the board of Dundee University Students Association.
I am sure that all of us can remember the energetic dump the debt campaign that the Scottish National Party ran on campuses across Scotland before the most recent election. Students were told that an SNP Government would write off their student debts and replace loans with grants. I know of many students and, for that matter, parents who voted SNP as a result. What a cruel delusion that pledge turned out to be. Like so many SNP promises, it has been broken. It is not the debt that has been dumped, but the SNP's manifesto pledge.
We are dealing with a serious situation for Scottish students. As we have heard, many students are reporting real hardship. Across Scotland, universities are reporting that their hardship funds are running out of money. As Claire Baker said, the University of Abertay Dundee's hardship fund has run out of money twice in the current academic year, with the result that support has had to be rationed to better-performing students.
Although student debt is a real issue, student hardship is a greater one. Many students are having to borrow over and above their student loans, from banks and other commercial lenders. Worse still, some are having to borrow on credit cards. We believe that we should be looking to expand the current student loan scheme, which at least provides a way of borrowing money that is secure and has a low interest rate, rather than leaving students to pay punitive rates of interest for bank overdrafts and credit card debt.
When I was at university, we did not have loans—we had grants. What happened to those grants? Who brought in the loans?
Like Mr Gibson, I went to university at the time of a Conservative Government, which provided grants. We must accept that given the massive expansion in the number of young people who go to university, it is right that students make a contribution to their upkeep during their time there. I make no apology for the introduction of student loans. What most students today want is greater access to student loans, which is far better than having to borrow money on a commercial basis.
The Liberal Democrat motion refers to the minimum income guarantee of £7,000 per student. I am aware of the campaign by student representatives for a guaranteed minimum income of that amount, made up of a mixture of grants, loans and parental contributions, and it is difficult to fault the logic of that.
However, we must deal with the significant issue of the affordability of any proposal in the current spending review period. I note that the Liberal Democrats have provided us with no information about how much their policy will cost, despite the cabinet secretary's intervention on Margaret Smith, or how it might be afforded. For the past few months, we have heard from the Liberal Democrats only about their new policy priority of a 2p income tax cut, which could be afforded only by finding £800 million-worth of savings from the Scottish budget. We read in yesterday's papers that that policy has now been ditched. Overnight, the Liberal Democrats have reverted to type. What a relief it must be for all Liberal Democrat members finally to shrug off the unaccustomed financial rigour that their now abandoned tax-cutting policy imposed on them. They can now return to their traditional and much more comfortable position of throwing around spending commitments like confetti.
The Conservatives have compiled a dossier of spending commitments that the Liberal Democrats have made in opposition. By the time of the budget, they had made a grand total of £8.5 billion-worth of commitments. In the few weeks since then, the figure has grown to £10.5 billion—at least, that was the figure as of 9 o'clock this morning. Even as I speak, I am sure that my colleague Derek Brownlee is sitting down with his calculator to add to that total the sums that the Liberal Democrats have pledged in this morning's two debates. We cannot agree to an uncosted pledge from the Liberal Democrats when they have given us no indication of where the money will come from.
We think that the Scottish Government has got its approach on student support entirely wrong. It has failed to acknowledge that student loans have a vital part to play and that they are infinitely preferable to students having to borrow at commercial rates from the banks and on credit cards.
I hear what Murdo Fraser says about the cost of our proposal. I hope that he heard me say that there has to be a balance in how we go about implementing it, which means that it is difficult to come up with a definitive figure. Does he accept that the number of students who fail to complete their courses because they experience financial hardship represents an opportunity loss?
I have already said that I recognise that student hardship is a genuine issue, but I have to say to Margaret Smith and her colleagues in the Liberal Democrats that if they are to ask for other parties' support for a motion that includes a specific policy commitment, it is incumbent on them to tell us how much the policy will cost and from where in the Scottish budget, which is a finite sum, they will find the cash in question. It is not good enough for the Liberal Democrats to ask us to sign a blank cheque, which, in effect, is what they are asking us to do in the motion.
The Conservatives feel that the Labour amendment strikes the right balance, and we will support it. Scotland's students have been badly let down by the SNP Government, and they will not forget it when next they have the chance to vote.
It is always a pleasure to follow a member of the SNP's unpaid research department. The Conservatives spend more time studying the Liberal Democrats' work for their dodgy dossier than they do in holding the Government of Scotland to account.
With regard to the direction of travel, the Liberal Democrats know that the budget that the SNP has established means that there is a window in the spending review period. We also know that we are going through a budget review process, of which Mr Fraser's colleague is a part. Students in higher and further education in Scotland will not look favourably on parties that take the view that we should pack our bags and not engage fully in the upcoming budget process and the discussions on the spending review in an effort to offset student hardship and move in the direction of travel of a minimum income guarantee.
Will the member give way?
I will in a moment, if I have time.
In the cabinet secretary's speech, I detected a tone that was as intemperate as the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change's choice of language in the previous debate. The cabinet secretary said that it was disrespectful for Parliament to debate the issue while the Government was holding a consultation on it. She said that it was disrespectful for the Liberal Democrats not to take part in the consultation but instead to hold a parliamentary debate on the issue.
Will the member give way?
I will if I have time; I want to finish my point.
The cabinet secretary also said that we were being disrespectful to students, but I suspect that it is more disrespectful to students to issue a consultation that said that funding was available to convert student loans to grants when there was no agreement with the Treasury to make such funding available. As became evident at a recent meeting of the Finance Committee, the money for servicing student loans in Scotland comes from annually managed expenditure rather than departmental expenditure limits money, so it is not necessarily at her disposal. Perhaps this is another Forth bridge situation, in that the Government has made a statement without knowing that the funding is secure.
