Higher Education
The next item of business is a statement by Mike Russell on the future of Scottish higher education. As the cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of the statement, there should be no interruptions or interventions during it.
14:55
Today, we arrive at the next and most significant staging post thus far in the debate on the long-term funding of universities in Scotland. A discussion that I initiated in March with people in and around the sector, and which has been taken forward by the sector with vigour, now fully enters the public arena with the publication this afternoon of our green paper, a paper that I hope will help to shape a uniquely Scottish solution to the issue.
Of course, as in all areas of public expenditure, the cuts that have been imposed on Scotland by the Westminster Government have had to be shared by the university sector. However, our institutions are rising to the difficulties that are inherent in the draft budget for 2010-11. I welcome their commitment to work with us on that task and I pay tribute to the principals and Universities Scotland for that approach. They have made it possible to maintain core university places in the next academic year, a commitment that will be of enormous practical help to the coming generation.
The scale of that help is significant. It has involved positive action and good will from many people, including college principals, because some 20 per cent of our higher education is delivered by the college sector. We had almost 280,000 higher education students in Scotland in 2008-09—a rise of 20,000 in less than a decade—and nearly 85,000 HE qualifications were obtained. In the first 10 years of devolution, expenditure on higher education rose 78 per cent in cash terms and 37 per cent in real terms. With its 20 higher education institutions, Scotland has more universities per head of population than most other countries.
Our higher education tradition is distinguished and it is acknowledged across the globe. That tradition is based on access that is determined by ability to learn, not ability to pay. In the 18th century, Daniel Defoe observed that in Scotland even
“the poorest people have their children taught and instructed”.
Our history is full of the successes of the lads an lasses o pairts—
Oh no!
—of which Lord Foulkes is not one. Consequently, we reject the socially divisive view that students and graduates should be forced to take charge of their own education through tuition fees, as does this Parliament, which has rejected fees twice this year. We believe that adopting such an approach in Scotland would discriminate against the poorest, would place barriers in the way of learning and would, over time, massively diminish the potential of Scottish society. It would also directly contradict our long-standing national belief in the commonweal and fatally undermine the social contract that citizens in Scotland have with the state.
Undoubtedly, every aspect of our national life faces difficulties at this time. We must consider how, in these most problematic of times, we can continue to support our universities properly. As much as we will be guided by the rejection of tuition fees by this Parliament, we will also be guided by the essential need—which we fully understand—to ensure that the sector remains competitive not just within the United Kingdom, where the issue of parity with England is key, but globally. We have five universities in the top 150 in the world. That is a remarkable achievement, and it must be preserved and perhaps even improved upon. Critically, we must also consider how we do that in the fairest possible way. A properly funded system should recognise the wide benefits that higher education provides for our society, economy, health and culture. A sustainable system has to find the correct balance for sharing the costs of higher education fairly among all those who benefit. Achieving that fair balance is essential. That is exactly what this Scottish National Party Government will do.
As far as I am concerned, the Westminster coalition’s position is inappropriate for Scotland in three respects. It is wrong because it abdicates the state’s responsibility as the primary funder of higher education; it is wrong because it is based on a mistaken belief that the only beneficiary of higher education is the individual; and it is wrong because, when it is considered alongside other moves that are being made on the levels of financial support for students—such as the abolition of the education maintenance allowance in England—it will reduce the opportunities for those from the least well-off backgrounds to improve their life chances by continuing to study once they leave school.
There is no doubt that individuals benefit from higher education, but in truth we all benefit from having a world-class higher education sector in this country. It is because of that greater good that we believe that the state must bear the prime responsibility for funding our universities. After all, higher education is one of our most valuable national assets, and it would be wrong of us not to protect its value and enhance its reputation.
That is why the state assuming the prime funding responsibility, coupled with the Parliament’s rejection of tuition fees, lies at the heart of the green paper that I am launching today. That does not have to mean that the state is the only funder, but it does mean that any other contribution must be truly progressive and tied to genuine financial benefit and, crucially, it must not create barriers to participation for those from low-income backgrounds.
