Parliamentary Bureau Motions
The next item of business is consideration of motion S2M-4538, in the name of Margaret Curran.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the draft Student Fees (Specification) (Scotland) Order 2006 be approved.—[Ms Margaret Curran.]
As someone who was a student representative for a number of years—perhaps too many years—I have strong opinions on this issue, and I am proud to support an Executive that has taken a strong stance against top-up fees. That is why I am bewildered by some of the comment around this debate.
The draft Student Fees (Specification) (Scotland) Order 2006 is a necessary response to the policy that was introduced in England. To call it a move towards top-up fees in Scotland is untrue and misleading. I would not support such a move and neither would my colleagues. Top-up fees in England are levied by individual institutions. The order will mean a fee change that will apply to every institution in Scotland. In itself, that is not new. Scottish ministers have set new fee levels like this before, but these will apply only to English students. No Scottish student is being asked to pay a penny more. That is not about penalising English students; it simply means that the cost to them of studying in Scotland will be broadly comparable with the cost to them of studying at home. In some cases, studying in Scotland will be cheaper for them. Many students from England who have been welcomed here to study and who will continue to be welcome here to do so come because academically it is the right choice for them; it is not simply a financial decision.
I am sure that we will hear evidence from the minister that suggests that we can be confident that if this measure were not taken, there would be an increase in applications from people in England that would threaten to squeeze Scottish students out of courses in Scotland. Even if that evidence can be contested, the idea that we should not act to safeguard access for Scottish students on the off-chance that everything will be okay once top-up fees come in down south is absurd. Not to act would be to neglect our duties as parliamentarians. Our top priority must be to ensure that Scottish students, particularly those from poorer backgrounds, are given every chance to fulfil their potential in education, to get access to courses in our institutions and to benefit from the system of bursaries that I am proud that this Parliament introduced and increased. It is ridiculous to suggest that we should threaten to put more obstacles to education in their way because we want to give a financial incentive to students from other parts of the United Kingdom.
Does the member recognise that the order will put a financial disincentive in the way of students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland and will price some students out? Only if their parents can pay will they will be able to come to Scotland.
In some cases, it will be cheaper and I have made the point that the fees will be broadly comparable, so my straight answer is no. Unfortunately, the member finds himself in the same bizarre position as the Scottish National Party. So fond is it of portraying itself as Scotland's party that it finds itself in a ludicrous position on this issue because it is failing our students.
To call this measure the thin end of the wedge or the start of top-up fees is not only to misrepresent the Executive's position but to ignore the record funding element that has been awarded to our further and higher education institutions by the Executive precisely so that they can compete with their counterparts in England without the need to introduce top-up fees. I argue that we should act today to ensure that as many of our students as possible can benefit from that investment in further and higher education.
I understand where the National Union of Students Scotland is coming from. I know that it is opposed in principle to any kind of fee increase anywhere in any situation. However, when that would lead us into supporting actions that could damage the interests of Scottish students, particularly those of students from poorer backgrounds, its campaign is counterproductive. When I was president of NUS Scotland, I led the Scottish students' campaign for bursaries, so today I will vote for a measure that will ensure that as many of our students as possible receive them. In that role, I regarded it as my job to stand up for Scotland's students, to oppose top-up fees and to campaign for bursaries. As a member of the Scottish Parliament, I know that it is my job to stand up for Scotland's students, to oppose top-up fees and to vote for access to bursaries. That is why I support the order. Colleagues across the Parliament should do the same.
Let us get a few things straight about why we oppose the order. Scottish education should be based on the ability to learn, not on the ability to pay. By introducing additional variable fees, the Executive is opening the door to top-up fees for all. If Parliament agrees to approve the order, the mechanism will be there to introduce a 40 per cent hike in ordinary tuition fees and a 200 per cent hike in medical school fees. There is no flood of educational refugees from England to Scotland. The number of students from England who study in Scotland has increased by only 1.8 per cent.
Two weeks ago, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning told the Enterprise and Culture Committee that there was no evidence that Scots were having any difficulty in getting places at Scottish universities.
