Further and Higher Education
Our next item of business is a statement by the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In my letter to you yesterday, I expressed concern about the volume of announcements in relation to the statement by the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning that have been made in the media before their notification to Parliament. You will recall that I raised that issue with you before the publication of the Cubie report, before the Christmas break. I was concerned by your reply, in which you said that the fault in this case did not lie directly with the Executive. Your letter continues:
"They did understandably wish to consult the Members in the 2 coalition groups to ascertain support, and regrettably I am informed that the leak occurred through this route."
With issues of such importance to student and higher education communities and given that we have waited a month to hear the Executive's response, would not it have been appropriate for the Executive to demonstrate greater courtesy to the Parliament in its handling of the matter, by guaranteeing that Parliament heard the conclusions of the Executive's response first?
As I indicated in my letter, I am constantly concerned if information from the Executive that should come to the Parliament is made public instead through the media. However, that did not happen on this occasion. As I have explained, the leak came through briefings between the Executive and the party groups of the coalition, which is not a matter for me. It is unfortunate that fellow members of the Parliament were incidentally responsible for leaking information to the press. However, I have read the statement by the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning; it contains a good deal more detail than has appeared elsewhere and I think that we should listen to it.
Before I call the minister, I want to make it clear that, as a motion has been lodged for the Parliament to decide today whether to have a debate on the issue tomorrow, questions on the statement must be questions, not debating speeches. The debate will come tomorrow. I call the minister to make his statement and afterwards we will have short, sharp questions.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I heard your reply to Mr Swinney's point of order. Yesterday, in the maelstrom of information on this matter, a journalist played me a tape on which the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong
Learning explained the process by which the journalist would be briefed on various matters in advance of today's statement. That strikes me as not just disrespectful to the Parliament, but premeditated.
As you know, it is normal practice for the media to be given a statement in advance so that they can edit it. However, they are not given it—or should not be given it—earlier than the spokespeople of the different parties. I do not know who has suggested that the media were given the statement earlier than that—if that has happened, that would be a matter of concern. However, as far as I am concerned, any mechanics of briefing are perfectly in order, as long as the briefing does not precede any courtesy to other MSPs.
We will now move on to the statement. I call Mr McLeish.
With your permission, Presiding Officer, I will make a statement on the partnership response to the Cubie committee proposals on student funding.
In our "Partnership for Scotland" document, the Executive agreed that it was our policy to widen access to further and higher education. Although higher education expanded rapidly over the early 1990s, the result was a continuing social divide.
More than half of youngsters and others from wealthy families go into higher education. Although we welcome such participation, we recognise that a national shame remains. The stark reality is that only 10 per cent of youngsters from our lowest income groups make their way into higher education. That legacy cannot last in a modern Scotland, and the situation must be improved if we are to deliver social justice and to build a knowledge economy for all Scotland's people.
Of course, concerns were raised about student fees and students' financial difficulties, which is why the independent committee of inquiry into student finance was established by Parliament last year. Its report set out some important guiding principles, which were widely endorsed in consultation and are fully in line with our intention to widen access to further and higher education and our general aim, supported by the Parliament, of achieving social justice.
Those principles suggested that student support should
"maximise opportunity for all"
to access high-quality lifelong learning, and
"promote social inclusion, the knowledge economy and an enhanced civil society".
The committee made 52 recommendations covering a wide range of matters that I will not cover today. I am sure that members are familiar with its main conclusions.
In our response, we followed the committee's guiding principles very closely. However, it was not constrained, as we were, by affordability. We had to judge the recommendations against the Executive's other priorities. We had to ensure that funding was available for the growing number of students over the coming years and for the quality of education to be maintained.
Our response is framed around a package of measures that are affordable, fair and focused. It is designed to widen access to higher education for groups that are currently under-represented and to promote lifelong learning through helping mature students. No student should have more debt at the end of his or her course than under the present scheme and many will have reduced debt.
Our main proposals are as follows. First, tuition fees should be abolished from this autumn. The Scottish Executive will make up the £42 million shortfall in university and college incomes. That is vital for continuity.