Those issues of funding are important and may command most of the news headlines, but I stress that the green paper is about much more than who pays. That is a crucial point. This debate is actually about what higher education is for, how that purpose can be fulfilled and how, in the 21st century, we can preserve and enhance our world-class higher education sector. Therefore, it is not just about money; it is about who we are and what we seek to be.
In that context, there are many issues to consider. For example, we must consider how we can make our institutional funding and student support systems more attuned to the needs of the learner. We must ask questions about the learning journey from school through to university, and seek all ideas on how that might be improved. We must continue to focus on improving access for all, we must encourage flexible routes and patterns of study, and we must celebrate the unique and world-leading innovations that define our system, such as the quality enhancement framework and the Scottish credit and qualifications framework.
We must consider how we might build further on the best of what we have to offer, encouraging more pooling of excellence and the prioritisation of interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary collaboration. We must underline how important it is for institutions to work together to promote Scottish higher education overseas.
We must ensure that student support is fair and adequate from the point of view of sustaining involvement and securing the best environment for successful study. We must ask hard questions about the nature and number of institutions, and we must cast a critical eye on governance, duplication of provision and the sharing of back and front-office services. Our funding structures also need careful examination, as do the involvement of business and alumni, and the proper place of philanthropy and commercialisation.
We must, of course, encourage others to study here and encourage more of our students to study abroad, but we must never become a cheap option—our excellence must be our beacon, not our price.
There are many questions and many ideas in the paper that I am publishing today. The issue is multifaceted, and its complexity demands a thoughtful approach. The issues within the paper have been shaped by intensive discussion and research, and moulded by past experience and future ambition. Not all the ideas are supported by this Government or would ever be implemented by it, but they are designed to move forward the process of decision making and to focus creativity and innovation. They provide the raw materials for a sustainable long-term future for higher education in Scotland.
I stress the diversity of issues in the paper for a vital reason: along with the sector, I am convinced that there is no simplistic, single silver bullet that will provide our Scottish solution. The solution will, I am certain, consist of several components, and those parts may not be entirely the same for all our universities. However, the timescale is simple. The English reforms will see major changes taking place in the 2012-13 academic year. Scottish universities must be able to respond to any new challenges at the same time.
I would like to build a consensus on these issues, but even if that were impossible, I would still wish there to be absolute clarity on the various solutions that are offered by the parties at the elections next May. That is particularly important because it is, alas, becoming obvious that the Labour Party is once again intent on finding a patch of long grass in which to hide on the issue of Scottish higher education funding and the provision of support to students. Well, today’s publication of the green paper means that the grass just got a lot shorter, and it is going to get shorter still.
I have established a short-life technical working group with Universities Scotland to analyse and report on the perceived gap between universities north and south of the border. Knowing the exact size of that gap and the likely financial effect of the six potential areas of additional funding for universities that are identified in the green paper are the final missing elements in the task of constructing a complete and successful solution. I will reconvene the all-party summit on higher education before the end of February to receive that information from the short-life working group. I hope that we can agree on a consensual approach for implementation in the second half of 2011, but each of us, fully aware of all the facts, must ultimately choose the policy that we want to espouse and offer it openly to the Scottish people in our manifestos.
I make a clear commitment that the Government will do just that. If successfully re-elected, the Government will legislate in the second half of 2011 to allow implementation within the agreed timeframe. We will ensure that a sustainable long-term future is secured for Scottish higher education. We will offer the young people of this country continued access to excellence, and we will do so through world-class institutions that champion access to education that is based on the ability to learn, not on the ability to pay.
There are three clear questions that a Scottish solution must answer. First, how can higher education play an even greater role in support of Scotland’s future success? Secondly, how can we use our current resources ever more effectively? Thirdly, how do we increase funding to the sector to ensure that it remains nationally and internationally competitive?
The paper that is being launched today is a major step forward in the process of answering those questions. It will lead us, in a clear and achievable timescale, to the prize that we should all be seeking—a long-term, sustainable solution to the funding of universities in Scotland for the greater good of our people, our economy, our culture and our society.
