Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2666, in the name of Jim Wallace, that the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I am pleased to move the motion to pass the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, which, if members agree to it, will create a new landscape for further and higher education in Scotland. I thank many people who have been involved in getting us to this moment, not least Alex Neil and the members of his Enterprise and Culture Committee, who have deliberated and taken a helpful and constructive approach in both the stage 2 debate and the stage 1 report. I am sure that Alex Neil will acknowledge that we have taken on board a number of the points that the committee made. I also thank the many people who were engaged in the consultation. Going further back, I thank Alex Neil in his former role as convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee in the previous session for starting the ball rolling with a report that recommended the merger of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and the Scottish Further Education Funding Council. I also thank my two deputies over the past year—Lewis Macdonald, who was with me when we started the venture, and, more recently, Allan Wilson, who has taken on his back quite a large part of the work, not least at stage 2.
I believe that having one body to make decisions for both sectors will be essential in encouraging collaboration between colleges and universities. I believe that it can facilitate smooth transition for learners between and across the sectors and that coherent decisions will be made in a way that will maximise the effectiveness of the record levels of investment that this Administration is making in further and higher education.
The discussions about the bill have focused mainly on the provisions on fees in section 8. That is understandable, because the issue of fees is emotive and important, but I hope that I have been able to dispel some of the myths that some members have perpetuated. I refer not least to some of the comments that Frances Curran made. These points are important. The position is being misrepresented seriously and young Scots feel that there is going to be an increase in the fees that they will have to pay. That is wrong: they will not be any more liable to pay fees than they were before the bill was passed. We would regret it if that perception were to affect their judgment or aspirations to go to college or university. By all means let us have robust political debate, but we should not have it in a way that discourages people from going to college or university.
Mike Pringle's amendment 17, which was agreed to, reinforces what I have said consistently, that the powers will be used only sparingly and where there is real evidence that Scottish students might be disadvantaged. It will be essential to ensure that any future move to use the powers is thought through carefully and is scrutinised properly and rigorously by the Parliament.
It is important that the provisions on fees do not overshadow the other benefits that the bill will provide, not least for students. Among other things the bill will create a funding council with a statutory duty to have regard to the skills needs of Scotland and issues affecting Scotland's economic, cultural and social life. It will provide statutory support to a number of important sector-led initiatives, such as the Scottish credit and qualifications framework and quality enhancement. It will recognise the needs of students in legislation for the first time and will oblige the council to consult student representatives and trade unions as appropriate. It will give students access to the Scottish public services ombudsman. It will place on the council a duty to collaborate with other bodies such as Scottish Enterprise and will place on those bodies a duty to share information with the council. It will establish criteria for eligibility for funding by the new council. It will extend academic freedom to colleges for the first time. As a result of an amendment at stage 2, which we revised further today, it will extend academic freedom to staff in further and higher education.
I believe that those benefits will make a real difference for students and staff in both sectors. Together with the other provisions in the bill, they will create a framework for further and higher education within a tertiary system, and that will help to give ministers, the Parliament and the Scottish public guarantees that our significant investment in tertiary education is being used efficiently, wisely and effectively. I am sure that members will agree that those important benefits should be supported. Indeed, they reflect the fact that there has been, for the most part, cross-party support for the majority of the bill.
I congratulate the minister on amendment 8, which requires the new funding council to
"have regard to the desirability of the achieving of sustainable development".
Does the Executive have any plans to support the council in that regard?
I reassure Robin Harper that the guidance letters that I issued to the funding councils in January contained a specific reference to their taking full account of our commitment to sustainable development.
The value of the contribution that has been made is reflected in the amendments, and I express grateful thanks to the stakeholders with whom we have had the opportunity to engage during the process. We have not always seen eye to eye, but the majority of contributions have been thoughtful and constructive. That is appreciated and I hope that it has led to an increased level of trust in our relationships.
Finally, I thank members of both the existing funding councils for the valuable contributions that they have made over the years. They have been instrumental in making real differences to the two sectors. As we move on, it is important to recognise that and to wish them all the best for the future. The merger will maximise the benefits of direct read-across between the experiences of two important and major parts of our tertiary system in Scotland. It will coherently link the objectives of post-school education with Scotland's economic goals.