From 2001, access payments of up to £2,000 a year will be focused on students who need support most while studying—those from low-income groups. We have agreed that young students from low-income groups deserve and should have more support. Around 10,000 young students will receive an access payment of £2,000 a year. The combined payment and loan entitlement means that for those students there will be support while they are studying of £4,135 per year. Taking account of adjustments in loan entitlement, they will be better off when they most need support and also will have significantly reduced debts on graduation.
Approximately 5,000 further students will also benefit from improved support while studying. All other young students will have no more debt at graduation than at present, even taking into account the payment of the graduate endowment. Mature students will also benefit from a wider access bursary fund of £10 million, as well as their existing loan entitlement.
A graduate endowment will be established, to which graduates will contribute. It will help to fund more maintenance for student groups that are currently under-represented in higher education. The endowment will be set at £2,000. As an incentive to participation, those exempted from payment of the endowment will include mature students, lone parents, students with disabilities and students on higher national certificate or higher national diploma courses. That will bring the total of those exempt to 50 per cent.
Under the Cubie committee's proposals, all graduates would pay an endowment and some could have increased debt at the end of their course. We tackled that risk as a priority. We propose that mature students will be exempt and will all share in a £10 million bursary fund. Young students will pay the endowment, but no student will have more debt on graduation than they would have under the present arrangements. The committee's proposals included bursaries for students from families earning up to £23,000. We agree with that as a means to keep a graduate's debt down.
Most students will have less debt on graduation. Those from the least well-off families will get the greatest help through access payments. For example, young students from families earning under £10,000 will get £8,000 in non-repayable support over a four-year degree course. Even if they borrow the extra £2,000 in loan entitlement that we propose, taking the graduate endowment into account, they will still have £4,000 less debt than under the present scheme. Even those from middle-income groups, for example £20,000 a year, will see a marginal reduction in debt.
With that secure, our decision was that we should avoid the creation of a new body to collect the endowment. We propose to use the existing student loan system. Payments are income- related, so graduates will pay according to what they earn, not what they owe. Paying the endowment that way means that monthly payments will not be different from those under the current scheme; as we are keeping debt at least as low as at current levels, nobody will end up paying for a longer period.
Over the next few weeks, I will be meeting student groups, to explain to them how the system will work and what its advantages are.
We are putting more money into the further education sector. We will align the system with the higher education means test and weekly support levels, and ensure that full-time further education students have their fees paid.
We have not accepted the recommendation for an across-the-board increase in support levels. It cannot be afforded and we have chosen to target the increase at the least well-off. The parental contributions for some better-off families might increase, as against the current position, but all students will have a minimum loan entitlement of £750. That is in contrast to the Cubie committee's recommendation, which would have removed the loan entitlement completely for students from higher-income families.
We were aware that any scheme that paid the
fees of Scots students would also need to benefit European Union students in Scotland. We carefully considered whether it would be sensible to extend the arrangements to Scots who wished to study at universities or colleges elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We concluded, on the best information available, that there was a serious risk of successful challenge on the ground of discrimination against EU nationals attending UK institutions outwith Scotland. That advice applies to the committee's own recommendations and to any other schemes—from the Conservatives or from the Scottish National party—to pay tuition fees or bursaries to pay fees.
We stress that any Scottish student studying at a college or a university elsewhere in the UK would be no worse off than under present arrangements. A student from a low-income family would be exempt from fees and would not be required to contribute to the graduate endowment. On present figures, about 37 per cent of the 5,900 Scottish students studying in other parts of the UK are exempt from tuition fees.
Aside from the abolition of fees, the new arrangements will begin in 2001. As a result, around £50 million extra funding will go into student support in a full year. In this financial year—2000-01—the net cost will be about £18 million. The funds required for the new arrangements will have to be found from within the Scottish block. In the first instance, they will be sought from the funds of the enterprise and lifelong learning department. That necessarily will involve difficult choices.
We will respond fully to the committee's other recommendations in the spring. That will include further details of the way in which our proposals will be implemented. We will undertake information gathering, consultation and discussion with those who will be affected by, and will benefit from, those measures. We need to ensure fair transitional arrangements for students who are already studying. When we have done so, I will ask the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to consider my report.
The Cubie committee produced an excellent report. It set a new direction in student support and new principles that we can whole-heartedly endorse. In an ideal world, we could look at all of the committee's recommendations. However, our response has to take into account our other priorities. We have chosen the path that focuses resources on the groups that need them: the equity groups identified by the committee.