Is it respectful to put before Parliament a policy that is not costed, and for which the Liberal Democrats cannot identify the source of the money?
Elizabeth Smith must not have heard me say that we have a funding window in the spending review period. As the Government has stated, we are seeking a realignment. We are now engaged in the budget process for 2010-11. That is the direction of travel in which the Liberal Democrats wish to go.
I turn to the situation that part-time higher education students face. Their difficulties are not being addressed. In my constituency, Borders College has had to ask for an increase of nearly 30 per cent over its original allocations for crisis funds for 2008-09.
On the further education student support fund, the Government says that, because colleges reported unusual pressure on their bursary funds in 2008-09, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council held an additional, early in-year reallocation process in November. With the emergency November reallocation and the January requests this year, colleges have asked for an additional emergency allocation of £11.2 million, plus £9.12 million for student support.
The insultingly complacent letter that the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee received from the Scottish Government will infuriate constituents of mine, to whom I shall send it. Over the past year, those constituents have come to me in real financial difficulty. It is not just the changes to the eligibility criteria that were made last year—a "big bang" approach, as the Government said—but the way in which things were carried out. Only as a result of a freedom of information request from the Liberal Democrats did we learn that the Government was advised that three cohorts of students would be likely to be adversely affected: students in single-parent families; students who cohabit; and lone-parent students. The Government saying in its letter that there was no problem, because only a small number of universities and institutions had responded, is akin to the Conservatives saying in the 1980s, after an election with a low turnout, that everybody was happy with the Government of the day. We have seen the same type of academic rigour in other Government promises to students.
With a gap of £10 million between what colleges asked for and what they received, and with a catalogue of broken promises from the SNP, students will look to this debate to signal a minimum income guarantee. Students are hoping that the Parliament will speak with a single voice at 5 o'clock this afternoon.
I remind members that they are limited to four minutes. We do not have much extra time to allocate.
It is desperate stuff from the Liberal Democrats this morning. They morph daily into the Scottish Socialist Party, demanding funds without any inkling of how much money would be required or where it would come from.
I well recall that when the now ermine-clad Jim Wallace, a former leader of the Lib Dems, was questioned as to why his party broke its 1999 election pledge to abolish tuition fees, he replied that it was "just election rhetoric". The same party is now sanctimoniously lecturing us on student hardship, barely a month after abandoning its barking-mad plans to cut £800 million annually from the Scottish budget. That is frankly shameful.
Will the member take an intervention?
On that point, why not?
Back at you!
When is Kenneth Gibson's party actually going to dump the debt? All around Scotland, in campus after campus, he and his colleagues said that they would dump student debt. They have not done so. Have they no intention of doing so?
We are already making progress. We have abolished the graduate endowment tax, which Margaret Smith voted to bring in. I dare say that she has had a conversion on the road to Damascus in this session of Parliament, but it was her party, along with the Labour Party, that helped to bring in that tax.
It is somewhat rich for the Tories to talk about hardship; they were the ones who brought in the loans that have caused so much hardship among many students. As we recall, the Tories fought three Scottish Parliament elections pledging to abolish tuition fees, before abandoning that pledge as soon as they had the opportunity.
Labour, as so often, also has a brass neck. We have heard no apology whatsoever for the fact that Labour brought in the graduate endowment tax and tuition fees in the first place.
I should focus my attention on Labour and the Conservatives, because I understand that the Liberals are going to offer us the possibility of a coalition in a couple of years. Perhaps we should be a lot nicer to them.
No.
No, I do not think so either.
The Lib Dems surrendered to Labour on the graduate endowment tax in exchange for a measly four of the 22 ministerial portfolios on offer at the time. They obviously forgot that it is normal for the smaller party in coalitions to have disproportionate weight, not the larger party.
We have heard a lot about whether there is a shortage of discretionary funds, but the point that members must accept is that the SNP substantially increased the funding—to £16.1 million, which is an increase of 14.6 per cent, over two years.
I will be happy to take an intervention from Claire Baker in a second, but she and her colleagues should accept that one of the reasons for increased hardship in society is the mind-numbing incompetence of the United Kingdom Labour Government. It has caused many problems through its mismanagement of the economy and through the abolition of the 10p tax rate, which benefited students who worked part time.
On the issue of hardship funds, does the member accept that, once the £1 million ring fenced for part-time students is removed, the general discretionary funds are increased only to £15 million? That increase is no higher than inflation.
Per capita, it is three times more than south of the border. In England, where the Labour Party has an overall majority, up-front student funding for new students is being cut in 2010, because of £200 million overspends. If Claire Baker's party had a majority in this Parliament, I do not doubt for a single second that we would see exactly the same policies being enacted in Scotland. Of course, her party will never get an overall majority here. A headline on the front of Holyrood magazine says "Growing in Opposition"—shrinking, I would say.
The Scottish Government has already abolished the graduate endowment tax, replaced loans for part-time students with grants, increased helper support for disabled students by 60 per cent, and trebled career development loans—
The member should conclude.
—from £1,200 to £3,600 per year.
Presiding Officer, the previous speaker got five full minutes. I took two interventions, and got four minutes and two seconds.
The member should sit down.
Aye, thanks. With friends like you—
I did not quite catch that remark, but the member was verging on being disrespectful to the chair.
I say to members that we are oversubscribed for this debate, and there is already one member whom I will not be able to call.
I call Frank McAveety, to be followed by Christina McKelvie, and it is four minutes dead.