On that basis, I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill be passed.
First, I pay tribute to those who have been involved in the preparation and scrutiny of the bill. It has been transformed during its passage; the early proposal for specified tertiary education providers has been removed and a great deal of progress has been made in certain areas on the general principles of the bill. I also pay tribute to my colleague Alex Neil, who is convener of the Enterprise and Culture Committee, and to members of the committee. Through its consideration of the bill, there has been substantial movement and development on academic freedom, part-time and second-degree students and the skills committee, and the addition of social and cultural perspectives and sustainable development.
We now have a much-needed framework for legislation, but it is with real regret and concern that I will move what is called in procedural terms a reasoned amendment to regret
"the creation of a legislative framework for imposing variable top-up fees in Scotland's tertiary education system."
The bill should never have been allowed to be hijacked and used for the purposes of addressing issues that are to do with Westminster's legislation on top-up fees. Why should the Scottish further and higher education system be manipulated to deal with problems that were caused by Westminster's vote for top-up fees in England? That is not the way our education system should go, and that is why it is with real regret that I rise to move the amendment in my name.
It is procedurally bad to make decisions before a consultation has ended, but to do so in the middle of a consultation is quite irresponsible. The fact that there are two on-going consultations that have major impacts on the legislation shows that the provisions on top-up fees in section 8 should have been considered separately. We are now in a ludicrous position whereby a statutory instrument that is subject to the super-affirmative procedure is being proposed and accepted by the Parliament. In a sense, that is so bad that we should have had a separate bill for the provisions. The Parliament should not necessarily follow that precedent in future. The proposal has been cobbled together at the last minute as a panic measure by the Liberal Democrats, who realise that top-up fees and variable fees, as proposed in the bill, are starting to hurt them politically, as well they should.
On a practical point, the British Medical Association was against the proposals in the bill. Committees of the Parliament and I harried the Executive about the Westminster top-up fees and their implications for Scotland, but the argument was primarily about the revenue that universities would lose. The minister has admitted that the bill will not increase or decrease the amount of money that is available to universities.
All that the minister will do is try to influence the behaviour of English medical students who come to Scotland, which he admits has not worked in the past and is unlikely to work in future. I say with sadness that we are left in the position that a good piece of legislation that should guide the higher and further education sectors has been hijacked by an irresponsible and ill-considered provision on student fees. I urge the Parliament to support my amendment and to register our serious concerns and reservations about section 8.
I move amendment S2M-2666.1, to insert at end:
"but, in so doing, regrets the creation of a legislative framework for imposing variable top-up fees in Scotland's tertiary education system."
I echo the tributes that have been paid to the clerks who service the Enterprise and Culture Committee and to my fellow members of that committee, who approached the bill collaboratively. With one exception, the provisions of the bill attracted a fair amount of consensus.
I hark back to the stage 1 debate, at which we welcomed the bill. We welcome the legislative trend that started under the previous Conservative Government, which incorporated the further education colleges and established the Scottish Further Education Funding Council. The bill will merge that funding council with the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council. The incorporation of the colleges resulted in a flowering of the FE sector, because it brought outside expertise on to FE colleges' boards and drove the sector forward.
The bill is important, not least because it incorporates in legislation the principle of parity of esteem between the higher and further education sectors. Higher education and further education have complementary and equal roles. Higher education has a greater academic focus and more emphasis on research. In contrast, further education is usually more technically based and is more focused on skills and meeting the economy's needs. It is wrong to suggest that one sector is more important or has higher priority than the other. Having a single funding body for both types of organisation will help in confirming that point.
I am sorry that I had to step out of the chamber during the debate about amendment 12, on the skills committee, because I discussed that in the stage 1 debate. Originally, the bill provided for just one statutory committee for the new funding council, which would be a research committee. The point is important because a skills committee will be relevant to the funding council's work, particularly in connection with further education, and because of parity of esteem. It is inevitable that a research committee will deal primarily with the higher education sector, so it makes sense to have a skills committee to balance the research committee by dealing primarily with the further education sector. That will ensure that those who run the funding council give both sectors equal weight. It would make sense for a skills committee to have members from the business community and an enterprise body. I am pleased that the Executive listened to the arguments that were made and lodged an amendment to establish a skills committee, which has improved the bill.
