Further and Higher Education
Resumed debate.
In the space of four minutes, I will be able to address three points. I would first like to mention something that has not come up in the debate—the lack of commitment to implementation of the other recommendations of the Cubie committee. I say that particularly in respect of benefit entitlement for students.
When the minister began his statement yesterday, he made it clear that the Executive would consider such matters—[Interruption.]
Order. Members leaving the chamber must do so quickly and without conducting consultations and conversations.
When the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning made his statement, he said that he hoped to make a further statement in the spring on the other recommendations in the Cubie report. Yesterday, however, in the Edinburgh Evening News, the First Minister was quoted as saying that the Scottish Cabinet had no intention of referring the other recommendations on student benefits to the UK Government. I ask the minister to make it clear when he sums up that that is not the Executive's position and that the Executive's position is, as was stated yesterday, that it will take up the recommendations of the Cubie committee on benefit entitlement and other related issues.
I hope that the Executive will, through the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and the joint ministerial committee of this and the other Parliaments of the UK, examine implementation of the other proposals in the Cubie report. I say that with particular reference to the restoration of benefit entitlement to students during the summer vacation if they cannot get work. The recommendation that there should be a £1,500 child care allowance for lone parents and the recommendations on benefit safeguards for full- time mature students should also be implemented.
When we talk about the student population, we often think of it as consisting of young people only. A college principal told me the other day that the average age of a student in his college is 37 or 38. The position of mature students is extremely important. We must get a commitment from the Executive that the other recommendations will be examined seriously, and that their implementation will be pursued here and at Westminster.
I would also like to deal with the deferred tuition tax, which raises two poverty issues. One is student poverty, on which we rightly focused this morning. The second is graduate poverty. As Margo MacDonald pointed out, the kinds of work that graduates are landed with are low-paid, poverty-wage jobs in McDonald's and elsewhere.
The deferred tuition tax is an attack on the living standards of graduates who have low incomes. Their total tax liability will be 25 per cent higher as a result of having to pay the deferred tuition tax than it would otherwise be. For somebody who earns between £10,000 and £15,000, that is substantial taxation. When members of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee consider these proposals in detail, I ask them to address that issue and to examine ways of changing the approach. It is clear that the change in the threshold from £17,000 to £10,000 will condemn many more people to poverty after they have graduated. As Tommy Sheridan pointed out, £10,000 is well below the poverty income level that ministers have referred to more than once.
My third point is that, if Scotland were independent, we would have to pay for the 20,000 English students who study at Scottish universities—the Lib Dems are making a big issue of that. As a nationalist and an internationalist, I say that we would be delighted to fund 20,000 English students at Scottish universities, at a cost of just under £10 million. However, that is not a cost—it is an investment. Unlike those of a kailyard mentality on the Lib-Lab benches, we want to see Scotland's universities welcome students from all over Europe, in the same way as the Irish, who have just abolished tuition fees, welcome Scots, English and other European students.
Will the member give way?
Unfortunately, I am summing up, although I am always keen to give way to Keith Raffan.
Give way to Mr Raffan.
I have told Mr Raffan that I am summing up.
I will allow you to take one intervention, Mr Neil.
The SNP manifesto, which is my favourite reading, refers not just to Scotland- domiciled students, but to those who study "furth of Scotland". Mr Neil used the phrase "furth of Scotland" in the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee yesterday to include even those countries beyond UK shores, covering
Europe, north America and so on. Is he prepared to pay the tuition fees of Scottish students worldwide?
You may address that intervention, Mr Neil, and then wind up your speech.
We have used good examples in our questions, but we have not received answers. This morning, Bruce Crawford cited the example of a student going to the University of St Andrews for the first three years of a course and then to Manchester for the next two or three years. Of course, we would have to pay for that student. If Scottish students have to go furth of Scotland or furth of the UK to get a proper education, they are entitled to do so. If education is free— [Interruption.] I do not know of any course that is available in California that is not available in Scotland or in other parts of the UK.
Let me sum up with these three points, which are bad news for the Lib Dems. First, through the deferred tuition tax, the Executive is condemning graduates and students to poverty. Secondly, the Executive must make a commitment to implement the rest of the Cubie recommendations. Thirdly, let us be proud to be internationalists and to welcome students to Scotland from all over Europe.
As usual, Alex Neil has given us cauld kail.
I will concentrate on the impact of the Executive's proposals on the barriers to entry to further and higher education. Listening to some of the Opposition speeches, one might get the impression that, under the present arrangements, all Scottish students pay tuition fees and that the abolition of tuition fees has been the single most important issue for students in Scottish higher education.
As one who worked in the sector for the past 20 years, I know that that is not the case—a cursory reading of the Cubie report confirms that conclusion. At the university at which I was employed until last May, almost 40 per cent of students paid no tuition fees. A further 30 per cent paid part fees and the remainder, approximately 35 per cent, paid the full amount. There was some evidence that, initially, the fee structure was a barrier to entry, but modifications to the system, which increased both the thresholds and the taper on which liability to pay was calculated, dealt with most of the difficulties.
The Opposition parties—and even our coalition partners—concentrated on fees during the election campaign, wrongly, in my view. The biggest real barrier to participation in higher and further
education lies in the removal of student support, which, as was noted this morning, was one of the more shameful acts of the Tory Administrations during those 18 years of darkness and chaos.
Will the member give way?
The Tories spent 18 years shortchanging students and the higher education system. It is entirely consistent that their only constant theme in this debate has been that tuition fees should be abolished—a policy aimed squarely at the better off. Privately, many Tories think that access to universities should be confined to the sons and daughters of the better off. A free system of higher education for the better off would compensate for the costs borne by those who opt their children out of state education at primary and secondary level. Their arguments deserve to be treated with contempt, because they are promoting a principle in which they do not believe.
Let me be explicit about where I think we should stand. If we want a mass higher education system—as I strongly believe we must—to equip our people with the skills that they need to achieve their full potential and to promote our prosperity as a nation, those who benefit must expect to pay. It is manifestly unfair to expect those who do not benefit from higher education to share in underwriting the full costs of higher education for those who do.