How would the member answer the constituent of mine who wants to go to the University of Edinburgh's medical school who contacted me to say that, even though she had achieved six highers at grade A, she had failed to get a place?
I will tell the member how I would answer her. Several years ago, Calman said that we had to ensure that Scottish medical schools accepted pupils who had achieved five straight As in their highers but who had not done so at one sitting. Neither the Minister for Education and Young People nor the Minister for Health and Community Care has delivered on the commitment to tackle that. That is one measure that should be taken.
Universities will not get a penny more under the order that the Executive is asking Parliament to approve, nor will they get a penny less if Parliament votes not to approve it—they will just get in teaching grant what they would have got from fee income.
Non-European Union overseas students will not be affected. There has been a 29 per cent increase in applications to Scottish universities from EU students who are not English, Welsh or Northern Irish, who must be treated in the same way as Scottish students. In the Executive's book, it is only English, Welsh and Northern Irish students who can be discriminated against. The English students who applied to—and who, in many cases, have been accepted by—Scottish universities did so last year, before they knew about today's vote. This year's students are already in the system and they should not have to pay the price of an additional top-up fee to deter future students.
Regardless of what members think about the order, it has been laid far too late. The Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council has had to allocate grants to universities without knowing whether the order would be approved. Parliament should not reward poor and late legislative procedure and the ministers should be sent back to think again because they have made a pig's ear of the process. They complain that it will take until 20 October to get through a revised order, but that can be dealt with.
When answering my colleague Alasdair Morgan's question on part-time fees at First Minister's question time earlier today, Jack McConnell said that the Executive would make a decision when it had all the evidence. However, he is quite happy to proceed with the proposed changes, even though there is no evidence for them. Members who believe in evidence-based policy should vote against the order. There has been a reduction of 6.5 per cent in the number of applications to Scottish medical schools by English students. The Executive must consider the retention of doctors later in their careers. It seems to want fresh talent to come to Scotland as long as it is not English. Scotland should be a bit more broad-shouldered than that. [Interruption.]
Order. I will not have members shouting at the top of their voices at the person who has the floor.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Students come to Scotland from around the globe—including England—because of the quality of our universities. They come because we have better qualifications and better service. Our universities will face funding challenges once the increased income from top-up fees for English universities kicks in. That is a separate issue, but it is an important one, which Parliament should be debating rather than the wrong-headed proposals that we are examining today.
Sometimes in politics there comes a moment to do the right thing. This is such a moment. I urge members to vote against the order and to get the minister to come back with a better proposal.
I begin by drawing members' attention to my registered interest as a member of the board of management of the University of Dundee students association, which may be relevant to the debate.
The background to today's debate is the introduction of top-up fees in English universities by the Labour Government, which has created a problem for the Scottish Executive—although I appreciate that it is not a problem of its making. The Executive should be concerned about the possibility of fee refugees squeezing Scotland-domiciled students out of places at Scottish universities. I believe that the Executive is right to take action to level the playing field for England-domiciled students, whether they apply to English universities or Scottish universities, so there is much in the principle of the order that I and my party do not oppose.
What we have a problem with is the specific proposal to charge medical students increased fees from September—just three months from now. The Executive proposal has been brought forward to try to address concerns that Scotland-domiciled students will be squeezed out of places at Scottish medical schools. Unfortunately for the Executive, there is not a shred of evidence that there is a problem.
The most recent figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service show a 6.5 per cent drop in applications from England to medical schools in Scotland, while applications for the same courses from around Scotland have risen by 12 per cent in the same period. Where is the problem that the Executive proposal seeks to address? It simply does not exist.
The new fees for medical students will come into place in time for the new academic year, starting in September.
As a parent, I was wondering how Mr Fraser would advise his son or daughter if he was facing £15,000 of medical school fees in England or £6,000 of medical school fees in Scotland. I would want my children to go to one of the good universities in Scotland—at £6,000, not £15,000.
That may well be the case, Mr Rumbles, but there is not a single piece of evidence that that is what is happening. The best that can be said about the proposal is that it is premature.