We still have concerns about section 8, which gives ministers the right to set fees for students who undertake full-time courses of study. We debated the issue at length this afternoon and I do not intend to labour the point. As I said, I appreciate that the current situation is not of the minister's making. He is in the difficult position of trying to protect Scottish students' opportunities to gain places at Scottish universities. However, the bill will have an impact not only on English students but on some from Scotland, such as those who follow part-time courses, those who have changed their course of study or those who are studying for a second or subsequent degree.
I have made it clear that the Conservative party opposes top-up fees for Scottish students and for all students in all parts of the United Kingdom. It is essential that no attempt is made to introduce such fees by the back door, even with the best of intentions. The best that can be said about the minister's powers in the bill is that they are premature. Given that a consultation is continuing and that the UK general election that will take place in two weeks' time could change the backdrop dramatically, the powers are not needed. Therefore, the Scottish Conservatives will support Fiona Hyslop's amendment. If that amendment is not agreed to, I regret to say that we cannot support the bill, which is a pity because we welcomed it at stage 1. We are enthusiastic about the formation of a new funding council and the strengthening of the FE sector, but we cannot stomach top-up fees in whatever form. If that means that we cannot support the bill, I regret that.
The fact that the Tories cannot support the bill on the basis that has been outlined is regrettable and short-sighted of them. The reasons that they have given show that there has been a misconception.
The bill is an important step forward for tertiary education in Scotland. It means that the new record levels of funding that the Executive is providing for our colleges and universities will be matched by a new structure and an ability to support institutions in establishing an ambitious strategy for higher and further education in Scotland.
We have focused on the power of ministers to fix a different fee level after consultation with stakeholders, but it is important to consider the bill's overarching principle of having a joint funding council. There is great consensus on that principle that should not be ignored—indeed, ignoring it would be to let down the sector. The proposal to have a single funding council was first promoted by the National Union of Students Scotland in the early 1990s and it was first promoted in the Parliament by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee in its report on lifelong learning. There is wide support for such a measure across the spectrum of those who are involved in tertiary education.
There was an effective consultation process for the bill. There was heated debate on the draft bill and ridiculous suggestions were made that we wanted to merge colleges and universities. However, the important point is that ministers listened to concerns and made the appropriate changes, which led to the good bill that is now before us and the broad support that there has been for it. That is a tribute to the consultation process.
The bill is important and will help to encourage greater articulation between further and higher education institutions. It will give students in Scotland more and different points of access to education and will help to encourage collaboration and the sharing of best practice between colleges and universities. As we have heard, it will encourage skills, progress on academic freedom and excellence in research. Through the measures that we have agreed today, it will secure access to tertiary education for Scottish students.
The bill will ensure that the record levels of investment are used in the context of a clear strategy, which is vital to achieving our wider goal of creating prosperity in Scotland that is based on a knowledge economy. That goal is at the heart of Labour's ambitions in Scotland. We want continued high employment and prosperity in Scotland through partnership with Westminster—through successful management of the economy there and economic development here that is driven by a skilled workforce.
With the record funding to our colleges and universities—£100 million extra over three years—we are putting investment behind our ambition. The bill will ensure that there is coherence and strategy so that universities and colleges play their full role in making Scotland a nation of prosperity and skills. The bill will ensure that Scotland retains its current vital status as a world leader in academic excellence. That is why I support the motion that the bill be passed.
I thank members who have complimented the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and its successor committee, the Enterprise and Culture Committee. I always enjoy being complimented and take the opportunity to compliment and thank those who have been members of those committees and the staff who have worked on them.