Last weekend, sources close to the First Minister told several newspapers that the Scottish National Party wants to make free higher education the cornerstone of its election campaign in May. Neither Mike Russell nor John Swinney believe that higher education can be sustained without some sort of graduate contribution. Mike Russell has made that clear on a number of occasions. However, having been sat on by Alex Salmond—which must have been painful—who is desperate for anything to reverse the electoral slump that his party has fallen into, they are prepared to go along with a pledge that cannot be delivered without seriously damaging our universities and national competitiveness.
For months, Mike Russell told the universities, industry and commerce, students and other stakeholders that he wanted to see a Scottish solution and that his green paper would map the way forward. Well, this paper does not pass that test. It contains no models, no worked-out options and very few numbers. It could have been produced months ago. It takes us not an inch further forward. As Universities Scotland has said, cuts to the Scottish block make it difficult to see how public funding alone can sustain universities’ contribution to Scotland. As the green paper effectively recognises, the reality is that the Government has no Scottish solution. It will damage Scottish universities if it considers that that will serve its party interests.
In that context, and for the avoidance of doubt, will the cabinet secretary confirm today whether he has ruled in or out a fair graduate contribution as part of the funding framework? If he has ruled it out, how much will be needed to fund higher education without some sort of graduate contribution in each of the next three years? John Swinney has the figures; will Mike Russell tell us what they are?
I now call Elizabeth Smith. [Interruption.]
I am sorry, minister. Sorry Elizabeth. Minister, you can answer.
I do not like to say that I did not recognise a question that was worthy of an answer there, but I will give one.
The green paper comprises 51 pages. It contains more information, analysis, questions and answers than anything that has been published since devolution. It is a great pity that Mr McNulty did not acknowledge that and try to move the issue forward with us.
For the avoidance of doubt, I place on record the fact that agreement to seek the work with Universities Scotland to look at the funding gap and the six sources of income was reached when Ken Macintosh was present at the all-party summit. He was fully aware of it and he knew the timescale, as did the other spokespeople.
What we need in this debate is an honest agreement that we will offer the Scottish people a choice. So far, I am the only one to have offered a choice. I note that Mr McNulty has not done so—[Interruption.]—though I notice that Lord Foulkes is bellowing like a sea lion, as ever.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Again and again, instead of answering specific questions that are put to them, ministers simply abuse other people. Even if the Presiding Officer is unable to do so, surely you, Deputy Presiding Officer, can make ministers actually answer the questions that are put to them.
That is not a point of order, Lord Foulkes. You know that I am not responsible for the answers, but you have your point on the record and perhaps the ministers will take note.
We currently have world-class universities and world-class students. The cabinet secretary made it plain in a letter to the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council that the Scottish Government expects that world-class reputation to be maintained and that it will raise academic standards and maintain student numbers. He has also made a pledge that the Scottish Government will preserve the principle of free higher education.
First, with his preferred option 1—vague and uncosted as it is—the cabinet secretary has said that the state should have prime responsibility for funding higher education. If prime responsibility does not mean sole responsibility, does the Scottish Government’s preferred option—option 1—mean that graduates will now have to make a contribution? If so, how much?
Secondly, why has it taken the Government three years to produce what is no more than a discussion paper when the university sector and my party were warning of the urgent need for solutions to address the issue all that time ago?
Perhaps we were simply not aware how much damage the Conservatives could do in a few short months in government.
I acknowledge that Elizabeth Smith has an ideological position. It is the same position as her party’s: she wants to move the responsibility for funding higher education from the state to individual students. I recognise that, but I believe that it is utterly wrong. I believe that it is based on false principles and would be enormously damaging to Scottish higher education and Scotland. However, I recognise the position.
The paper lays out six sources of funding for higher education. It makes it clear that those six need to be considered and costed in a process that is outlined and agreed with Universities Scotland not just by me but by the Opposition spokespeople who were present at the meeting. Given that, I would have thought that the fair thing to do would be to acknowledge that the six options need to be properly costed.
I noted that on Radio Scotland this morning Elizabeth Smith admitted that she had not even had her preferred option costed. It is therefore a bit rich to criticise an agreement that all parties reached with Universities Scotland in a process that was clearly understood.