In my view, fees were not the best method of collecting that contribution, because the payment anticipated the benefit. Moreover, the confusion about how much people might have been expected to pay dissuaded some people— especially people whose income was limited— from entering higher education, even though they might have been exempt from fees or liable to pay a reduced amount.
Will the member give way?
Perhaps Mr Swinney wants to apologise for confusing people.
I am apologising for nothing. I would like Mr McNulty to clarify one point for me. Will more people pay the new deferred tuition fee than paid the old full tuition fee?
The real barrier to entry has never been fees; it has been the financial plight that students were plunged into by the removal of maintenance support.
Answer the question.
Is the answer coming? Shall I wait?
I will come to it. The impact of the removal of maintenance support was felt by those with the fewest resources to call on—those from less well-off families, those with responsibilities for children, and mature students with no parental support. Those are the people who suffered the greatest hardship.
The Executive's proposal directly addresses those areas of disadvantage; that fact, rather than the abolition of tuition fees, is its greatest virtue. The targeting of resources and the creation of new entitlements to support to replace discretionary funding for access are greatly to be welcomed. To answer Mr Swinney's question, there is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of students in Scotland will benefit, and that the poorest students will benefit most of all.
Will the member give way?
Let me finish. The SNP is very fond of using comparisons between Scotland and independent nations and disparaging our country to its own political advantage. Can SNP members provide us with an example of a country anywhere in Europe that provides an equivalent or better package of student support in the context of participation rates in higher education in excess of 40 per cent? Can they do it? They have not mentioned one example.
This package will secure widespread support from students and from those who work in higher education, because it is a fairer system than what has gone before. It is a package that is already attracting envious glances from people south of the border, who see the improvements in our arrangements compared with those that will continue to operate down there. John Swinney is opposing a better deal for students in further and higher education in Scotland. I see that deal as a considerable achievement. If we are honest, we will admit that that is how the rest of the world will see it.
Like Des McNulty, I was a lecturer this time last year and had a long queue of students outside my door who were suffering because of poverty, working too many hours and not being able to study. We ought to have something in common.
Most of today's debate has concentrated on finance, but I am more concerned about standards of education, which are affected by student hardship. I know that in recent years many students have been working more than 40 hours a week in pubs and supermarkets. That results in coursework being handed in late, students having less time to research and study, and a lower standard of work. We should not divorce student hardship from standards in education.
I would like to widen the debate to cover funding and to acknowledge that 48 out of 53 colleges of further education in Scotland are facing serious financial deficits. The college that I worked at in Inverness is facing a deficit of around £6 million. Since Labour came to power, the number of courses and lecturers has been cut.
When is a tuition fee not a tuition fee—when it has to be paid at the beginning of the course, or when it has to be paid at the end of the course? Many students have to use student loans to pay for tuition fees; they pay back the money when they finish their course. That is no different from what is being offered today. Anyone who says that, because one pays at the end rather than at the beginning, the charge is not a tuition fee, is certainly naive and perhaps economical with the truth.
In the first year of the Labour Government, the maintenance grant was reduced from £1,700 to £700 and travel expenses for students were slashed from 70 per cent of standard rail or bus fares to £2 to £3 a day. In a triple whammy, tuition fees were introduced.
Will the member give way?
No.
We are comparing today's proposals not with the situation in 1997, but with the draconian measures that Labour has imposed since it came to power in 1997.
HNC and HND students are exempt from the endowment. All the HNC and HND courses that I taught—accounting, business administration and so on—articulated to a degree course. Will it be the case that students will have the first two years of study free but, when they enter a third year to convert an HND into a bachelor of arts degree, will have to pay £2,000 because they are now degree students? Having spoken about that question to many colleagues in the sector last night, I think that the minister must answer. If it is the case, it creates a disincentive to students going from two years of education into a third year. It also leads one to question whether 50 per cent of students are exempt.
The University of Abertay Dundee, where I have also lectured, has moved away from offering HNC and HND qualifications. Students leaving at the end of first year are now offered a certificate in higher education and those leaving at the end of second year get a diploma in higher education. Those qualifications are identical to an HNC and HND respectively. Will the minister discriminate against students taking courses leading to the certificate or diploma in higher education, or will those students also be exempted from paying the endowment?
Another matter that puzzles me is the question of English students who come to study in Scotland and then remain here. If an English student decides at the beginning of his course that he will be domiciled in Scotland, will he have to pay his fees up front, or will he be eligible to pay the endowment fee at the end? When is an English student a Scottish student? Many English students came as far north as Inverness College and then did not go back.
Finally, I note that the access bursary scheme will be similar to the present access arrangements. I would be delighted if that were not the case. My experience of access funds is that they do not reward students who manage their finances well and that they put people off—students face extensive questioning about their personal finances. Assertive students benefited more from access funds than shier ones did, who did not want to undergo that form of scrutiny.
I hope that the minister will answer the serious questions that I have raised, which are based on experience.
I welcome the minister's announcement of the abolition of tuition fees. Members are aware that not everybody paid tuition fees: some students were exempt and some had partial exemption. However, there was a perception that everybody did pay, which was used to deter people from applying for courses.
For that reason, we must all welcome the fact that the partnership has put together a package that means that tuition fees have now been abolished. If this Parliament is to be able to make decisions in response to the people of Scotland, accusations of U-turns are, at the very least, unhelpful.
Like many members, I have had discussions with students and others working in the provision of higher and further education. A major area of concern was not just tuition fees, but the hardship that students face in dealing with living costs. I welcome the bursaries that will become available.
Will Mary Mulligan answer the question that Des McNulty refused to answer when it was posed by John Swinney—whether more students or fewer students will pay the new deferred tuition fee than paid the old up-front tuition fee? It is a simple question that requires a simple answer.
I have never known Nicola Sturgeon to ask a simple question.
I have never known Mary Mulligan to give a simple answer.
As the minister said, under the new scheme, no student will be worse off.
That was not the question.
Last November, I was honoured to be asked by West Lothian College to make awards to the students there. Many of them were successful, hard-working mature students who were taking this Parliament at its word—they believe that education is for all ages. As Henry McLeish said, a mature student will now be able to take a loan of up to £14,000 and a bursary of £8,000. That will provide mature students, particularly if they have other responsibilities, with an income that will sustain them during their studies. The fact that mature students, single parents, disabled students and those studying for HND and HNC qualifications—which Mary Scanlon mentioned—will not have to pay the graduate endowment is also to be warmly welcomed and is a great incentive to people to return to study.