Yesterday afternoon, I had the great benefit of receiving a telephone call from that august journal, The Scotsman. The caller asked me for a comment on what inscription would be best for the Canongate wall of the Parliament. I think, understandably, that we need a bit more humour here, so I suggested Bud Neill's wonderful poem "Winter". If members have a chance to read it, they will find its four or five lines among the most effective in Scottish poetry.
I mention the poem because we really do have to laugh at the contributions of the SNP minister and back benchers to this debate. The fundamental issue is how best we can deal with student hardship. Labour and Conservative spokespersons have tried to address that issue. I do not agree with the Liberal Democrat proposal; it is uncosted, so it will have great difficulty in attracting broad support from around the chamber. I acknowledge the honourable intentions behind the Liberal Democrat proposal, but I am not convinced that it would be effective. I laughed, however, when I heard the cabinet secretary criticising the Liberal Democrats for a proposal that was not fully thought through or properly costed. I thought that she was talking about the SNP proposal in 2007, when the party made commitments to students throughout Scotland.
The SNP manifesto started with a general comment:
"We will remove the burden of debt repayments".
On the campuses—where we understand that Fiona Hyslop stomped around occasionally—it became:
"We will dump the debt."
And then it became Mr Swinney's actuarial words:
"I am therefore not allocating funding for student debt servicing".—[Official Report, 14 November 2007; c 3325.]
That reminded me of another piece of poetry. In his poem "Open the doors!", written for the opening of this Parliament building, Edwin Muir said that, above all, what the people do not want is
"the droopy mantra of ‘it wizny me'".
That is the problem that we have with the cabinet secretary and many of the other ministers: they wish to blame other people for the fact that they are not bringing forward proposals that they argued for on campuses throughout Scotland.
I accept that there is a legitimate debate to be had on how we fund students, for their courses now, and for the benefits that they can have in future. Honourable differences of opinion exist. I acknowledge Kenny Gibson's view—although it was perhaps not put as eloquently as I would have hoped. We are all in favour of further and higher education, but the fundamental issue is that we must acknowledge the benefits of education and accept that some people should be making a contribution towards their education. The poorest students should not be, however, which is why the Labour amendment is the most appropriate.
We acknowledge that hardship has been a feature of students' experiences in recent years.
Has the member had a chance to read the consultation document? Which of the options for expanding the young students bursary—1a or 1b—would he support if he wanted to support the poorest students?
I welcome the consultation. I do not think that the debate is exclusive, and the consultation will enable party spokespersons and back benchers to make their submissions. I want to stress, however, the fundamental issue of student hardship.
We are short of time, and the Presiding Officer is guiding me in that respect.
I have a major college in my constituency—John Wheatley College—which has energised the east end of Glasgow with two new campuses. We can ensure that it continues to do that by supporting students who are starting on the very bottom rung in terms of income. That is why I support the Labour amendment, and I hope that other members will support it later today.
It is interesting to hear that Margaret Smith feels that Scotland's students have been let down by the SNP Government. What breathtaking duplicity from the party that imposed the graduate endowment tuition fee on Scotland's students. It took an SNP Government to get rid of that Lib Dem tax on learning and I welcome Margaret Smith's congratulations on that. Then again, what did Margaret Smith say during the debates on the introduction and the abolition of that Lib Dem learning tax? Absolutely nothing. She is obviously a long-standing champion of our students.
Picking up Jeremy Purvis's point, I find it shameful that the Treasury refused to allow the resources that are currently processed as student loans to come within the departmental expenditure limit and be paid as grants. It is incredible that the chancellor should treat his own constituents in such a manner. That decision has deprived the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament of the ability to deliver what would have been a massive improvement in the lives and life chances of Scotland's students. That opportunity has been lost for the meantime, but it is not lost forever. The SNP will continue to press for fairness for all Scotland's students.
People should be under no illusion about student loans. They burden today's students with massive debts that restrict their life chances, and remove from the economy money that would otherwise have helped to drive it. Student loans make the recession worse. Anyone would have thought that politicians would be eager to change that system for something far more sensible, but they would be wrong—only one party has put forward a proposal to change it. The SNP believes in access to education based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay, and we will continue to drive Scottish education in that direction. That is why, when part-time students—who are often the least well-off—had their loans turned into grants, the SNP Government delivered the first part of its programme to provide grants, not loans, thereby improving the lives of 20,000 students.
Important research has been published by the Association of Scotland's Colleges. Entitled "Supporting Scotland's Future: A Research Report by Scotland's Colleges", the report is based on feedback from 1,000 students and the Opposition would do well to read it. A couple of points leap out of that study. First, 74 per cent of students at college are concerned about the debt that is being built up under their student loan. Secondly, 71 per cent of students would rather suffer hardship than incur debt. I congratulate Scotland's colleges on taking the time to talk to students to find out what their position is.
There is evidence in that report that potential students are deterred from studying by the debt that is incurred under student loans. People who have taken steps to improve their lives, who have taken the decision to get themselves on to the learning ladder and who have been through the hardest part of the process arrive at the doorstep only to find themselves turned away by the dementor of student loans and graduate debt. We must change that situation, and the SNP intends to change it. Judging by the ignorance and intransigence of the Treasury, we might need independence to deliver that. Nevertheless, I can guarantee that the SNP will continue to press for proper access to that money for Scotland's students.