As I was saying, the new fees will come into place for the current academic year, starting in September. When people applied for places, they were not expecting increased fees to be in place. There is a simple principle of fairness.
Will the member give way?
No, I cannot give way; I have already taken one intervention.
All the places in the current academic year will have been awarded, so where is the requirement to introduce additional fees now, affecting the new academic year? It simply does not exist.
The very least that the Executive should do is to defer the introduction of additional medical fees for one more year, to allow further garnering of evidence and further monitoring of the situation. If a problem seems likely, of course additional fees can be charged. However, we have yet to see any evidence of a problem.
In the run-up to this debate, we have seen some pretty outrageous sabre rattling by the Executive. We have heard suggestions that, if the order is voted down, fees will be deregulated in Scotland and universities will be allowed to charge whatever they want in tuition fees. That is absolute nonsense. It is inconceivable that the principals of Scottish universities would charge whatever they wanted in tuition fees and expect to get away with it. Surely even this Executive could not be so useless and incompetent as to allow that to happen, even if this flawed order is defeated.
The real issue today is the betrayal by a Liberal Democrat Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning of Scotland's students. In elections, Liberal Democrats always try to portray themselves as the students' friend, and always say that they are against top-up fees. However, here today we have the Liberal Democrat minister supporting methods to bring top-up fees into Scotland by the back door. It is typical Lib Dem duplicity, with which we are all too familiar. We will remind voters in Edinburgh South, North East Fife, Aberdeen South and everywhere else that this kind of thing is all that we can expect from Liberal Democrats. They will be the ones who brought in the top-up fees.
At the next election, the more Murdo Fraser reminds the electorate about what has happened with tuition fees, the better it will be for me and my colleagues.
Let me make one thing very clear—Scotland-domiciled students do not and will not pay tuition fees to study in Scotland because of the partnership Government. Instead of attacking the Scottish Government, which has actually done something about fees and is now trying to protect the right of Scottish students to attend Scottish universities where they can study without paying tuition fees, my colleagues in the Opposition should focus their attention on Westminster.
We must ensure that students choose to study in Scotland because it is the best place for their education, not because it is the best place for their pocket. I have said before, and I will say again, that I will not tolerate students from my constituency or any other part of Scotland losing out. It is our job to stand up for our students. Let us remember that.
Fact number 1—prospective medical students from south of the border would save £9,000 by studying medicine in Scotland if we chose to do nothing. That is no small incentive. Every university in the rest of the United Kingdom is charging the full £3,000 top-up fee to study medicine. In Scotland, medicine is the only course that will have the higher fee and there is no ability for individual universities to vary that amount. That is hardly a top-up fee or a variable fee as most people would understand them.
The Opposition says that there is no evidence of fee refugees. Of course there is not—the top-up fees have not yet hit, and for the past year Scottish universities and UCAS have been telling students clearly that fees will increase in Scotland. I ask Murdo Fraser and others whether they would sacrifice the future of young Scots by waiting until they see the evidence of fee refugees coming across the border. That is a chilly and cruel calculation.
Will the member give way?
I will not take an intervention.
Like other members, I have seen that a gathering of students has been lobbying us today. If students from the rest of the UK want free tuition, they should lobby the UK Parliament to make that a priority and to follow the good example that the Scottish Government has set in Scotland's Parliament.
I turn briefly to the Opposition. The SNP did not even notice the three-year consideration of this important issue, made no attempt to contribute when it found out about it and even supported the measure on which we are voting today when it was first announced—fact. SNP education spokesman Fiona Hyslop was unaware of the third-phase review of higher education, which was considering fees, and defended her ignorance by saying that it must, therefore, be "private and secret". When the Executive consulted on what to do about cross-border flows, the SNP said precisely nothing. Evidently, it had no idea what to do. When my colleague Jim Wallace announced the higher fee back in 2004, Brian Adam supported him. I thank him for that.