I challenge the Conservatives, as I do everybody else, to commit themselves to their preferred option and put it in front of the Scottish people. If the Conservatives’ option is to move responsibility from the state to the student, I know what the reaction of Scotland will be.
We thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of the statement and the questions that the statement poses. We will scrutinise the answers when the Government brings them forward.
Over the past decade, there has been a different system of funding and a different system for students and universities in Scotland. Scotland has benefited over the decade from excellence in our universities, students have benefited from the move by Liberal Democrats—supported by others—to abolish fees in Scotland, and graduates have benefited from not having the equivalent of £4 billion of debt. The challenge now is to retain those hard-fought gains for Scotland and to go further over the next decade.
We will work with the Scottish Government and other parties to help to deliver the right way forward for universities and students, but there are key issues over the next decade that cause us to pause for thought. There was not much in the cabinet secretary’s statement about these two points, so I want to ask him about them.
First, even with university places being free in Scotland, only one in five young people from the most deprived backgrounds study for a higher education qualification compared with four out of five from the most affluent backgrounds. We will work with the Scottish Government and others to produce proper proposals to support young people, students and institutions.
My second point relates to finance, and may help the other Opposition parties to have the information. John Swinney told Parliament that the Government will publish longer-term figures in January, ahead of the stage 1 debate on the budget. Can the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning confirm that those figures will include forward figures on longer-term funding for the funding council proposals, to allow us to consider the funding options in the future?
That is a helpful contribution. I will deal with the second point first. Whatever figures Mr Swinney announces, he has made a commitment to discuss them with the Opposition spokespeople in the run-up to stage 1 of the budget. As an Opposition finance spokesperson, Mr Purvis will be party to that discussion. Even if the full figures for the funding council were to be published, however, they would not be complete, because we recognise—as the paper explicitly recognises—that there will need to be additional sources of finance. The paper lists six additional sources of finance, and the work with Universities Scotland on putting them into place and understanding the contribution that each of them could make is well advanced and will be part of the cross-party summit. So, within the overall package, that must be factored in as well.
We need to know the size of the supposed gap, and work is being done on that. That work could not be started until we knew what was going to happen south of the border, and even some of the figures on that remain remarkably vague. It is difficult to know what the average fee will be south of the border, because we do not know what the institutions are going to charge or what the take-up will be. Work remains to be done on that, and that complex set of figures needs to be considered.
On Mr Purvis’s first point, there has been a slow and sustained improvement in access under all Administrations over the past 10 years. However, I am strongly of the view that, to improve access to higher and further education, the work must be done at the school gate rather than at the university gate—indeed, it may well have to be done at the nursery school gate. In those circumstances, much of the work that we are doing on access is moving its focus towards early intervention and work in schools. Some interesting work that has been done in other countries shows how important that is.
We continue to work on access to university, but there are important interventions that must be made much earlier. A great deal depends on socioeconomic group, and we need to change that substantially. Some people say that the number of young people who are going to university should be stabilised, but in reality well over 50, 60 or 70 per cent of certain socioeconomic groups go to university and equalising access is important.
Regardless of the desirability of introducing a graduate contribution, does the cabinet secretary agree with the Browne review’s finding that the practical difficulties of a graduate tax would be almost insurmountable and would mean no substantial revenue for 30 years—a finding that matches our experience of Labour’s graduate endowment, which cost graduates more than £26 million but had raised only £57,000 by the time it was abolished in favour of free education by the SNP Government?
Yes. The SNP Government has been consistent in its principles and will continue to be so. I discussed the issues with Lord Browne and believe that there are major difficulties. Nevertheless, I would like the Scottish Parliament to be free to make its own decisions. A range of possibilities that we might have considered are ruled out because of the Parliament’s inadequate powers and, indeed, the further inadequacies of the so-called Calman-minus proposals that are coming to the Parliament. It would have been good to have had greater flexibility in that regard. The six options in the paper—the six sources of funding—are where the action will be, and that is where the work requires to take place.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that Scottish students are offered the lowest level of student support in the UK and that our drop-out rate is one of the worst. I welcome the fact that, through the green paper, the Scottish Government finally acknowledges that the current student support system is unsustainable and that too many students live in hardship and depend on commercial debt. However, the paper says that any solution for student support must use “the current resources”. Within those imposed financial constraints, how does he plan to deliver the significant improvement in student support that students need?