The Liberal Democrat motion calls for a minimum income guarantee of £7,000 from grants, loans and parental contributions, but with no indication of how those proportions would be decided. Margaret Smith would happily—perhaps even jauntily—increase the burden of debt under student loans to £7,000 a year. What a tuition fee that would be—£7,000 plus interest for a higher national certificate; £14,000 plus interest for a higher national diploma; £28,000 plus interest for most Scottish degrees; and £35,000 plus interest to qualify as a doctor or a dentist. That shocking proposal would make the graduate endowment tuition fee a minor insult by comparison. Such education policies are a poisonous recipe for Scotland and should be rejected.
I would have thought that even the Lib Dems could recognise the disasters that have been wrought around the world by unsustainable debt. It would be far better for all concerned if we followed the SNP's lead and continued to drive the student support system—
I am afraid that the member's time is up.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate, which comes at an important time for Scotland's students, who face the problem of trying to get through their courses in a time of financial hardship and economic recession.
As students embark on their courses, they are looking for appropriate support from Government, and it is important that we link that to economic growth. To try to grow the economy we need people who are trained up and properly skilled. In order for that to happen, we must widen access to education and tap into talent throughout Scotland. From that point of view, I welcome Scottish Labour's proposals to tackle student hardship and to seek to provide minimum income guarantees of £7,000 for the poorest students. That would be welcomed across student campuses.
The issue of child care support for students, which has been raised with me by students in my constituency, must also be addressed. If we are trying to get as many people as possible into the student population in order that we can get them qualified to help Scotland's economy, we must help those who are parents and who have child care responsibilities. There is no doubt that, in recent times, child care funds have been under pressure. We must consider measures that will reverse that trend.
Although I am sympathetic towards the general principles of the Liberal Democrat motion, I think that it falls down in its failure to provide a cost for the policy. Margaret Smith was unable to be specific about the cost, which, to an extent, is the story of the Liberal Democrats over the past six months.
I agree with the member about the uncosted nature of the Liberal Democrat proposals. Can he put a cost to the proposals in the Labour amendment? How will he reconcile those proposals with the £500 million in cuts that are coming down the line?
The £30 million that is being set aside for additional student support could go a long way towards funding Labour's proposals.
In the autumn, Tavish Scott announced a proposal for a tax cut of 2p. As Murdo Fraser said, the Liberal Democrats then embarked on a programme of spending commitments totalling £8.3 billion between September and the start of the budget. Today, an uncosted proposal has been brought before us. That is not good enough. The Liberal Democrats must be honest with the voters.
That is also where the SNP falls down on the issue. Kenny Gibson chided the Liberal Democrats for their election ploy in 1999. However, the SNP pledge to dump the debt was an election ploy that has melted in the full glare of Government responsibility. Voters in my constituency told me that they were supporting the SNP only because of that pledge, and they will remember the SNP's cynicism when they return to the polls next time around.
We must support students now. We must deliver for Scotland's students and dump the SNP.
The first part of the motion states:
"That the Parliament recognises the importance of the higher and further education sector; notes the outcome of the New Horizons: responding to the challenges of the 21st century report and the need to involve key stakeholders in discussions".
Who could possibly disagree with that? The "New Horizons" report praises the reputation and quality of Scotland's universities and highlights how they contribute to the wellbeing of Scotland. Furthermore, who could disagree with the inclusion of stakeholders in discussions? Perhaps one day—oh happy day!—the Lib Dems will allow stakeholders their say on the constitution.
Next, we come to:
"believes that Scotland's students have been let down by the SNP government's failure to deliver on its manifesto pledge".
I ask members to note the tone of that phrase and compare it with that of the following statement:
"We welcome the opportunity of working with the minority government to end the graduate endowment as a move towards reducing student indebtedness."
There is something of a contrast there. The latter—a statement by Jeremy Purvis—reflects the kind of constructive attitude needed to solve the debt problems that our students face. What has changed since Mr Purvis made that welcome and mature statement? Far be it from me to waste valuable parliamentary time by accusing the Liberal Democrats of hypocrisy and inconsistency. I merely ask the party that would deny Scots the democratic right to decide their own future to adopt a constructive attitude to the Scottish Government's open-minded approach to student income, and to its genuine attempts to alleviate student debt and remove deterrents to those thinking of entering higher education.
I remind the Liberal Democrats that, apart from abolishing their graduate endowment, thereby removing the spectre of a £2,300 fee and benefiting about 50,000 students, the Scottish Government has replaced loans to part-time students with grants, benefiting 20,000 students; extended an existing postgraduate funding scheme to part-time students; boosted discretionary hardship funds; increased helper support for disabled students; and announced a trebling of career development loans for postgraduate and vocational study. It has not stopped there. The Scottish Government is adding an extra £30 million to the student support budget—further commitment to tackling student hardship. By contrast, thanks to the Lib-Lab loans system, 370,000 students and graduates owed more than £2 billion by the end of the 2007-08 financial year.
The closing words of the motion are:
"and calls on the Scottish Government to deliver a simplified support system, which includes a minimum income guarantee of £7,000 per annum for full-time higher education students made up from a combination of grants, loans and parental contributions."
I fully support the aim of a decent minimum income, but how do the Lib Dems expect to create a simplified support system? Why does a system become complex? It becomes complex because there are many contingencies to cover. An overly simplified system will result in individuals falling through the gaps. Personally, I prefer complexity and genuine help to simplicity and abandoning those who need help.
The Lib Dems singularly failed to increase the student support package during their seven years in power. They did not propose any amendments to the most recent Scottish budget. The present Government has already improved the situation, and will continue to do so in every practical and effective way.
Speaking of effective, I take issue with the loans element of the Liberal Democrat proposal. Can the Liberal Democrats refute the evidence that loans—which are future debts—deter the least privileged from accessing education? I challenge them to do so. The Liberal Democrats attack the Scottish National Party for failing to abolish completely student debt, and then suggest that we increase it through loans. I am proud to be a member of a party that supports grants rather than loans, and that has the interests of the poorest members of society at its heart.