I was a little concerned, however, about something else that the minister mentioned this morning—the fact that means-testing has not been reviewed for a long time. I hope that that issue will be addressed in the coming period. All of us must be aware of the inequities that arose under the old grants scheme and that persist even now with the loans system. We must ensure that those students who are most in need of assistance get the most assistance.
In conclusion, I welcome the package that the minister has announced. Not only does it abolish tuition fees; it addresses the question of support for living costs for those who most need it. Most important, it ensures an income to further and higher education institutions, from the graduate endowment and from the additional £50 million that the Executive has committed. I welcome the proposals and I hope that other members can look beyond what may initially have been party political stances to recognise that this is a good package that has been put together in good faith.
Far be it from me to be party political.
I want to address the failure to abolish fees for Scottish students at English universities. I am sorry that none of the Executive's legal beagles is here, because with due respect—and the minister must know that he is in difficulties when I say that—the Executive's European position seems to me to be a bit muddled. The Executive seems not to know its European Community law from its European convention on human rights law, so I shall explain the difference.
European Community law binds the 15 member states and is supranational in nature. The prohibition of discrimination on the basis of nationality is covered by article 12 of the EC treaty; the internal arrangements of member states, such as Scotland and England, are irrelevant. That puts European Community law out the way; one cannot discriminate under that.
The muddled thinking continues because the Executive may be prepared to make payments of bursaries to those same cross-border students— Scottish students going to England. Let us consider that. Having disposed of European Community law, let us consider the completely separate matter of the European convention on human rights, drawn up by the Council of Europe, which has 41 members. The convention is not yet incorporated into United Kingdom domestic law, although it will be. It is, as we know, incorporated into Scots law through the Scotland Act 1998. We are a testing ground, as the Ruddle case proved. I have a feeling that Ruddle has frightened the wits out of the Executive so that it is not looking properly at how the European convention on human rights operates. I wonder whether Executive lawyers are even considering it at all.
Let us consider article 2 of the European convention on human rights, as amended by protocol 11:
"No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions."
That is the wording of the article. Can we just address those issues?
Will Christine Grahame confirm that the SNP position on this matter is that, under article 12, it is permissible for the United Kingdom to discriminate against people within that member state?
Can we clarify what is meant by member state? I am talking about independent members of the European Union, between which such measures are not permissible. However, within member states— such as Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales—such a measure is permissible. I hope that that is a wee legal lesson for the minister.
First, are not Scottish students at English further education universities—a situation which many Borders people find themselves in—being discriminated against in having to pay their tuition fees? Is not that in contravention of their rights under the European convention on human rights?
Secondly, would not payment of bursaries, which the Executive is trailing, to Scottish students
at English universities also be a contravention of the ECHR? The Executive says that it cannot pay because that would contravene European law. It should make it clear when it is talking about the ECHR.
It is essential that the Executive produces its legal opinion. That would not only be helpful; it is the right of this Parliament to have it. I lodged a number of questions on the legal advice in the Ruddle case, and it took the Executive five months to tell me that it could not answer the questions because the advice was given to the previous Administration, despite the fact that it was the same Lord Advocate. The Executive is in a panic about its legal advice. It is fearful that we will find something in it.
There are many legal problems that the Executive has not addressed. Is the levy on foreign students a tax? How will it be levied? How will residence be defined? Foreign students can have dual nationality. How will the money be collected? We have not been given answers to those questions. Let us see the Executive's legal advice for ourselves, otherwise I will suspect that all is not well and that, as usual, the Executive is finding it easier to obfuscate and to blame Europe.
I am happy to give vigorous support to this package, which ends tuition fees and reintroduces maintenance grants, or bursaries. No one has leant on me or offered me a motor car. Like all the other Liberal Democrats, I have had to confront my conscience and study carefully whether I felt that this student support package, which includes an endowment contribution from some graduates, in any way constituted deferred fees. I am clear that it does not, as I will explain in a moment.
Although I think that it is right to criticise the Executive when it deserves it, it is equally right to praise it when it gets things right. I whole-heartedly praise the Executive for its conduct on this matter in recent weeks. It is no secret that I felt that the matter was not handled well in May, but the Cubie committee—whatever its genesis—did a good job, and since then the negotiations have shown how a coalition can be conducted in an adult and constructive fashion. Liberal Democrat members of the Executive listened carefully to the serious concerns of Liberal Democrat MSPs, related them to the Executive, and influenced the result.
Even more commendable is the fact that the Labour party accepted that it would have to change some of its policies. That is difficult for a party to do, but unless we do it every now and then, we will make no progress at all. We would still be supporting stagecoaches—those with horses, not engines.
The Labour party recognised that there should be a change. I think that is to be commended. It is worth pointing out, when there are conversions, that St Paul was, after his conversion, the most effective of the apostles.
Will Donald Gorrie give way?
No, I want to make some points. We have heard enough from the SNP today.
The attitude of the Executive during the past few weeks contrasts sharply with the carping speeches made by the two Opposition parties, especially the speeches made by the two shadow ministers for mendacious and gratuitous abuse. One already well established in that role is David McLetchie; the other—regrettably joining him—is John Swinney.
Why do I believe that tuition fees are ending and not becoming deferred fees? First, they are ending this year as a free-standing exercise. There may be some huge economic, political or other shemozzle, which means that chaos descends and we never manage to put together this package of student support. It is quite possible that tuition fees will end but that the rest of the package will not to come into effect. I am not suggesting that that will happen; I am suggesting merely that that is possible.
Secondly, 50 per cent of the students will not pay any of this endowment fund. What sort of graduate deferred fee is it if 50 per cent of students do not pay it at all?
Thirdly, the endowment fund is specifically directed to paying bursaries for poorer students in the future. That is a clear commitment. The fund is in no way to do with fees. It represents the only way, in our very restricted financial circumstances, of funding adequate support for mature students and poor students from poor families.