The committee's three main areas have been accepted: tuition fees will be abolished; bursaries, targeted at low-income students, will be introduced; and a graduate endowment will be introduced, to fund the support of future students.
In addition—and I wish to emphasise this—mature students, lone parents, disabled students and those taking HNCs and HNDs will be exempt from paying the graduate endowment. No student will have more debt at the end of their course and graduates will pay no more a month in loan and endowment than they do at present.
Our proposals are designed to meet our social values and the standards of our world-class higher education system. I commend them to the Scottish Parliament and to the people of Scotland.
I repeat that we can debate this matter tomorrow—we require short, sharp questions today.
I thank the minister for his statement and for his usual courtesy of making it available in advance.
First, will the minister comment on a constituency case that came to my attention at lunch time? My constituent told me that the Cubie report had seemed like a blessing to her, but that she no longer felt that way after the shabby deal that has been put together by the Executive. She is a Scotland-domiciled student, a formal pupil of Blairgowrie High School, who is now a first-year student at Loughborough University studying physical education, sports science and social science. That course is not available at a Scottish university. Does not my constituent have a legal case to raise against the Scottish Executive on the ground that her rights under the European convention on human rights have been undermined by the Executive's decision not to pay her fees, when the course of her choice is not available in Scotland?
Secondly, does the minister accept that all his points about the proposed deal being wonderful are comparisons with the discredited scheme that his Government introduced in 1997, for which he voted in the House of Commons?
Finally, will more or fewer people pay the full, new graduate endowment—the new tuition fees— than paid the old tuition fees in full?
With the greatest courtesy that I can muster towards John Swinney—who is also a very courteous man—I am not convinced that he listened to my statement.
We are saying that if mature students, lone parents, disabled students and those who are studying for HNCs and HNDs are considered, 50 per cent of students will be exempt. David McLetchie is shaking his head, but the current figures show that less than 50 per cent—about 47 per cent—do not pay tuition fees. The simple answer to Mr Swinney's final question is that fewer people will pay the graduate contribution than pay tuition fees. [MEMBERS: "What about the other
questions?"] The debate will take place tomorrow.
It is fascinating to examine some of the comments made by David McLetchie yesterday—
Answer my questions.
This is an important point, and no amount of guffawing from Opposition members will shift me from giving an exposition of the true picture. Some of the Opposition's ill-informed remarks yesterday were characterised by a failure to absorb what was being said.
I was asked whether more or fewer people would pay the graduate endowment than currently pay tuition fees—[MEMBERS: "Answer the questions."] That was Mr Swinney's final question. Secondly—
What about the other questions?
Alex Salmond can add up. I think that Mr Swinney asked three questions—
What about his constituent?
Mr Salmond is getting very upset and excited. If he will calm down, I will take him through the three questions.
In John Swinney's first question, he made a number of sweeping assertions in relation to a young woman who is doing a course in the south. Under the set-up and arrangements that we have announced, she will be no worse off and no better off. It is also important to note that she might qualify for non-payment of tuition fees, if her income level dictates. There is no point in Mr Swinney pretending that his question goes to the heart of the matter, when the matter is hedged by many considerations.
Mr Swinney also asked about the scheme that was introduced in 1997, which he alleged had been discredited. One of the good things about the Cubie proposals was that the committee took a mature, sensible, modern view of where Scottish higher education funding would be going in the 21st century. The SNP, however, is time-warped in the past; it will acknowledge nothing that takes us forward. Until SNP members start to understand and absorb, they will not be in a position to ask the serious questions that we expect from serious political parties in the chamber.
I, too, thank the minister for making his statement available prior to our opportunity to ask questions, although I cannot say that the statement shed a great deal of light on what I heard and read yesterday.
I would like to welcome the minister's announcement that nearly 50 per cent of students will be exempt from the rear-end tuition tax that he is introducing. I am saddened only that the minister has not found it possible to exempt the other 50 per cent of students.
Will the minister publish the legal advice that he has received, which indicates that European law would forbid the Scottish Executive from abolishing the tuition fees of Scottish students studying in other parts of the UK? We should be able to see that.