There may be a way of simplifying things, but the Liberal Democrats' call for a simplified system that would cover the needs of every student is puerile grandstanding from the luxury of opposition, where, if the motion is any evidence, they are clearly set to remain.
The Liberal Democrats attacked the Scottish Government for not abolishing student debt, but clearly stated their opposition to Scottish Government proposals to abolish said debt. Moreover, they insist that loans—in other words debt—are part of their proposed minimum income. If that is not muddled thinking, what is?
The debate could not be taking place at a more opportune time, as funding for our poorest students is reaching crisis point. During economic difficulties, resources should be focused on those in greatest need and that must be done as a matter of urgency. The SNP Government is letting down Scotland's students, who are already at a major disadvantage compared to students in other parts of the United Kingdom. As other members have said, only this week we heard about the problems at the University of Abertay Dundee, which are having an impact on students in my constituency.
I will focus on those in most need, and draw the cabinet secretary's attention to a funding crisis looming within the college sector that I hope will receive her immediate attention. Today's debate is about all Scotland's students.
The Scottish funding council method of allocation for bursary funding is on an historical basis, which means that funding coming into the sector is based on data that are two years out of date. However, the Government must take on board and react to the different issues that face students and colleges this year.
It is now apparent that the composition of the student body is very different from what it was two years ago, as are students' requirements. An example of that is the greater number of mature students entering post-school education. Their bursary payments are considerably higher than those of students without family commitments. Many students come from families accessing education for the first time. Those include mature students, lone parents and students with dependent families. Colleges also support students from those areas of Scotland with the highest levels of deprivation.
This year, the college sector has experienced a significant shortfall in bursary funding. As Jeremy Purvis said, the sector highlighted that potential shortfall to the Scottish funding council in autumn 2008. By February 2009, the sector shortfall was £9.5 million, and the SFC responded by saying that it anticipated being able to allocate a further £5 million, although that has not been confirmed.
I do not doubt that there is increased demand, but I would like the member to acknowledge that increased resources are going in. Does she acknowledge that the colleges congratulated the funding council on moving quickly to help address some of the problems that she is talking about?
I will come back to that point.
Even with the further £5 million, there will still be a shortfall of £4.5 million. What I want to emphasise is the hardship that that will cause.
My local college is Adam Smith College, which serves the whole of central Fife. As things stand, the college anticipates a shortfall in excess of £500,000 in meeting bursary commitments to its existing body of full-time students. The college is, rightly, committed to addressing access, inclusion and diversity by targeting those in some of the poorest areas in my constituency. It has been very successful in improving student retention rates—the Parliament should support that.
My concern is that if the Scottish funding council does not fully meet its obligation and colleges have to make up the shortfall from their already stretched budgets, cuts are inevitable. Those cuts are coming at a time when we need the sector to grow and to contribute fully to our ambition to have a highly skilled workforce, which has never been more crucial. I have used my local college as an example, but the £4.5 million shortfall throughout the sector shows that it is an issue affecting the whole of Scotland.
For the reasons that I have highlighted, I believe that we must concentrate our efforts, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will act now—
I am afraid that the member's time is up.
I welcome this debate on student income, secured by the Liberal Democrats. I may not agree that this is the appropriate time to hold such a debate—certainly not with a consultation on student support, "Supporting a Smarter Scotland", on-going—and I may not necessarily agree with the solutions proposed by the Liberal Democrats, but it is an important topic. Given that under the previous Executive there was at best a stand-still position on tackling student debt—I am trying to be polite—and that student debt doubled, it is welcome that the Liberal Democrats and the SNP Government are perhaps moving in the same direction in relation to student support and student debt.
The Scottish Government has abolished the graduate endowment, lifting £2,300-worth of debt off each student and benefiting about 50,000 students and graduates, and has reintroduced student grants to part-time students with a £38 million investment that will benefit 20,000 students. There is also a 14.6 per cent increase in funds available to tackle student hardship. Those catalysts surely set the agenda for the debate.
The SNP Government has moved to tackle student hardship and debt, and the Liberal Democrats have joined us. Although I welcome that, I am sure that members will understand that I cannot support the Lib Dem motion. The Scottish Government has moved to deliver the SNP's pledges where possible. With the on-going consultation, we are keen to go further. For many students, their debt is far smaller than it was. While not all of it has been dumped—not as much as we would like—we have gone far beyond what any other party promised the electorate at the previous election.
I have an open mind on the £7,000 minimum income guarantee but, like everything else in life, funding must be identified and allocated and a delivery mechanism must be put in place. I am delighted that a further £30 million has been identified and that the Scottish Government is consulting on how to allocate those funds, but basic arithmetic shows that a £7,000 minimum income guarantee cannot be delivered using £30 million. It also pre-empts the on-going consultation. That is not right, which is why I cannot support the Lib Dem motion.
That said, at least the Lib Dems are clear about what a minimum income guarantee is. I will tell members what it is not. It is not the Labour amendment. A minimum income guarantee for students is just what it says: a minimum income guarantee. It might be a cocktail of parental contribution, student grant and student loan, but, once implemented, it should be available to all students. Helping the poorest students is, of course, a positive act and is why the graduate endowment has been dumped, why parental contribution has been taken into account and why student hardship grants have been increased. However, a minimum income guarantee by definition gives all students a minimum income. If we give some students a minimum income and not others, we will not help the poorest students who will be left. The bar must be put at the same level for a minimum income guarantee.