Lastly, the graduate contribution is £2,000. What sort of repayment is it if a person borrows £3,000 from the bank and the bank says, "That is fine, but you will have only to repay £2,000"? It is clear that the graduate contribution is quite different from a loan.
On all those grounds, the argument that the deal is about deferred fees does not stack up. I am very happy to support the package, especially the ending of tuition fees, which is what the Liberal Democrats pledged to achieve. We have made a good start in funding poorer students. There is work to be done and detail to be sorted out. The whole package is not 100 per cent satisfactory—it never could be—but we have made a good start and I am very happy to support it.
There have been a number of appeals today not to be party political about this matter. I do not think that it is possible to remain neutral on an issue that requires us to look at the bigger picture.
The new Labour part of the Executive, at the least, wishes us to give it credit for the deal, which has been cobbled together to keep the coalition intact. Despite the fiasco that we have gone through, with the Cubie inquiry and its months of evidence taking, only for the majority of its recommendations then to be thrown out, there is still no recognition from new Labour members that fees did not fall from the sky. The Labour Government introduced fees in 1997. Labour now says that it wishes to abolish them; perhaps it deserves credit for that, but it should also apologise for imposing them.
The Executive says that it wishes to seek credit because it will introduce an access fund, which will be targeted. I will come to targeting in a moment. It is the type of targeting that means that we would have to employ Robin Hood so that we could target properly.
It was Labour that abolished grants in the first place in 1997. The Tories, over 18 years, underfunded and attacked higher education, but there was still the semblance of a grant of £1,700 when Labour came into power. Labour immediately reduced it to £750 and then removed it completely. Today, Labour wants credit for bringing back an access fund that will be targeted.
I have in front of me Wendy Alexander's letter, in which she tells me that the official poverty line in Britain is set at 50 per cent of average income. For an average family of two, that works out at £223 per week, which is £10,704 per annum. In other words, only those who are below the official poverty line will qualify for the full access fund. I hope that the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will address that in his reply.
It is sad that so many of the new Labour members used to believe in what I still believe in— free education, where those genuinely in need of support get it, and have access to higher education.
Cubie wanted to set the qualification at incomes of £17,000; that would have been fairer than setting it at £10,000. To pay for free education, we should introduce proper, direct, progressive taxation. A number of new Labour members used to believe in that as well. They cannot have it both ways. They talk about what we can and cannot afford—we cannot afford a decent grant set at university costs of £6,000 per annum; we cannot afford to reintroduce income support or housing benefit for students; and we cannot afford a child care access fund.
We cannot afford all those things, yet in 1981 when I and a number of other members—although they are not here today—were in higher education, we got a grant and were able to claim housing benefit and income support. That was in 1981, in the middle of a worldwide recession with high unemployment, inflation and interest rates. Today, as we heard earlier, we have the lowest unemployment in 24 years, low inflation and low interest rates—in other words, a healthy economy. How can the Government explain to the people of Scotland that when the economy was unhealthy, we could afford free education, but with an apparently healthy economy, we cannot afford free education?
The Government's whole philosophy is designed to enrich those who are already rich at the cost of the very poorest members of our society.
Des did not take my intervention, but I will take his.
I ask Tommy to compare the percentage of people in higher education in 1981 with the percentage of people who benefit from higher education now, and to see how it fits his equation.
After the member has answered that, please begin to wind up.
No problem, Des. There has been a massive increase in the number of people in higher education, partly as a consequence of the destruction of our manufacturing base after 18 years of the Tories. We also have the Executive's own statistics—there is a wee bulletin at the back of the chamber—telling us that this is an economic nirvana; that we have never had it so good. Yet Des and his Government cannot afford free education. Des is probably secretly ashamed of that, as are many members. It is about time that they took the fight where it has to go, to Westminster, to get the Government there to loosen the purse strings to pay for free education. The more they refuse to do that, the more the case for a genuinely independent Scotland will be made—we hope, an independent socialist Scotland.
One of the advantages of speaking towards the end of a debate is the ability to comment on some of what has gone before. It is a pity that the whole exercise has been carried out under headlines about tuition fees, because as others have said,
that is the least important issue of those being addressed.
Tommy, it is nonsense to suggest that everyone in Scotland is opposed to the principle of better-off people making a contribution to the cost of their or their children's higher education. Many people in my constituency whose children will never see the inside of a university strongly support the principle of the direct beneficiaries of that education making a direct contribution to it if they can afford to do so.
For that reason, I support the retention of the principle of payment—albeit deferred payment— so that the moneys so raised can create educational opportunity for those who have been denied it traditionally. It is about access. We will charge people to create access for the disadvantaged kids in Tommy Sheridan's community, and in mine.
The Executive's proposals will be welcomed by the vast majority of parents and students, albeit that making a contribution to any costs can never become popular. The function of progressive government is not to court popularity, but to advance the common good. The proposals pass that test.
I agree completely with what Malcolm Chisholm said about monitoring the success of the proposals and widening access; such monitoring must be the litmus test of the agreement. I hope that there will be at least as much monitoring of the new package of student support and the proposed reduction in many students' indebtedness—it was argued that fear of debt mitigated against access—and the impact that those measures will have on university applications by kids from a lower-income background as there has been of the impact of fees on middle-class kids.
The real scandal was not the introduction of tuition fees, and it is not the proposed graduate endowment; it is that in this city, not 100 yd from Edinburgh University, lies an inner-city primary school that has never sent anybody to university. Where is the equality of opportunity there, or in that other great city, Glasgow, which Tommy Sheridan represents, where a similar situation prevails?
Does the member agree that the maintenance grant, which was abolished by the Labour Government when it came to power in 1997, would have assisted the very people he is talking about to go into higher education?
The £50 million package that is on offer will restore maintenance grants and improve access. That package is on offer for Shona Robison to vote for today, if she believes in it.
The proposals will have succeeded when we can say that every kid who enters that primary school has the same chance as the kids who enter primary schools that send 30, 40 or 50 per cent of their intake on to higher education. That is how we will build the knowledge economy that Mr McLeish referred to.
Des McNulty spoke about the number of kids who go to university now, compared with the figures for 1991. Bristow Muldoon and Sylvia Jackson referred to further education in their excellent speeches. Opposition members— including Tommy Sheridan—made little reference to the package's proposals for further education, yet young and old people alike will be able to grasp a tremendous opportunity to secure further education opportunities in our nation's colleges and to transform their employment prospects and their lives.