Does the minister agree that, under his proposals, 57 per cent of students moving from school to university in Scotland will have less money available to them while studying? Does he agree that, under his proposals, a student whose parents are both manual workers earning the average wage for Scottish manual workers will be approximately £500 a year worse off while at university?
Finally, does the minister agree that this coalition con trick could have been cobbled together without the £700,000 expense of the Cubie committee, which raised the expectations of many people in Scotland, only for those expectations to be dashed by the three degrees, Blair, Brown and Blunkett?
I will ignore that political comment and address the first point. There seems to be a fundamental confusion in the mind of Brian Monteith. We are establishing a graduate endowment. Fifty per cent of students will not pay that endowment. The Conservatives ask why we do not make that figure 100 per cent. However, Brian missed the serious point—we are abolishing tuition fees. That is the only objective of the Conservative party. He must realise that we are abolishing tuition fees. Surely praise is deserved for that.
On the second issue, it is not the custom or practice of the Government at Westminster or the Executive in Scotland to publish legal advice. We are presenting to the chamber the information that we have on our proposals, and it is based on the best legal advice that is available. However, Opposition parties must realise the important issue. Of course, like other parties, we wanted the new package to extend to students who attend any university in the UK and who are domiciled in Scotland, but that has not been possible. It would have been dishonest and would have raised false expectations if we had come to the chamber with anything other than an unequivocal statement on how we will proceed.
The third question was about whether a particular group would be £500 worse off. Again, I have no idea how Brian concocted the figures. If the comments that were made overnight are anything to go by, I would rather see the figures before I comment on them.
I will finish with one point about the law. The
question that was asked about the law had as its premise the fact that the questioner saw a problem with what we are proposing. Interestingly, the Conservative contribution to Mr Cubie's inquiry stated:
"The operation of two different schemes within the UK is perfectly feasible as is the operation of two different types of tuition fee . . . schemes as proposed by the majority of respondents . . . If the rest of the UK were not to follow our lead then it would be relatively simple for the Student Loans Company".
Are the Conservatives concerned that there will be two systems; do they remain committed to one system? Make up your mind, Brian.
We want a system that is fair to all Scottish students.
Order. Sixteen members wish to ask questions, so if we can have short exchanges, I will extend the time a little to allow in as many members as possible.
On behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I welcome the minister's statement. I wish to raise two points with him. The first concerns the funding of students from Scotland who go to English universities. If the Opposition comes forward with a solution to the legal impediment that stands in the way of funding such students, will the minister confirm that the Executive will look at any sensible proposition? Indeed, if the Opposition has a sensible solution, will the minister confirm that we will look at it and act on it, if it can be done?
Secondly, does the minister agree that without the partnership Government in Scotland, there would be no Cubie, no abolition of tuition fees and no grant scheme introducing up to £8,000 of extra support for students?
I point out to George Lyon that, in the first instance, we wanted a UK-based scheme for Scotland-domiciled students. That is still the case, but there is outstanding legal advice that prevents us from implementing it. On the other hand, other options could be considered. The Conservatives and the SNP have refused point-blank to address the fact that the same issue applies to their schemes. We would like members from other parts of the chamber to contribute a bit of wisdom to the problem.
The political challenge on tuition fees, issued on 6 May, has been accepted and, from the autumn, tuition fees will be abolished. More important, we have turned the situation into an educational opportunity that ensures that, thanks to the partnership, young people from the lowest income groups in Scotland will have a much fairer deal.
Will the minister tell us whether Scottish students studying in England whose family incomes would make them eligible for the new access bursaries, were they to study in Scotland, will still be eligible for such support?
We have received initial comments from a number of organisations, including the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals, and students. We want to take further consultation on the issue, which is extraordinarily complex.
We are talking about the conjunction of two systems. One system will operate down south with tuition fees and exemptions. In Scotland, there will be a new graduate endowment. It is reasonable for Scottish students domiciled in Scotland who attend UK universities to ask whether the issue of hardship and bursary provision can be addressed.
I give an undertaking to the chamber and to all political parties that we will consult on the matter.
I realise that it is not my job to provide answers, but George Lyon asked for a legal settlement to Henry McLeish's dilemma. I have the answer—it is called independence. [Laughter.]
Order. May we have a question, please? [Interruption.]