As kindly as I can, I point out to Claire Baker that when her party was in power, its record on this matter was considerably worse than the record of this Government. The work that we are trying to do with the National Union of Students and others—[Interruption.]
Presiding Officer, constant irritating sounds are coming from my left. Could something possibly be done about that? Perhaps we should examine the ventilation system. It is a constant irritation, and it is difficult to concentrate.
Scottish students have the lowest level of debt of any students in these islands. I want to see a substantial improvement. That is why student support is at the heart of the green paper, and why it contains important items and proposals. I would have hoped that Claire Baker would join us in welcoming those proposals and declare that she would work with us on them rather than simply complaining. However, I am used to Labour complaints, which are going on even now.
Universities Scotland has told us that it supports a graduate contribution, as has the Scottish National Party’s hand-picked Council of Economic Advisers. Why can the cabinet secretary not tell us whether he supports a graduate contribution, in principle? Why can he not give us a simple yes or no answer to that question?
Because, unlike Mr Fraser, I am not hidebound by ideology. I am looking for the best solution for Scottish higher education and the best solution for Scottish universities. That requires us to honour the agreement that we have reached with Universities Scotland, which was agreed to by the parties’ spokespeople, to ensure that the six options are costed and put into the mix.
The paper that I have announced examines higher education in greater depth and detail than any initiative that has been implemented under devolution. It should provide an enormous step forward. I would have thought that the Opposition spokespeople would want to join us in getting to the stage at which we can understand precisely what will benefit Scotland’s students. Unfortunately, Mr Fraser is locked into the right-wing ideology from whence he came and to which he cleaves, even though it appears to have virtually no electoral support in Scotland.
People who are still at school are one group who lack the effective lobby groups that are available to students and universities. Will the cabinet secretary ensure that the green paper’s consultation stage will include outreach to young people who are in the midst of making the big decisions about their lives, to ensure that they, too, are consulted fully?
That is an important suggestion, and I would be happy to do so.
I am sure that those young people will also be influenced by this Government’s commitment to the education maintenance allowance, which has been abolished south of the border but which I think provides a useful contribution, as yesterday’s figures proved.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s recognition of the contribution that Scotland’s colleges make to delivering higher education. Can Mr Russell confirm that Scotland’s colleges will be part of the short-life working group? Will further consideration be given to how we can ensure that future funding to colleges and universities is equitable in terms of the Government’s contribution for each student? Finally, can the cabinet secretary assure me that the future funding formula will address the inequity that means that, at present, for every £5 that is invested in Glasgow’s colleges by the funding council, only £2 is invested in Lanarkshire?
There are a variety of reasons for any supposed inequity—and I think that it is a supposed inequity rather than an actual inequity. I acknowledge the contribution that Scotland’s colleges make—I acknowledged it up front in my statement. They provide around 20 per cent of our higher education. That important issue is addressed in the green paper, and some interesting questions arise from it. For example, as the paper indicates, there are those who suggest that a greater proportion of undergraduate delivery should be undertaken by colleges. That needs to be considered, because if it is not it will tend to rule out certain types of skills-based or vocation-based higher education.
The cabinet secretary notes that 20 per cent of our higher education is delivered by colleges. However, I gently point out that, as far as I can see, having had a brief opportunity to consider the paper, there is no mention of the funding for colleges. Where will that figure in the issues that are under discussion?
The issue in question is not the funding for colleges per se, but the future of higher education. However, there are, of course, implications for colleges, and those will be well factored into the final decisions on the six options. Although funding for higher education delivery through colleges is delivered differently through a different formula, it is extremely important and will be factored into the discussions.
One of the 62 subjects for discussion in the paper that the cabinet secretary has presented to us is the funding that we get from students from abroad. Some universities are more dependent on that than others; it makes up closer to 20 per cent than 11 per cent of their funding.