Forget the rhetoric about our so-called free education system; that system ignored the parental contribution to the grant-maintained system and failed working-class kids. For the first time ever, in the further education sector—where fees have always been the norm for the apprentices of this world—it is likely that no full- time student entering a further education college will make any financial contribution to their education. In addition, they will have access to improved grants and bursaries. That applies to Tommy Sheridan's people, and to my people.
We intend to expand further education by 40,000 extra places, in addition to the 2,500 extra places that the graduate endowment will create. That is a tremendous achievement for the Parliament and for the partnership that delivered the deal. The Tories expanded higher education, but they did so by cutting expenditure per student place by 30 per cent.
The proposals make devolution and the Scottish Parliament worth while. They deliver educational opportunity on a hitherto unimaginable scale to kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, to mature students—at no cost and with considerable financial support—and to lone parents who were excluded previously. I hope that that will also apply, in time, to all part-time students in further education. That is a real achievement. I commend the package to all members of the Parliament.
I would like, again, to put on record the Scottish National party's strong opposition to previous Westminster Government proposals to abolish maintenance grants and introduce tuition fees. The SNP has stood consistently against the gradual erosion of state-funded higher education by successive,
short-sighted London Governments.
Under the previous Tory Government, we opposed the freezing of student grants and the abolition of students' right to claim housing benefit. We opposed the principle of student loans and the privatisation of those loans. The SNP believes in the principle of access to further and higher education. It should be equal for all, according to ability and regardless of other background factors such as wealth. That is the approach which the Parliament should adopt.
Like every graduate in the chamber, I benefited from the previous system of grants. I am ashamed that we are now on the brink of introducing a "pay as and after you learn" system, which will force future generations of students into massive debt and act as a deterrent to higher study. The irony of the proposals is that the Westminster Government's misuse of the Deering report to justify its decision to abolish grants is now being matched by the Scottish Executive's chopping up of Cubie to introduce a graduate tax.
I never want to see, in this country, any education system where credit rating counts for more than grade average, or where bank balances count more than qualifications. I stand by the traditional, Scottish view of access to education, available to all, irrespective of wealth, allowing each person to develop their abilities to the full, for the benefit of society.
At its heart, the Scottish education system is built on strong, traditional foundations. Its egalitarian, generalist, high-quality, flexible approach makes our system ideal to face whatever changes the 21st century brings—if, and only if, we recognise and build on those strengths. The Scottish Executive's graduate tax is not the way to do it. The Westminster shambles of an education policy is being further confused and complicated by the Labour-Lib Dem cobble-up over Cubie. The proposal will add anomalies to other anomalies, instead of curing the problems.
For example, the blatant discrimination against English, Welsh and Northern Irish students over the fourth-year tuition fee payment is now extended to every year of their studies in Scotland—if they come to Scotland, which I hope they do.
I remind Parliament of the McNichol report, which pointed out that those English, Welsh and Northern Irish students bring more than £210 million into the Scottish economy each year. Any fall in their numbers will have an immediate and unnecessary economic effect in Scotland. Indeed, there could also be consequential effects on the diversity of courses offered and on the diversity of the student population, never mind the future of our traditional, four-year Scottish honours degree.
The taxation switch between tuition fees and graduate contribution simply continues the Westminster approach of transferring the burden of financing higher education from central Government, and on to the shoulders of individual students and their families—something I find abhorrent, and I hope that this Parliament will never introduce it.
There is a clear and obvious danger that swathes of our population who could benefit from higher education will be financially deterred from doing so. Mounting student debt and drop-out rates are ominous signs of what is to come. The Scottish Executive's graduate tax opens a dangerous door. Examples from abroad show that, like tuition fees, once introduced, graduate contributions tend inevitably to rise. Look at what happened to tuition fees in Australia—they have doubled. The door to that possibility has been opened. It is something that I would oppose tooth and nail.
The Parliament had an opportunity to do something distinctive and positive for our students, yet what the Executive has produced is Cubie with many of its good bits cut out.
The SNP has been consistently right on this issue, and Westminster consistently wrong.
Is this not distinctive? It must be, if the member is complaining that it is different in England.
It is distinctively bad.
It is not distinctively bad.
There has been a move to withdraw Government money from higher education and replace it with contributions from individual students and their families—that is the unfair burden. We want to allow access to education for all our people—the Scottish tradition. What is happening is that many of our people who could benefit will now be financially disadvantaged.
Add this proposal to student loans and it is clear what is wrong. We could have done something distinctive. I recommend the policy of the SNP, which would allow access to higher education for all our communities. The Executive's proposal does not do that. It fails to meet the needs of our students, their families and the Scottish education system. The Executive and its allies will pay a heavy price for that.
I should begin by declaring an interest. As members will know, I have spent most of my life as a teacher and I am keenly aware of the importance to my former pupils of the package
that we are discussing today.
We have talked a lot about figures and policies in the debate; I would like to talk about people. In June, I received a letter from a constituent, who is also a personal acquaintance—I hope he will not mind if I call him a friend—whose youngsters I was teaching. They are both talented young lads, good musicians and likely to go to university. My friend was worried about tuition fees and he expressed his dismay and disappointment, because he thought that we would let him down. Although the letter was based on a false understanding, it hurt me deeply because I consider myself to be a man of my word.
In October, a group of my former pupils from Peebles High School came to visit the Parliament. As I showed them round and answered their questions, one of them asked me what the Liberal Democrats were going to do about tuition fees. I said that I was determined that a Liberal Democrat-Labour partnership would deliver on the abolition of tuition fees and that I would not remain on-side if that were not achieved.
I am delighted to say to the Parliament that I can go back to that parent and those pupils, look them straight in the eye and say that my promises have been kept. Consider a whole class group—such as the one that visited me in the Parliament— leaving school at the end of fifth or sixth year, hoping to further their education. I know that I can tell those who are going to university that fees are abolished. Whether they do a three-year degree, a four-year honours degree or a medical degree that lasts five years or more, they will never get a demand for tuition fees. To those going on to higher national certificate and higher national diploma courses I can also say that fees are abolished. To those who are going into full-time further education, I can say that they will get an excellent deal from this package.