Labour's proposal is simply an oxymoron. In fact, after nearly two years in the chamber, I am beginning to feel that the Labour Party is an oxymoron. The Liberal Democrats might not agree with the Scottish Government's position this morning, but I genuinely hope that, come decision time, they will not be made a patsy by the Labour Opposition.
I welcome this opportunity to participate in a debate on an important matter for Scotland's students and their families.
We all aspire to a Scotland in which every individual has the opportunity to reach their full potential and in which access to education is based on ability, not on ability to pay. However, in the past few weeks, I have received numerous letters from constituents who are struggling to complete their education courses because of shortfalls in child care funding. Indeed, the same issue was highlighted by my colleague James Kelly. There is no doubt that many more potential students have been deterred from applying to college or university because they have no hope of securing affordable child care.
However, while students in Scotland are struggling to fund child care, students elsewhere in the UK are able to access guaranteed child care support as a result of the Childcare Act 2006. Access to affordable or free child care while studying should be a right for all students; no one should be forced out of college or university or be deterred from applying because they cannot access an affordable child care place. The Government needs to address the issue urgently and ensure that parents who are returning to education and training are supported, not penalised.
On the new horizons task force, I am greatly concerned that important stakeholders, including the trade unions and FE colleges, were asked merely to give evidence to it. Surely a task force that has the responsibility of highlighting important challenges with regard to future funding for the sector should involve all those with a stake in the process, including students.
Does the member acknowledge that students and various unions involved in higher education gave evidence to the task force?
They did indeed give evidence. However, my point is that students, trade unions and further education colleges deserved not just to be consulted after the decisions had been taken, but to be given a seat at the table at which the discussions were taking place. After all, they are key to the future of Scotland's higher education sector.
On the proposal for a minimum income guarantee for all students, there is no doubt that the growing levels of student hardship and debt need to be addressed urgently. Although the SNP Government scrapped the graduate endowment, it has failed to put a single penny into the pockets of any of Scotland's students. That said, although I support the guarantee in principle, I believe strongly that a promise to provide every student in Scotland with a £7,000 minimum income would simply become another broken promise. Funding such a policy would result in sizeable cuts elsewhere in the Scottish budget—and most certainly in the education budget.
As a result, I urge that we target support at the students who need it most. Delivering a £7,000 minimum income guarantee for Scotland's poorest students by the end of the parliamentary session would represent a significant step forward and, more important, would be achievable. That is why the Labour Party believes that it is important to deliver on that policy, which would ensure that Scotland's poorest students received the support and encouragement that they deserve.
I urge members to support the Labour amendment.
As several members have made clear, the Government in its 2007 manifesto made an unequivocal promise to dump student debt. The campaign cry gained considerable student support at the time, but, along with other key pledges on class sizes and local income tax and in view of the SNP's reputation for failing to deliver, it now looks completely hollow. I have no doubt that, 18 months on, the same students feel disillusioned and betrayed by the same Government.
The cabinet secretary will tell us that an extra £30 million has been put aside for 2010 and 2011. Although she is right about that, it does not solve the fundamental problem of how we can support the more and more people whom we are encouraging to attend university and college. It is a very harsh economic lesson, and I do not think that the Liberal Democrats have quite taken it on board.
As Murdo Fraser said, we fully agree with the motion's references to the incredible importance of the tertiary sector and—as Karen Whitefield made clear—the need to involve all stakeholders in future discussions. However, we reject the call for a minimum income guarantee of £7,000. The idea is attractive in principle, but politicians have to deal with reality, especially during an economic recession, and, as Marilyn Livingstone pointed out, a more effective solution would be to target the money at the most vulnerable students.
Does the member accept that in my speech I made it clear that this could not and should not be done in one fell swoop and that the £7,000 minimum income guarantee for the poorest students would be a step along the way towards a wider target?
Forgive me, but I do not think that the motion actually says that. No matter what party we belong to or what view we take in this debate, we cannot get away from the fundamental—and harsh—economic lesson that needs to be learned. Can the number of people whom we are encouraging to attend courses in the tertiary sector actually be supported, either to look after themselves or in teaching time?
We need to think about what we are saying to students about their approach to the tertiary sector. As my colleague Murdo Fraser has pointed out a number of times, the danger lies in accumulating a commercial debt and the associated—and massive—level of repayments. Credit cards and bank overdrafts have very high interest rates and can leave students mired in bad debt for a very long time.
In conclusion, Presiding Officer—I know that you are short of time—the Scottish Conservatives firmly believe that the best way of addressing the problem is to target the very scarce money that is available in the budget at the most vulnerable students and that the most effective method of doing so is through a system of student loans and grants. There are great benefits in possessing a degree, not least in financial recompense, and if that is to be set alongside the ambition of widening access—which we all support—we must be doubly sure that we are putting resources in the right places. If we ignore the benefits of increasing student loans, we will let down our students very badly, not just today but for many years to come.
I can give Ken Macintosh four and a half minutes.
I welcome this Liberal Democrat debate. Although, as my Labour colleagues have made clear, we wish to amend the motion, we should thank the Lib Dems for bringing the issue to Parliament.
The financial difficulties of students have never been more apparent as they have in recent years. Many of us have heard from young constituents who are struggling to cope—or, more likely, from their parents. Only yesterday, I read a letter from a mother whose son started at college in August but who has yet to receive the bursary to which he should be entitled. Indeed, he has not even received a reply to his application to the hardship fund. His mother says:
"It seems extremely unfair that I am now forced into the position of supporting him when I cannot afford it. I have provided financially for him for 26 weeks since the start of his course. Surely he is entitled to have some independent income? My mortgage arrears are now such that there is a decree allowing repossession of my house to start immediately if I miss another payment. I have council tax arrears, and have just finished paying off gas arrears."