I remind members why the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee recommended the merger of the two funding councils. Its recommendation was essentially based on three pieces of evidence that were received during its inquiry. One piece of evidence related to the development of the university of the Highlands and Islands, which is unique in being made up of 13 further education colleges. The distinction between further and higher education and between colleges and universities was becoming very blurred there, as it was at the Crichton campus in Dumfries, which I think is the only place in the United Kingdom where a person can get a degree from any one of four universities. Finally, when we considered the figures and the flow of students between higher and further education and the fact that 40 per cent of HE students were in FE institutions, for example, it was apparent that the distinction between colleges and universities and between HE and FE was becoming much more blurred than it had been. That is not to say that there are not distinct roles for universities and colleges. However, in order to gain flexibility in those innovative ideas and projects, we felt that it made sense—given that we already had a combined executive—to have a combined funding council. It will also be easier for a joint funding council to work with other bodies in the field, especially Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
However, now that we are about to pass the bill, let us look not to the past but to the future. The new funding council has five key challenges in front of it. The first of those is the access challenge. Despite the fact that around 50 per cent of young people in Scotland now go to university, the figure for young people from working-class families is stubbornly still around 14 to 15 per cent. There is a huge untapped pool of talent that we need to try much harder to get into the university and further education sectors. The access challenge is of major importance.
The second challenge is the skills challenge. We recognise that, in certain sectors such as construction and the health service, one of the barriers to growth is the skills gaps that we face. Across the board, some of the softer skills are in shorter supply than some of the more hardware-type skills. The skills challenge exists and we must tackle it if we are to increase the rate of business growth in Scotland.
The third, and most important, challenge is the lifelong learning challenge. The knowledge life cycle is changing all the time. When I went to university, whatever a person learned at university often stood them in good stead for the next 20 or 30 years. However, what a medical graduate learns this year could be out of date next year or the year after. Therefore, the need for continuing professional development and real lifelong learning is the third challenge.
The fourth challenge is in research. We are excellent in public sector research and get a massive share of the public sector research budget, but we face a major challenge to increase private sector research and development.
Last but not least, there is the challenge of achieving excellence and quality. We have some of the finest universities and colleges not just in the UK but in the world. Our universities are third in the world—and not just per head—in terms of the excellence of their output in academic journals and the like. Our job now is not only to keep up that level of excellence but to spread it throughout all the institutions in Scotland, so that we do not end up third but go for number 1. That is the challenge of the new council and we must support it in meeting that challenge.
Finally, I hope that the minister will take in the recommendation of the Enterprise and Culture Committee that, in considering the composition of the council, he should consider the possibility of bringing in one or two members from the international intellectual and training community as well as appointing members from within Scotland.
We move to wind-up speeches. Mike Pringle does not appear to be here, so I call Bill Aitken. Mr Aitken, you have four minutes.
I have listened to this afternoon's debate with considerable interest. It has been worth while and the Enterprise and Culture Committee has clearly spent a lot of time in taking a constructive approach to what the Executive has introduced. It is unfortunate that section 8 is so objectionable to us; otherwise, the bill could have been approved unanimously by the Parliament. However, we could have no part in the imposition of top-up fees.
We welcome the creation of the funding council. It builds on the work of the previous Conservative Government and is, in every respect, an eminently sensible proposition. It is also important that we are now seeing legislation that puts further education on the same level as higher education. Vocational training has been lacking in Scotland for many years. In Glasgow, where I come from, there is a problem with youth unemployment as well as a lack of training opportunities, which is manifest in many respects, as anyone who has tried to get a plumber or an electrician recently knows. Employers are offering fewer and fewer apprenticeships because provision for training within the further education sector has not been at the level at which it should have been. The bill recognises the need for parity, or at least greater equality, between further education and higher education.
I am grateful to Bill Aitken for giving way despite his time being short. He posits the case that there is a lack of training opportunities. Does he accept that such a lack persisted until some years ago but, as was mentioned in last week's debate on skills, the situation has now changed? Does he accept that the considerable numbers of modern apprenticeships and other training schemes—both those organised by industry and those organised by academic institutions—are now addressing that problem?
I accept that the problem is of fairly long standing, but the member will be aware—and will no doubt concede the point—that apprenticeships in skills were introduced by the Conservative Government. I certainly agree that anything that introduces a greater degree of parity between the further education sector and the higher education sector is to be welcomed.