The Greens' ignorance leaves me equally breathless. Shiona Baird said last month:
"The Executive knew very well that the introduction of top up fees in other parts of the UK might impact on the availability of places for Scottish students—yet ministers refused to do or say anything about it."
Fact number 3—the Executive has spent the past three years looking at the matter, has held a review, has made statements to Parliament, has published consultations and has made proposals in the order with the precise aim of doing something about it.
Shiona Baird also said:
"Greens will strongly oppose any moves to introduce variable top up fees."
By voting against this proposal, the Opposition will be voting for London-style variable top-up fees. That is not a technicality—it is a reality. It has been proved that, without legislative guidance to stop them, the universities will be only too happy to consider boosting their coffers by charging fees well above what we are proposing today. That is a real threat. We owe it to our youngsters to recognise and deal with the situation.
I ask every member to look into their heart before they cast their vote tonight. I have no trouble whatever in supporting the order. It makes me very proud of our partnership and of the Parliament.
In the remaining time, I will allocate three minutes each to representatives of the other established parties on the Parliamentary Bureau.
I draw the chamber's attention to my entry in the register of members' interests and, in particular, to my recent installation as rector of the University of Edinburgh, elected by staff and students on the basis of a campaign against medical school fees for Scotland.
In asking us to agree that the order be approved, the minister is requesting that we grant him the power to price some students out of Scottish education. He is asking us to accept his argument that Scottish students are being unfairly denied places, although there is not yet any evidence of that.
Will the member take an intervention?
No—I have only three minutes.
The minister is also asking us to accept that the proposed fees are the only solution to the perceived problem. English, Welsh and Northern Irish students will face higher fees to deter them from coming to Scotland. Pricing some students out of education is simply wrong. What or where a prospective student should study should be decided on the basis of aptitude and interests, not on the basis of whether their parents can afford to send them to university.
If we want to get more Scottish students into medical schools in Scotland, we should do so by widening access, changing the exam system and encouraging applications. If we want to retain more medical graduates in the national health service in Scotland, we should do so by creating incentives for them to stay and making Scotland an exciting place for them to continue their medical careers. Non-Scottish medical graduates go back to their country of origin not because they are homing pigeons but because that is where the jobs and career prospects are.
The argument that was made by Jamie Stone—and by the minister in committee—that if we do not agree to approve the order, principals will set whatever charges they like, is completely spurious and is an abuse of Parliament.
Parliament has a choice to make today and there can be no decision on top-up fees until Parliament makes that choice. The Executive argument is that we do not have a choice—we must accept the order or there will be chaos. The reality is that the Executive has to have a plan B and there are other ways of dealing with the situation, such as going directly to the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council.
If we approve the order, students whom I represent as a regional MSP and a university rector will suddenly have to pay an extra five grand for their education. They have applied to Edinburgh, they have been made offers by Edinburgh and they are probably getting flats in Edinburgh, but then they will be charged an extra five grand. They cannot be deterred now. Although the increase will make no difference to this year's students, we will be imposing an extra five grand on students from September. It makes no sense.
One of the great things that this Parliament has done has been to resist the increasing marketisation of higher education, but the order proposes to take us down the slippery slope into variable fees. We should resist that and vote against the order to keep Scotland free of top-up fees.
I draw attention to my register of interests and my position as honorary president of the University of Paisley.
This debate is not just about education and top-up fees; it is also about trust. We were told over the years that Labour would not introduce tuition fees, but what happened when that party got into government? Tuition fees. Then we were told that Labour would not introduce top-up fees, but when it got into government, it immediately introduced them.
The Scottish Parliament was told that there would be no top-up fees in Scotland. Guess what? We are now getting top-up fees. The problem is that, quite rightly, students no longer trust the Labour members of the Scottish Executive. [Interruption.] No wonder Executive members are making lots of noise in the chamber; they know what will happen: the historical record of today's debate will show, name by name, the Labour and Liberal MSPs who were the first people to vote for the introduction of top-up fees in Scotland.
Will the member give way?
Not in a three-minute speech.