The case would be worrying enough if it was a one-off, but we all know from our constituency case loads that such cases are all too common. I will hear back directly from the institution in question, but it appears that many institutions, such as Edinburgh Napier University, Glasgow Caledonian University and Adam Smith College, which Marilyn Livingstone highlighted, are either struggling to cope or, like the University of Abertay Dundee, have run out of funds altogether and cannot meet their obligations to students.
Edinburgh Napier University did not make more requests for funding. Funding was not allocated as it did not ask for it.
Edinburgh Napier University is struggling. If the minister cannot even recognise and is not even willing to concede that universities' diversionary and hardship funds are running low, we cannot engage in a debate today.
Cases such as the one that I mentioned are dispiriting, but what has been most disheartening this morning and in discussions of student funding over the past two years has been the level of dishonesty involved. I refer not just to the broken dump-the-debt promises, which were bad enough—they have been shown up for the empty election bribes that they were—but to the contrast between SNP ministers' grandiose language and the reality of the student experience. Not one penny of the money from abolishing the graduate endowment has helped a current student to maintain their studies. The SNP promised to move from loans to grants, but as Margaret Smith pointed out, not only has it failed to come close to delivering on that promise, but replacing a £500 loan with a grant does not address the immediate needs of students or provide them with any extra income. Instead, we still hear the SNP's high-falutin' words about abolishing debt without any mention being made of the millions of pounds in commercial debt at credit card rates that our young people at colleges and universities have taken on. Murdo Fraser made that point.
There is a gap, which I believe is widening, between the way in which the SNP talks about higher and further education and the day-to-day financial difficulties that students have to wrestle with. Throughout the country, students are either working longer hours—if they can get work at all—or relying more than ever on their parents, who can often scarcely manage to cope. Yet again, the SNP Government has failed to recognise or rise to the challenge and to invest in our future workforce in the middle of our broader economic difficulties.
We all agree that we need a highly productive and highly skilled graduate-level or postgraduate-level workforce, for example, for a productive economy. Yet again, the SNP is willing to talk about a highly skilled workforce, but unwilling to will the means to make it happen. We have the empty rhetoric of a so-called return to free education, but nothing tangible to offer to address student hardship. If education were free, we would not need to worry about hardship funds; colleges and universities would not need to worry about the impact of the joint future thinking task force; and we would not be having this debate.
If we are to continue to operate with the limited funding that the SNP Government has made available, we must refocus support on those who most need it: Scotland's poorest students. The real targets of the policy should be hardship funds and widening access. Drop-out rates are on the rise, and many thousands more students have considered dropping out because of financial hardship. Although we seek to amend the Lib Dem motion, the debate has been helpful in flagging up the gulf between the current maximum level of support of £4,500 that is available to Scottish students and the £7,000 that it is estimated they need to live on.
I hope that colleagues will accept that I am not cynical about my politics, Parliament or what we can achieve together. However, the doublespeak on student support and the raising of expectations without ever delivering on promises breed the cynicism that undermines everything we do. I urge members to stop the SNP trying to con Scotland's students and to support the Labour amendment.
The debate has been wide ranging. However, it is important in summing up to send a clear message to students and graduates. The Government values the contributions that students and graduates make to society, and it will do all that it can to support them at the most crucial stages of their lives.
Maintaining a world-class education system is essential if we are to create a more successful country with higher levels of sustainable economic growth. A number of members have said that we must ensure that access to that education system is based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. We made a commitment on that, and it is what we intend to do.
We believe, of course, that student loans are wrong for students and for Scotland. It would be better for students if grants were paid directly to them and better for graduates if they were not forced to leave higher education with thousands of pounds-worth of debt. That is why we have set aside £30 million to support the first phase of the move from loans to grants.
As a matter of urgency, will the minister speak to the Scottish funding council and ask it to fully fund college bursary programmes throughout Scotland?
The Scottish funding council is aware of the problems. We are in the middle of a consultation process and further changes should await the completion of that process. I will come back to that.
We appreciate that a number of things have changed since we developed our proposals, not least the economic environment, which has increased financial pressures on everyone. As a result, we are willing to consider the case that students and others have put forward for an increase in the overall amount of support. We welcome views on how the £30 million could best be used overall to help students who are most in need. We have heard views from members, some of which I would like to respond to.
Margaret Smith said that she is proud of the Lib Dem record on student funding, but many members have pointed out that the Lib Dem proposal is uncosted. I understand that a proposal was to be put forward by Jeremy Purvis at this week's Lib Dem conference on increasing tax cuts in the UK. I think that that explains as much as anything why we are having this debate. We have been told that there will no longer be £800 million of tax cuts in Scotland, but tax cuts will now be applied in the UK. I have heard one price tag of £20 billion in that context. If we have to try to achieve £20 billion of cuts in the UK, with Scotland taking its share, we will be back to the Lib Dem dichotomy of increasing tax cuts and therefore reducing the revenue that is available to finance them. A massive number of promises have been made.
Will the minister give way?
No. I would like to make some more progress.
With her backing vocalists—Frank McAveety and Hugh O'Donnell—Claire Baker made the point that broken Labour promises of the past are irrelevant to the debate. That is absolute nonsense. Students are still paying loans that the Labour Party and the Conservative party created. That is a fact that the Government simply has to deal with. We cannot wish it away, no matter how much members of previous Administrations might like to forget it.