As Mr Jenkins is telling us what he will say to students, will he tell us what he will say in a few years' time to a student who has graduated and lives below the poverty line, yet will have to pay £2,000 into the graduate endowment fund?
I hope that Nicola Sturgeon will forgive me if I answer that later, if I have time. I will tell members what I would say to that student.
Tell us now.
Christine Grahame acknowledged that the package meant the abolition of tuition fees at the beginning of her speech, when she talked about England. [Interruption.]
Perhaps Nicola Sturgeon could repeat her question.
I wanted to know what Mr
Jenkins will say to the graduate who, in a few years' time, is earning below the official poverty line and is having to pay £2,000 into the graduate endowment fund.
I will tell him that he has benefited because he has a passport to the future—a future that will be bright.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I cannot.
What about the endowment fund?
It is one of the aspects that I am slightly unhappy about. I will come to that point.
When will that be?
Give me a moment.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
No, shush.
I want to say to those pupils that some will not go straight to university—they might get married and go back into education later. I can say that as mature students, they will get a better deal than ever before. Half those students will never be asked to pay into the endowment fund; a third will receive payments that they would not have received yesterday or the day before. They will have money in their hand to help them with their education. It is a positive deal.
Will the member give way?
I will in a moment.
Student hardship and wider access are on the agenda.
As a former teacher, does the member agree that after doing a year's training, teachers going into the profession earn only about £3,000 a year above the poverty line? Does he further agree that half of those teachers—the half who do not end up being promoted—end up earning slightly under average earnings? What kind of encouragement is it to graduates to enter the teaching profession if they have to pay another £2,000 as soon as they start teaching?
Robin can see the figures—their debt will be reduced.
Colin Campbell (West of Scotland) (SNP)
rose—
No, I want to go back to the point that Nicola raised.
Once today is over, and the system is recognised as the way forward, I hope that members from all parts of the chamber can move on in the debate. The system will come in, so let us come together and address the genuine difficulties round the edges of the debate that many of us wish to address.
I am happy about the £10,000 cut-in; I accept it. I draw members' attention to the contributions of John McAllion, Malcolm Chisholm, Sylvia Jackson, Richard Simpson, David Mundell from the Tories, Alex Neil, and even Mary Mulligan. They all pointed to issues round the edges; we must come together to sort them out.
I welcome Henry McLeish's intention, through Sam Galbraith, to consider the question of child care. I reiterate our wish to find a solution to the English problem.
With our Labour partners, who have moved in our direction without either of us giving up our ambitions, we have put together a package that is good for the pupils of Scotland, good for the students of Scotland and good for the parents of Scotland. If we all work together, it will be an even better package and one that we can build on in the future.
That closes the open part of the debate. Four members who had hoped to speak have not been able to, and I apologise to them.
On a point of order. This is the third week that I have tried unsuccessfully to speak in a debate. I sat in the chamber all day last Thursday; today I had to leave for only a very short time for a meeting across the road. I want to put on record my dissatisfaction with what I regard as unfair treatment. Some members spoke for six minutes today.
Thank you for making that point. As I have mentioned before, we take note of members who are not called in a debate, and we try to accommodate them the next time that they wish to speak. I am sorry about your situation. Thank you for letting us know about it.
I call Nicola Sturgeon to wind up the debate for the Scottish National party.
No, not me.
I am sorry—I call Brian Monteith to wind up for the Scottish Conservative party.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. Nicola and I have shared many a laugh, but I am not often mistaken for her. Nicola is far more sylph-like than I am.
Early in this debate, Richard Simpson questioned whether we were attacking only the fine detail of the package. To avoid any confusion, let me assure him that we are not. We are attacking the package for its overall fundamental failure.
As my colleague David McLetchie mentioned earlier, Labour went into the Scottish election advocating no changes of the type that it has now introduced. Labour did not believe that there was anything wrong. It did not accept that there was a problem with tuition fees, it did not accept that there was a problem with financial support for students and it did not even show any concern for the groups that it now proposes to champion with exemptions from its scheme.
Now Labour members want to tell us that they are the saviours of Scotland's students and that no one will be worse off than before. As if it was not Labour's fault in the first place, they are conveniently forgetting that it was Labour that abolished the maintenance grant, it was Labour that introduced tuition fees and it was Labour that started the means-testing of student loans and moved the repayment threshold salary from £17,000 to £10,000.
The Liberals also stand condemned, but for a different reason. Liberal members were clearly committed to the abolition of up-front tuition fees; they have failed to have them abolished. We need no lectures on voting to end tuition fees from the Liberals. They could have done so on 17 June, but they bottled it. We ended up with a committee of inquiry, which we accepted should examine the issue of student maintenance. However, the abolition of tuition fees could have been handled then while we investigated the problem of finance.
Let us be clear. For all the debate on student maintenance and access, the issue of tuition fees ignited the public's passion, putting the matter into the political arena for the first time. I do not recall an election in Scotland or in Britain in which higher education was so high up the agenda.
Mr McLeish said that we have been making uninformed comment about the proposals. Although I do not mind his claims that our remarks are inaccurate—we can agree to differ on that matter—let us be honest. Our comments are informed by the leaks and the poor and scanty information that has been released. There is absolutely no doubt that there was an intentional leak designed to confuse the Opposition and the media; but the payback is that it is confusing only the public.
The message is becoming confused, and I think that even the coalition's back benchers are
beginning to weary of it. We have received much inaccurate information; indeed, some of the figures supplied by the chamber office appear to be wrong, and I look forward to the minister correcting some of them when I write to him. The package itself is so confusing that students will need to seek advice not just from a careers adviser but from an accountant before choosing the best course for them.
As for the European ruling, the minister told us in his reply to Dr Simpson's probing that he is willing to consider awarding bursaries to Scottish students who attend England and Welsh institutions. If he is saying that the European ruling would not get in the way of doing that and that it affects only student fees, not student support, clearly the scheme proposed by the Conservatives could accommodate the ruling and provide all Scottish students with the support to pay their fees. Providing the funding for students to meet the cost of fees has been the consistent and central approach of the Conservatives to dealing with this issue.