Now those members tell us that top-up fees are only for medical students and students who apply from outside Scotland. Guess what? We do not trust the Executive. That is the problem, that is why there is a lobby outside Parliament today and that is why the students do not trust the Executive. There is absolutely no way that this measure will not go all the way—it is the thin end of an elitist wedge.
Despite talk of its proud equality standards, does the Executive know what it is doing? The introduction of top-up fees will mean that only rich kids will get to be doctors. If people have the money, they can pay, but if they do not have the money, they cannot afford it. That takes us in the wrong direction when we need to open up education.
It is hard enough as it is for working-class students to get into higher education without the obstacles that the Executive is putting before them. This is not about degrees or qualifications; it is about how much money mummy and daddy have in the bank. That is how the situation will pan out throughout the country. Approving the order today will take us back to the 1930s when only the rich got into higher education.
I want to comment on what happens in other countries. In recent years, little old Cuba has emerged as a leading provider—[Laughter.] Members may laugh, but it is now a leading provider of medical education. Medical personnel bound for countries throughout the world are trained for free or at a low cost in Cuba and many thousands of overseas medical students are educated within its borders. That is the kind of solidarity that we need—not the narrow-minded introduction of top-up fees that the Executive proposes today.
The clear purpose of the order is to discourage students from other parts of the UK from coming to Scottish universities. Whatever happened to the fresh talent initiative? The order seems to undermine it as well as the international status of Scottish universities.
Traditionally, our universities have not simply been national institutions that served the needs of Scots alone; for centuries, they have played an international role. The four ancient Scottish universities had an international reputation at a time when Oxford and Cambridge were, by comparison, mere national institutions.
Many of our newer universities have continued and extended that international role by welcoming students from other parts of the United Kingdom and indeed from all over the world. That mix of different nationalities and cultures has led to a mix of ideas that has added value to the education of Scots and non-Scots alike. Indeed, such a cross-fertilisation of ideas brought about the Scottish enlightenment in the 18th century and can bring about a much-needed enlightenment in the 21st century.
However, I am sad—very sad—to say that the Scottish Executive does not seem to have much enlightenment or international vision. Our First Minister was recently castigated for not supporting England in its world cup match this evening. I honestly fail to see how supporting our Commonwealth brothers from Trinidad and Tobago can be described as being anti-English or discriminating against people from England. However, the order can be rightly described as discriminating against people from England and our celtic cousins from Wales and Ireland—or at least some of our Irish cousins. The order exacerbates the anomalous situation in which students from Northern Ireland will pay fees of up to £2,700 a year to study at a Scottish university, while students from the Republic of Ireland, as residents of a different European Union member state, will pay no fees at all, as discriminating against them would be against European law.
Likewise, we cannot discriminate against students from France, Germany, Italy or any other EU country. However, the order proposes to exploit a loophole in European law that allows us to discriminate against our nearest neighbours because we live in the same EU member state.
The order is a blatant piece of unfair discrimination that will prevent many potential students from low-income backgrounds from coming to our Scottish universities. It also sets a bad precedent and could turn out to be the thin end of a very dangerous wedge that might threaten educational opportunities for young people from Scotland and other countries.
For those reasons, I urge the Parliament to oppose this mean and despicable order.
The draft Student Fees (Specification) (Scotland) Order 2006 order is necessary under section 9 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005. Let me be clear: if it is not approved, there will be deregulation of tuition fees in Scotland.
In a briefing note handed out to MSPs, NUS Scotland says with regard to the deregulation of fees:
"Technically this may be true, however, what the Executive is failing to tell MSPs is that they have other options open to them to deal with this scenario. The Grant-In-Aid letter to the Scottish Funding Council could be used to set the expected fee level and inform institutions that it would be unacceptable to charge higher fee levels."
The key words in that quotation are
"Technically this may be true".
I have taken formal legal advice on that suggestion and have been told quite clearly and with no qualification that if we do not agree to approve the order, a grant-in-aid letter seeking to impose a condition on fee levels would
"be without legal effect in relation to such a condition."
Will the minister give way?
Yes, but I have very little time.