The only note of contention in the bill is section 8. It is unfortunate that the Executive has introduced such provisions, especially at this stage in the game when the consultation period has not finished. As an inevitable consequence, people feel that the solution that was pencilled in during the consultation has been written in in biro from the start. The fact that the consultation will therefore be not nearly as effective as it should be is decidedly unfortunate. On that basis and, as Murdo Fraser said, on the basis that an incoming Conservative Government will remedy the clearly unworkable situation in England, the Executive had all the more reason for not introducing such provisions at this time. Accordingly, we will support the amendment in the name of Fiona Hyslop.
The Scottish National Party's position at stage 3 is one more of sorrow than of anger. At stage 1, we abstained from voting on the bill, on the basis that we broadly supported its provisions but we wished to ensure that they would contain no Trojan horse. Sadly, that is what has happened and, accordingly, we are left with no alternative but to vote for our amendment and against the bill.
As Alex Neil and Murdo Fraser mentioned, matters have moved on such that our education system needs to be brought up to date to deal with the needs of contemporary society and economy in the 21st century. Accordingly, it is a tragedy that the bill's many eminently sensible and fully supportable provisions are undermined by the provision on variable and top-up fees. On that basis, we cannot support the bill.
That is a tragedy because Scottish education is something of which we should rightly be proud. In both higher and further education, as a small country we have punched well above our weight. We should be proud not only of our ancient universities but of our modern universities and colleges of further and higher education. Our education system has served well not only Scotland but other nations and, indeed, humanity. Anyone who has read Arthur Herman's book "The Scottish Enlightenment: the Scots' invention of the modern world" will have noted his conclusion that the single most important reform that Scotland ever carried out was the education act that was introduced, I think, in 1698. Although the aim of that measure was to give our people direct access to the word of God, it created a literate population and thereby ended up giving them direct access to success and achievement, both economic and social. We have built on that foundation not only in primary and secondary but in further and higher education.
Clearly, the further and higher education sector also plays an important part in our economy. In Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen, the combined universities are the second largest employer. They provide not only menial jobs but top-of-the-range employment; they employ not only the senior academics who are involved in research but people further down in the other traditional jobs, for whom other work would otherwise need to be found. Our universities and colleges are an important part not just of our society but of our economy. As I said, we should build on that.
On the question of top-up fees, it is quite clear to us that the bill represents a Trojan horse. Scotland is a small country that is buffeted to some extent by things that happen elsewhere. However, we need to address these issues and to go in our own direction. Scotland cannot simply react to a measure that has been introduced south of the border—we need to seek analogies and examples elsewhere. In higher education, the clear example is that set by Finland, where people recognise the importance of the state doing what is necessary for higher education and providing the necessary funding for it. A small nation has the advantage of being able to move more quickly, although it is also disadvantaged in some matters. When institutions are not located in Cambridge, England, or Cambridge, Massachusetts, the state needs to fund some aspects of research and development that cannot be funded by the private sector.
There has been a failure properly to consult on the proposals. I disagree whole-heartedly with the suggestion by some members—I cannot remember which—that the correct procedure has been followed. If one is conducting a consultation, it is ignorant to act without allowing that to percolate through properly. That is an insult to those who participate in the consultation and a bad way of proceeding.
Why are we to have top-up fees? Is the intention to address a particular problem in medicine? That problem should be tackled not through an education bill, but as a health matter. The BMA and other organisations have proposed mechanisms for dealing with it. In dentistry, even the Executive is considering specific health-related measures to solve the problem that exists. It should not create a Trojan horse. Wording and nomenclature are important in legislation. Clearly, the wording in the bill is not restricted to medical courses. If the Executive had wanted to restrict the proposals in that way, it could have done so. It has left the door open for it to introduce more variable or top-up fees, which is simply outrageous.
The real scandal is the Lib Dem position. The Lib Dems oppose what is happening south of the border and say that they seek to emulate there what they have done here. We all know that their claim that tuition fees have been abolished is fraudulent. The levels of debt testify to the fact that that is not the case. Now they seek to impose on Scotland something that they say is morally wrong and regrettable south of the border. Yet again we face a shameless act by a Lib Dem minister.
As Alex Neil and others have said, the proposal to merge the funding councils originated from the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's inquiry into lifelong learning. If it has not quite been a long march since then, we have certainly gone through a lengthy consultation process. At times, that process was difficult and vexed, but we have stimulated important discussions on a number of key issues that face higher and further education. In my opinion, those have produced a strong piece of legislation that, if passed, will serve people in both sectors well over the coming years.