Please tell those bad boys to be quiet. They are terrible.
Let us have a question, Margo.
Can the minister explain which factors guided the Executive's decision to abandon Cubie's relatively fair idea that graduates should start paying back their tuition fees only once they could afford to do so, and instead to go for a scheme under which people earning poverty wages—working in McJobs—will be asked to start coughing up once they earn £10,000? Those people will already be paying for loans and having to meet the new demands of rent. Why did the minister go for a more unfair system?
I am quite happy to discuss the implications of independence for our students, but the first consequence of such a settlement would be that 20,000 English students would become 20,000 foreign EU nationals, the bill for which would have to be picked up by the SNP if it was ever to get into power. That is a small practical dimension that the SNP has overlooked so far. We await further comments from its members.
Margo MacDonald makes a point about the £10,000 threshold. The crucial point is the statement that, under our scheme, no one will incur more debt at the end of their time at university or another higher education institution.
To give an example, if someone earns £15,000,
they will pay 9 per cent of the difference between £15,000 and £10,000. There will be no increase in debt—in practice, they will pay no more, for no longer a period. That is connected with the interesting things that we have done with graduate endowments, loans and bursaries. I advise Margo and some of her colleagues to read a bit more deeply into what we are doing. If they did, they would see that the proposals are a very attractive proposition for students when they graduate.
I call Malcolm Chisholm.
I had actually turned my light off because my question had been answered. However, I welcome what Henry McLeish said about investigating the matter of bursaries for Scottish students who go to English universities.
Members do not have to ask questions if they do not want to.
For many students who live in the south of Scotland, geography, and not academic choice, means that they attend a university in the north of England. For someone from a community such as Langholm who wants to attend university in Dumfries, transport links mean having to travel to Carlisle before coming back to Dumfries. Henry McLeish's proposals are therefore extremely discriminatory against students who live close to the border.
Will the minister undertake to apply the same amount of attention as he appears to have applied to saving the coalition to coming up with some sort of scheme that will allow those students to continue—where social and transport necessities require it—to study where they are currently studying, without being discriminated against in favour of students who, although living next door and studying in Scotland, are studying further afield?
I do not want to inject a political point, but the Conservative response to the Cubie inquiry stated:
"One of the most obvious difficulties with such radical reform of the student loans scheme, especially for a Unionist Party like ourselves, is the removal of a level playing field throughout the UK."
It went on to say:
"We have no great difficulty with this".
While acknowledging that as a courteous point, we must point out that students who are domiciled in Scotland and who attend English universities will be no better and no worse off. As I said earlier, we wanted to have a UK-wide solution to the problem, but under European Union obligations and on legal advice, that was simply not possible.
First, will the minister show some proper humility and take this opportunity to apologise to the students of Scotland, the parents of the students of Scotland, and everyone in Scotland, for abolishing grants and imposing tuition fees in the first place? Now that he has obviously seen the light, will he apologise?
What the minister has introduced today is a poverty tax on students who earn £10,000. It is a cruel con, on the one hand, to offer an access fund of £2,000, but, on the other hand, to take £2,000 away from someone on a poverty income of only £10,000.
Will the minister provide, if not now, before tomorrow's debate, detailed figures for those he alleges will be better off, in terms of student debt, compared with those whose debt will be the same, or just as bad?
Before tomorrow's debate, detailed figures will be published showing the impact on different income groups in Scotland. A comparison will be given with figures under the Cubie proposals.
I will not apologise, Tommy. I want every student in Scotland, and every family, to look at the harsh realities that have developed over the past seven months over this issue. We have come up with a package of proposals that addresses the issues of hardship and widening access. I hope that Tommy Sheridan will agree when I say that it is not good that only 10 per cent of social classes 4 and 5 attend university. That figure should be much higher.
If we are talking about democratic socialism and widening access, we need no lectures from fringe parties. The kernel of the report that we are putting forward is widening access and ensuring that we abolish tuition fees, as Tommy wanted. At the end of the day, we have a package that rings true, because we have addressed the issues that matter to Scotland, not the theoretical considerations of either the nationalists or the Conservatives.
Does the minister agree that comments on the issue sometimes seem to suggest that the only area of higher and further education that we should be concerned with is the university sector? While acknowledging the importance of the university sector, will he comment on the differences that the deal will make for students in the further education sector and for further education colleges?