Oddly, Jim Wallace seemed to admit that the problem was not the law itself but the effect on the Scottish block of European students studying in England and Wales. I thought that Blair, Brown and Blunkett were worried about the cost of Europeans' front-end fees in England and Wales, but it seems that I was wrong. Jim Wallace has told us that Scotland would pick up the tab for European students studying in England. If that is devolution at work, we will never hear the end of it.
The Conservatives have a solution to the so- called European ruling. If Henry McLeish is sincere in his wish to remove the anomaly of Scots students being able to study in England, Wales and Northern Ireland without paying tuition fees, he should publish the ruling to assure all Scottish students and MSPs with doubts about his sincerity or the interpretation of the ruling itself. Publication would also benefit members' bills and any subsequent legislation that the minister might introduce.
We doubt the existence of that legal opinion and suspect that the influence of Brown, Blair and Blunkett lies behind the coalition's failure to deliver on this issue. That has happened before. For example, we know why the coalition is reluctant to remove the fourth-year anomaly, whereby English and Welsh students pay for the fourth year of study in Scotland, but students from Greece and Germany do not. The reason is not the £2 million cost to the Scottish block grant, but the £28 million cost to the Treasury to deal with the four-year degrees in England. It must be true, because Brian Wilson, when he was Minister for Education and Industry, told us so.
Of course, on the matter of tuition fees, we believe in a level playing field for students. The minister criticised us for saying in our submission to Cubie that we were not concerned about maintaining a level playing field for Scottish students in the UK. I worry for him if he has to misrepresent our position to buttress his own.
For the record, we believe that, in the context of student support, there is no reason why this Parliament and why Scotland should not seek to give more funding and support for Scottish students, which would clearly lie within the aims and ideals of the devolution settlement. However, in the context of access to higher education, we fully support a level playing field for all UK students wherever they study in the United Kingdom. That view has not changed in our party, and I am only saddened that it continues to be so powerfully undermined by the minister's.
We believe in income-contingent commercial loans. We have never denied it. We think that such loans are important. They ensure generous provision, they treat students as adults, not dependants, reduce the pressures on the Exchequer and target state support where it is needed most to those students who do not earn enough to pay off the loan, thus dealing with the issue of loan aversion. The minister seems to be against an income-contingent commercial loan, but accepts an income-contingent state loan and an income-contingent tuition tax. The minister is inconsistent.
Failure of the coalition is self-evident. After having spent £700,000 on a committee that raised people's expectations, only for those expectations to be dashed, we have now moved from a system in which 60 per cent of students pay some or all of the up-front tuition fee to one in which around 50 per cent of graduates pay all the tuition tax. I am prepared to welcome the exemptions, as I said yesterday, but they should have been extended to all graduates. Then we could have honestly agreed that tuition fees had been abolished.
The Liberal Democrats shout from the rooftops that they have achieved the abolition of up-front tuition fees for 97 per cent of students. They forget that only 60 per cent of students paid towards them and that 50 per cent of graduates will now pay the rear-end fees.
George Lyon says that the package deals with loan aversion. If however, we take the example of a student from a family earning £23,000, the difference in loan repayment—in the debt—is £500. I do not believe that that is a significant enough difference to bring about the type of change in attitude that George seeks.
Based on the scarce figures of the Scottish Executive, more than 60 per cent of students going from school to university have had their loan
entitlement cut. In real cash terms, 57 per cent of school leavers are worse off. The trick is that the parents will be paying.
Reducing the loan entitlement will only put students into more debt as they borrow more on their credit cards and push up their overdrafts. That is why it has always been sensible to make regulated commercial loans available, because the interest rate can be kept down through competition and negotiation. Fiona Hyslop was correct to say that the proposed endowment is no such thing, but a mortgage debt over the cost of the tuition, payable when the student obtains the deeds to their degree. Graduates do not contribute to it, but are forced to pay.
As Christine Grahame correctly pointed out, if a student studies in England and pays the up-front fee, they do not pay the rear-end fee. If they study in Scotland, avoiding the up-front fee, they pay the rear-end fee, even if they do not get the bursary. The endowment contribution is clearly and directly linked to the tuition, not to the provision of bursaries.
When people such as those who are now in government campaigned for this Parliament, they told us that it would stop Scots suffering iniquities such as the poll tax that was foisted upon them. How the people of Scotland must feel betrayed, for this Administration is introducing a graduates' poll tax, a tuition tax at a flat rate of £2,000.
The Liberal Democrats and Labour may appear smugly content, but when the opportunity comes, the electorate will wipe the smiles off their faces.
I wonder if the Liberal Democrat ministers ever feel that they have been deserted on this issue. They do not seem to be joined by many of their coalition partners in the chamber.
Many words and phrases have been used to describe some of the contributions in this debate: "Orwellian doublethink", "sophistry" and "embarrassing". All of them are applicable in some way or another. More than anything, what we have witnessed here today has been a collective squirm by the coalition partners.
Labour members are squirming because they are trying to gloss over the fact that their discredited system brought us to where we are today. The Liberal Democrats are squirming because they know, deep down, that they have failed to deliver on their central manifesto commitment to abolish tuition fees. Ian Jenkins said that he was unhappy with the arrangements for the graduate endowment fund. Need anybody say more? The package that was announced by the minister yesterday has been widely described as a political fix, an accusation that no member of the coalition has been able to rebut convincingly today.
I will be charitable to the senior partners in the coalition. I do not believe that their biggest problem was trying to keep the Liberal Democrats on board. The dirty deed that ensured that they would stay on board was done seven months ago on 17 June last year when the Liberal Democrats failed to vote for an end to tuition fees, which, as the minister confirmed today, could have been done by an Executive action. That was the quickest way to deal with tuition fees and the Liberal Democrats failed to take it.
All that the Liberal Democrats have been looking for from Cubie and the response to Cubie was something to hide behind, something that would give them an excuse to bang their desks. The minister obliged and helpfully included the word, "abolish". I say to Messrs Lyon, Rumbles, Brown and all the rest who spoke today that if they think that simply removing the words "tuition fees" from legislation constitutes delivery of their manifesto pledge, they are in for a rude awakening.