I must refer to the last remaining controversial issue in the bill, hopefully for the last time—unfortunately, I suspect that we have not heard the last of it. The suggestion that we are introducing English-style top-up fees in Scotland is ridiculous; more important, as my good friend and colleague Jim Wallace said, it is irresponsible and potentially damaging for students who need to make informed choices about the options for further study that are available to them.
In our proposals, there is no ability to vary fees by institution. The bill will not raise additional revenue for institutions. SNP members, in particular—although Bill Aitken's remarkable address seemed to handcuff him to them—either have failed totally to understand those facts or are intent on misrepresenting them. The powers will allow ministers to set a general fee level or, in exceptional circumstances, a different fee level for specific subjects, but only after full consultation and with the express approval of Parliament. In direct response to the concern that was expressed, we made provision for that to be done under the affirmative procedure. In a legislature, language is important. I would let down the Minister for Parliamentary Business if I did not make the point, which Sylvia Jackson and the Deputy First Minister made very effectively for me, that the procedure will not be super-affirmative but will involve additional consultation, which will be welcomed by all.
I have continually stated that the use of the powers should be limited. I make a commitment that, other than for medicine, we will not use these powers to differentiate for any other subject during this parliamentary session. What we are proposing is necessary to ensure that students who are ordinarily resident in Scotland continue to have fair access to opportunities to study in Scottish universities. I make no apology for that. Indeed, I am proud to make the commitment.
What can I say about the Tories? Other members and I are disappointed that they have chosen to take the stand they have in not supporting the motion. I am not sure which world Bill Aitken inhabits; it is certainly not one that I recognise. There seems to be an Aitkenesque view of the world that suggests that the way one addresses youth unemployment is by disbanding the new deal. That does not make sense in anybody else's world.
On parity of esteem, I agree with Murdo Fraser that merging the two councils will give us a more integrated view of lifelong learning by creating one strategic organisation to oversee the two major parts of the tertiary system in Scotland. That is a good thing, which will add to parity of esteem between different types of learning and learning providers, so why not take the next logical step and support the introduction of that measure? It is incredible that he will not do so.
I echo what the Deputy First Minister said in opening the debate by thanking those who have contributed, in particular colleagues on the Enterprise and Culture Committee for their careful and constructive consideration of the bill, and the wide range of organisations and stakeholders that have been closely involved throughout, including the NUS, the institutions and their representative organisations.
We believe that the bill will make important differences to our further and higher education sectors. It will give students access to the Scottish public services ombudsman and they will benefit from greater recognition of credit and qualification frameworks. Moreover, there will be more coherent links between further and higher education. The bill recognises the importance of academic freedom for staff who are involved in teaching, learning and research at our colleges and universities and, importantly, as Richard Baker said, it will give ministers, the Parliament and the Scottish public confidence that the record levels of investment in further and higher education are being used effectively to support Scotland's economy, culture and wider society.
As I am talking about record levels of investment, I will conclude by addressing the points made by Ms Hyslop. As everybody in the chamber knows, she has not been shy in issuing the odd press release slamming this or condemning that. However, I do not recall seeing any press release welcoming the record funding for Scotland's colleges and universities that was announced last September—more than £1.6 billion in total by the end of this spending review period. I also recall a press release about golden handcuffs, which seems to have died a death in the interim. I do not know about golden handcuffs, but a golden gag might be a good idea in Ms Hyslop's case. No press release welcomed the 11 per cent increase in young students bursaries that was announced in January or the changes in eligibility criteria allowing a 60 per cent increase in the number of those eligible for the maximum bursary.
I did not know whether to laugh or cry when Bill Aitken said that he would support Ms Hyslop's amendment. It should have been clear to him that this has only ever been about headlines for Hyslop, rather than about a genuine interest in the future of Scottish universities, colleges, students and staff. If the Tories want to handcuff themselves to that agenda, more fool them.
The bill marks an important step towards the vision of a high-quality, responsive, relevant, coherent system of lifelong learning in Scotland, set out in a lifelong strategy. I commend the bill to the Parliament and ask members to reject Ms Hyslop's amendment.