The claim that hardship funds have flatlined is not borne out by the facts. As Kenny Gibson pointed out, there has been a 14.6 per cent increase in this year's hardship funds.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will do so when I finish my point.
The reason that the hardship funds are massively increasing has a lot to do with the disastrous economic situation in which we find ourselves as a result of the Labour Party's mismanagement of the economy. I am interested in whether Claire Baker wants to accept responsibility for that.
The member talks about the increasing pressure on hardship funds. According to my calculations, the SNP Government has spent £56 million so far on tackling graduate debt. How much has been spent on tackling student hardship?
I have just mentioned the 14.6 per cent increase in this year's hardship funds, which takes the figure to more than £16 million. I am glad that Claire Baker acknowledges the resources that we have put into reducing graduate debt. Of course, someone in Scotland has roughly half the student debt that a person in England has, and in the past two years, the average graduate debt has gone down for the first time. Therefore, we are doing our bit to address the debt that students find themselves with.
Will the minister give way?
No. I have just taken an intervention from the member.
If what has been proposed is accepted, students will face massively increased private debt. They would be asked to do that at the same time as they are looking at a societal debt of trillions of pounds. Future generations in this country must face Labour's disastrous debt management process for the whole economy, and they are being asked to take on further private debt, too. That is wrong.
Murdo Fraser said, rightly, that the Lib Dem proposal is uncosted. It seems that, having had the straitjacket of cuts of £800 million taken away, the Lib Dems are back on another spending spree. Their proposal has no credibility whatsoever.
Kenny Gibson mentioned the massive debts that exist, and I have just mentioned the trillions of pounds of future debt that we are accumulating, which consists of public debt for public authorities and private debt for individuals. That is the real problem for students. When they go through their courses and try to learn to create a better future for themselves, they are well aware of the massive debts hanging over them.
In the past, Labour has said that it is not possible for it to say anything coherent about its council tax proposals, for example, because it was the wrong part of the electoral cycle. If Labour is not willing to address the difficult issues, such as what it would do about the council tax, it is incumbent on it to start to create future spending commitments, as it would like to give the impression today of having done. However, that is simply not the case.
Finally, the consultation is an opportunity—
I am sorry, but the minister's time is up.
I almost congratulate the minister on what is, I think, his first ministerial speech from the front bench. I do not necessarily agree with its contents, but such courtesies are nonetheless due. I have damned him with faint praise.
The debate has been interesting, important and in some ways acrimonious, because we have all taken different positions. There is a lesson to learn for us all: parties should be careful what they put in their manifestos, because they might find themselves having to deliver it. That is the reality of what has happened to SNP promises in several areas. To return briefly to the minister's speech, we have heard concerns, perhaps legitimate, about the cost of providing a minimum income guarantee of £7,000 to full-time students. I will be interested to hear from the Government benches at some point—summing up after the minister is a unique experience for me, in that I will not get an immediate reply to my question—how much it will cost to replace the entire loan situation with the grants that the minister just mentioned. Perhaps he will write to me about that with an indication of how things will pan out. As a supplementary to that, I ask whether the minister has Treasury support for his proposal.
We need to realise that we are facing dire economic times, and in that regard I have some sympathy with the Labour Party amendment. In the Central Scotland region, which I represent, a high number of people will need to reskill and retrain as a result of the economic downturn. Most of that will take place in our FE and HE institutions. Notwithstanding the remarks of the cabinet secretary and the minister, there is no doubt that all such institutions are in serious trouble when it comes to meeting the demand on their funds. Additional funding has come from the funding council, particularly for child care. However, given the situation in this country and the hardship that our students face, it is not sufficient for us to sit here and play party-political bip-bap—the issue is far too important for that.
I take the member's point about party politics. However, having made their position clear today, how do the Lib Dems intend to take into account all those replies that are yet to arrive in the remaining consultation period, given that it was the Lib Dems who asked for that consultation?
Our policy position has been clear since before 2007, if memory serves, and we have reiterated our policy principle on student income. Given that the NUS will debate the subject at its forthcoming conference and, as the minister said, it has been lodged for further debate by the Liberal Democrats, today's airing of the subject is entirely appropriate when the FE colleges and HE institutions will be under such pressure. The figures on demand that they have been working with are two years out of date by dint of the cabinet secretary's letter. It is impossible to see that far into the future.
The value of our kicking around who claimed what and how much in a manifesto or promissory note on Fiona Hyslop's website is irrelevant unless we tackle the situation clearly. The consultation is important but, as the NUS said this morning, the £30 million that is currently available is completely inadequate. There are various ways in which we can combine the expenditure and the means of resourcing to deliver the £7,000—
I am genuinely confused by the Liberal Democrat position. Is it that the Government should spend more money on student support? If so, how much and where will that money come from? Can we please have a straight answer?
Mr O'Donnell, you have 40 seconds left.
That is a very good rescue, because I do not have the details that Murdo Fraser asks for.
I thank members for engaging in the debate, which has aired a valuable, useful and important subject, and I encourage them to support our motion at decision time.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
During the debate, Mr Kenneth Gibson, in concluding his remarks—the Deputy Presiding Officer had instructed him so to do—made a complaint about being asked to conclude. In his final remarks, which I heard clearly from where I was sitting, he used the words "With friends like you". The Deputy Presiding Officer said that he had not heard the remark. I regret to say that, in my view, the phrase "With friends like you" is not respectful to the chair. I invite you, Presiding Officer, to rule whether such comments are appropriate in this place.
Thank you for the point of order. As you are aware, I was not in the chair at the time; it was my deputy. I will reflect on the matter in discussion with my deputy and consider whether any further action is required.