Is the cabinet secretary aware— I am sure he is—that the UK Border Agency is now imposing restrictions that are causing many universities and colleges in Scotland a great deal of angst in relation to their ability to recruit not only students but staff? Will he be able to do anything about that?
I have made constant representations, from the period when I was Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution when we had a Labour Government in Westminster, to the present situation in which we have a coalition Government. The Labour Government took and the coalition has taken an incredibly negative view of the issue, which has been exceptionally unhelpful to Scotland. That point has been made not only by me, but by Universities Scotland, college principals and university principals, all of whom have joined me in making representations. We need to keep making those representations, but it would be far better if we had control of the policy ourselves, so that we could tune it to what we need in Scotland. University principals in particular have been outraged at some of the decisions that have been made, and the policy is causing academic as well as financial damage.
I thank the cabinet secretary for agreeing to Labour’s suggestion of a working group that was made at the higher education summit. Will he tell members who is on that working group, and whether the group will comment on the long-term sustainability of each of the funding options?
To be entirely accurate, although Mr Macintosh was involved in the discussions and suggested that a working group would be useful, the original group was proposed by Universities Scotland. The group is a joint group between Universities Scotland and Scottish Government officials, and it will report by the end of February to the reconvened cross-party summit. I am sure that Mr Macintosh will be at the summit, and I hope that he will be part of that process.
The group’s remit is to examine the gap: we need to understand its exact nature, and the information on that is changing all the time. Despite Elizabeth Smith’s view that it could all have been done and dusted even before her destructive Government was elected south of the border, the decisions are changing day on day as far as we can see.
In addition, the group will examine the options in the green paper, and will comment on them and consider the contribution that they could make to the gap. I am sure that that will include the issue of sustainability, but the issues that the paper raises are important and central, and they do not focus only on the question of whether graduates should contribute, which is such a short-sighted and narrow view that it could have come only from the Conservatives.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of the many shameful and biased comments that have been made by the London-based media about alleged discrimination against English students in Scotland. Will he confirm that while English students will have to pay increased fees in Scotland, the same will pertain to Scottish students who choose to study in England—something that the inflammatory English media have so far ignored?
I point out to anyone who is covering that point that the cross-border flow amounts to just over 22,000 students coming to Scotland from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and just over 11,000 going out. If one looks at the relative level of fees that are paid, one can see that the subsidy flows out of Scotland, not into Scotland. Students who go out of Scotland have to borrow the money to pay their fees, which are about to rise very massively indeed. In all those circumstances, I am keen to encourage cross-border flow, to encourage students in Scotland to study elsewhere and to see students coming here. However, it must be on the basis not that Scottish education is a cheap option, but that it is the best option for students.
The decision to equalise fees and payments was made in 1998, and it was renewed thereafter by this Parliament. It was agreed previously, and I am sure that there will be continued agreement that it is the right thing for Scottish higher education. I am sure that fair-minded journalists north and south of the border will see it in that way.
I speak as someone who has never been to university. I support the cabinet secretary when he says that it is wrong to go for paid further and higher education because of—I paraphrase—the mistaken belief that only graduates benefit from higher education. I also completely endorse the statement that higher and further education is about who we are and what we seek to be. As a result, I wonder whether he thinks that the options can be anything other than a wish list without total control of the fiscal and monetary levers in the economy to allow the Government to move as much money as is required around in favour of an idealistic and, if we like, ideologue’s idea of what education should be. I do not think that he can do it and I do not think that anybody else can. We should get that into perspective.
I am delighted to see that if we scratch Margo MacDonald, there is still a strong nationalist there—but I think that we all knew that.
The reality of the situation is that it would, of course, be much better for this Parliament to have full powers—particularly financial powers. There are constraints, but within the powers that we have I believe that we can make substantial progress on this issue—although not on all issues—and I am working hard on it with my colleagues and with Universities Scotland. I had hoped that we could work on it across the chamber but, alas, I am often disappointed, and I have again been disappointed today, particularly by Labour and the Tories. I hope that we can take the issue forward in a way that benefits Scotland’s students, because that is what it is about.