The deal is a huge boost for further education, which has for far too long been the cinderella of lifelong learning in Scotland. As far as the Executive is concerned, that is now
over. Further education plays a vital part in our industry and for our society, and we want to recognise that. That is why mature students, who represent 30 per cent of students, will not pay the graduate endowment.
Lone parents, people with disabilities and those who study for HNCs and HNDs are the people in further education who will benefit from the new proposals. They will also benefit from the £10 million mature access bursary that is to be administered by the universities. Young people who fall into those categories will also benefit because, if their household income is less than £10,000, their loan entitlement will be enhanced and the amount of their bursary increased.
This is a major step forward for further education and I welcome my colleague's comments.
I draw the minister's attention to the two contrasting cases of Ciara Wigham of Cornhill-on- Tweed in England—it has a Scottish postcode— whose two main university choices are in Scotland and who will be liable for tuition fees, and her friend Catherine Robson of Coldstream, Scotland, whose principal choices are English universities and who is now under pressure to study here. Both are pupils at Berwick-upon-Tweed County High School. Does the minister think that the fudge concocted from the ingredients of Cubie is fair to either of those young women?
The scheme that we are announcing for Scottish students domiciled in Scotland and attending Scottish universities is being put forward. We have also pointed out that no student currently going south to university will be in a different situation from the one that they are in at the moment; they will not lose and they will not gain.
When one starts, from an SNP perspective, to mess around with the border, one will quickly translate that situation into the kind of issue that I posed earlier. Under independence, the English— who are much the focus of the SNP—would become European Union nationals, and thus foreign nationals, in our university system. The SNP will not address that issue, but we have proposed a scheme that complies with our EU obligations.
Will the minister confirm that the main reason for the linkage to the £10,000 level is the administrative arrangements linked to the student loans fund? Will he make representations to the United Kingdom Government to consider raising that level? Will he further confirm that the £2,000 access payment available under the coalition proposals is four times greater than the miserable £500 offered by the SNP in its manifesto?
We think that the £10,000 level is imaginative, as it removes the need for another administrative burden. It is important that we spell out that message throughout Scotland.
Robert Brown mentioned the SNP bursary, but the great thing about the SNP is that its policies change. The bursary was £500 on 6 May 1999. In the SNP submission, that figure has risen to £1,500 to cover 66 per cent of the student population. My submission is that it is sheer irresponsibility to raise expectations among the student population and cruelly fail to work out the sums. The SNP has no concern at all about what the impact of its proposals might be. In comparison, our scheme is well thought through, targets hardship, abolishes tuition fees and does not incur a cost of £105 million for additional resources.
The minister kept referring in his statement today to "our scheme", as if to imply that tuition fees and the abolition of student grants were the work of another political party. Will he confirm that his statement today represents a total U-turn on the position in the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998? Does the Executive accept the verdict of Andrew Cubie that the present arrangements for student funding, the tuition fees introduced by his party, are totally discredited?
If the Cubie proposals are, in the minister's words earlier, so mature and sensible, why does the statement today bear no relation to them?
Many words come to mind in response to that question, but I shall remain courteous and polite.
There is no point in making cheap jibes about further and higher education. Today, we are reinforcing and cementing student funding in those great institutions. It is useful to remind the SNP that, over the three years of the comprehensive spending review, we are spending an extra £500 million to increase the number of students in Scotland by 42,500, improve the infrastructure of higher and further education and provide the quality that has been sadly lacking in previous years.
Nicola Sturgeon will have to appreciate that the students of Scotland want to live on the substance of increased bursaries at the lower end. We are saying that, under the £10,000 threshold, they will have more money in their pocket than now or with Cubie. They will have less indebtedness than now or with Cubie. This is a package that we can be proud of, and the Parliament should support it.
Nicola advocated the abolition of tuition fees. Why does no Opposition member stand up and say thank you? We have achieved the abolition of tuition fees. [Applause.]
On that cheerful note, we will move on.
I allowed that statement to run nine minutes over time, because of its importance and the large number of members who wanted to be called. Half a dozen members still wish to be called; their names have been noted for the debate tomorrow.
We will now move on to the second ministerial statement.