The grant-in-aid letter that the minister issued in March made it quite clear that universities cannot charge any fees on top of those set by Parliament. If Parliament does not agree to set a fee, the minister might well come back with another order that seeks to set a different fee level, but until then the fee level will be zero and the universities will not be able to charge any additional fee at all.
I appreciate that that might well be Fiona Hyslop's legal advice to the SNP, but it is not the legal advice that I have received. Let me put it even more bluntly: the only people voting for top-up or variable fees in Scotland are those who vote against approving the order this evening.
The reasons for these proposals have been very well rehearsed. Since top-up fees of up to £3,000 per year were announced for the rest of the UK, there has been a real concern that, because of an increase in applicants from England and other parts of the UK, Scottish students will lose access to places at Scottish universities.
Is there any evidence of that? Well, between 2004—when the Westminster top-up fee proposals came forward—and 2005, applications from England, Wales and Northern Ireland to Scottish universities increased by more than 14 per cent. Indeed, between 2005 and 2006, they increased further. Between 2000 and 2005, the number of England-domiciled students accepting places at Scottish universities had already gone up by 11 per cent. Those are places lost to Scottish students. There is clearly an issue here.
The problem is particularly acute for medical places. Indeed, the previous president of NUS Scotland chaired the student issues group of the higher education review and specifically drew attention to the problem, saying that we should closely monitor the demand for medical places to ensure that Scottish students—particularly those from lower social class backgrounds—are not disadvantaged. That is why we are proposing to charge students from the rest of the United Kingdom £1,700 a year, with an increase for medical students to £2,700. That will still be a lower fee for medicine than the £3,000 that is being charged by each and every English university. We believe that that is the right measure to protect medical places for Scottish students at Scottish universities.
That was also the opinion of the Calman review of medical education in Scotland, which made clear how vital it was to retain an adequate number of medical places for Scottish students. Let us be clear: Scottish students who go off to university for the first time later this year to take up one of the 834 funded places for medicine at a Scottish university will not be paying top-up fees, variable fees or any other tuition fees. Tuition fees have been abolished for Scottish students and grants have been reintroduced. We are proud of that.
The NUS has made much of a supposed 6 per cent decline in applications for medicine from students living in the rest of the UK. UCAS has told me today that the actual figure is 3.4 per cent, not 6 per cent. Let me set that in context. I have here a printout from the UCAS website, from today. It tells me that to study medicine in Scotland will cost English students £2,700 a year, but I found out from UCAS that that information went on to its website on 17 August 2005. Applications for medicine in 2006 did not open until September 2005. Anyone from England considering studying medicine in Scotland this year would know that the proposed cost is £2,700. Members ask for evidence. The previous year, before the costs were announced, the number of applicants for medical places from England increased by 17.8 per cent. That is the evidence that members have been asking for. That is the reason for this move today. The policy is working. It is a practical, sensible policy from an Executive that has abolished tuition fees, opposes top-up fees, opposes variable fees and is absolutely determined to protect university places for Scottish students.
To vote against approving the order tonight is to allow variable tuition fees and, as the First Minister said this morning, to disadvantage Scottish students. I ask members to support the order.
The next item of business is consideration of three Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Margaret Curran to move motions S2M-4548 and S2M-4549, on the approval of Scottish statutory instruments; and motion S2M-4552, on the establishment of a committee.
Motions moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the draft Electronic Communications (Scotland) Order 2006 be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the draft Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 (Treatment of Public Transport Users' Committee for Scotland as Specified Authority and Amendment of Specified Authorities) Order 2006 be approved.
That the Parliament agrees to establish a Committee of the Parliament as follows:
Name of Committee: Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee;
Remit: To consider and report to the Parliament on the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill;
Duration: Until the Bill has received Royal Assent, falls or is withdrawn;
Convenership: The Convener will be a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party and the Deputy Convener will be a member of the Scottish National Party;
Membership: Phil Gallie, Janis Hughes, Alasdair Morgan, Cathy Peattie, Jeremy Purvis.—[Ms Margaret Curran.]