If I were Mr Brown, I would be trying to keep a low profile. The best that Liberal Democrats can hope for is that the Ayr United for Heathfield pressure group does not decide to field a candidate in the forthcoming by-election.
The Liberal Democrats were not the problem for the Labour party; their principles come cheap. The real problem was the political fix imposed by Brown and Blunkett, which has left Scottish Labour defending the indefensible. Cubie says that the present system is discredited. Labour implicitly accepts that by moving away from it, although not far enough to allow the Liberal Democrats to say that they have honoured a manifesto commitment.
Henry McLeish said that Cubie's recommendations were mature and sensible. Today he said that the report was excellent and he whole-heartedly endorsed it; however, he cannot implement it because, as a Government adviser said earlier in the week, Brown and Blunkett would not wear it. We are left with a package that bears no relation to the report that it took Cubie six months and £1 million of public money to complete.
The SNP is the only party in Parliament that stands by Cubie's proposals. There is one point of difference, however: we would not ask people to pay what can only be called deferred tuition fees. On 6 May last year, people voted for a return to free education. That is what the SNP stands for.
John McAllion and Pauline McNeill made excellent speeches about access for people from low-income backgrounds. I agreed with much of what they said, but nobody has explained to me how access will be increased by imposing a charge for education, whether that is an up-front charge or a back-door charge. Pauline McNeill said that we had to change attitudes to get more low-income students into higher and further education. That is exactly the point that Cubie made when he said that the present system added to anxieties about debt. That is why the SNP advocates Cubie plus.
Let us examine the costs that the Liberal Democrats have been talking about. The difference between what the coalition is offering and what Cubie recommended is £12 million a year, as Andrew Wilson pointed out earlier. To suggest one possible source for the funding, that sum is just 4 per cent of the underspend in the Parliament's budget.
The plus part of Cubie plus adds no costs at all during this term of the Parliament because it would be 2005 before the income stream from the new tuition fees kicks in. For the sake of £12 million a year, the coalition is refusing to implement Cubie's excellent report. It is refusing to abolish tuition fees and is only deferring them.
To add insult to injury, the Executive is lowering the income threshold for payment of deferred fees to £10,000. People who are currently exempt from the old tuition fees will have to pay the new tuition fees. More people will have to pay the new tuition fees than paid the old ones. As Fiona Hyslop said earlier, only 30 per cent of students currently pay full tuition fees, whereas 50 per cent will pay the new tuition fees. Can the minister do what all his colleagues have failed to do today, by convincingly rebutting that argument? I await his summing-up with interest.
For many people, this is not the abolition of tuition fees. It is not even the deferment of tuition fees. [Interruption.] I hope that Liberal Democrat members are listening. This is the imposition of tuition fees—that is the reality.
There is also the question of Scottish students who are studying south of the border, an issue on which utter confusion reigns. No one has yet answered the question that John Swinney posed yesterday, and again today, about his constituent who has to go south to take up the course that she wants to study, as it is not available here in Scotland. Will Nicol Stephen answer that question in his summing-up?
Henry McLeish says that this is a problem that is created by European law. The Deputy First Minister, Jim Wallace, then said that it is not— rather, that it is a problem that is created by costs.
I appeal to Nicol Stephen to clear up that confusion in his summing-up and to let us know exactly what the problem is. If it is European law, the Executive should publish the advice that it has been given, as Christine Grahame and others have suggested, so that we can all judge the issue. If the problem is European law, will the minister explain why, if it is illegal to pay fees for students down south but legal to pay bursaries for them, it is not possible to pay those students bursaries that would cover the cost of their fees? Those are all pertinent questions that nobody from the Liberal Democrats or the Labour party has addressed this afternoon.
There is also the issue of grants. I return to the points that were made eloquently by John McAllion and Pauline McNeill about access. [Interruption.] If Henry McLeish had been here, he would know that I have covered the SNP's proposals in full.
The points that were raised by John McAllion and Pauline McNeill about access were precisely the points that Cubie considered in a mature and sensible way during the process of completing his report. What is being offered by the coalition is half of what Cubie recommended for maintenance bursaries.
As Tommy Sheridan and others have said this afternoon, the ceiling for full entitlement has been lowered from £17,000 to £10,000—a figure that, on Wendy Alexander's own admission, is below the official poverty line.
I am sorry that Elaine Murray has not seen fit to see out the rest of this debate. Earlier, she said that £7.50 a week, which is what the repayments would be, is not a lot of money for someone on £10,000 a year. I suggest strongly that she make a point of speaking to some people on that income level, to find out the financial pressures that they face.
The reality that has been outlined time and again in this chamber, yesterday and today, is that the coalition has ignored Cubie. It has done exactly what Henry McLeish asked the Liberal Democrats not to do—it has ignored the recommendations of that committee. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have sold out Scottish students.
The SNP is alone in advocating Cubie plus, an affordable solution that would deliver a good deal for Scottish students. It is that deal that we will continue to argue for inside and outside this chamber. I believe that it is the solution that the majority of Scottish people want to be delivered by this Parliament.
As we expected, this has been a good-natured debate. Before I comment on the debate, I want to be absolutely clear on one point: this is the most significant package of new investment in student support that there has been in decades. It abolishes tuition fees from autumn this year—one year ahead of the date that Cubie suggested. It introduces bursaries of up to £2,000 a year for students on low incomes. It injects a total of £50 million of new money into student hardship.
Before I turn to the criticisms and attacks, I will examine the details of the proposals. We are abolishing fees for 140,000 Scottish students— 40,000 in further education and 100,000 in higher education—from September 2000. I will respond to Nicola Sturgeon's point by saying that those students who are currently in the system will not be required to pay any graduate endowment, although I will add one qualification to that. As members know, in the past 20 years existing students have been protected from new student support arrangements. They were being protected from cuts. This is different—we are extending student support. We are introducing bursaries for families with incomes up to £23,000.
On John McAllion's point, students whose parents' income is £17,000 will still get a bursary of about £700 a year—that is £200 more than the maximum bursary that the SNP suggested in its manifesto.
Will the minister give way?
I will not give way.
The Executive appreciates that there might be a demand for a new system of loans and bursaries because it represents such a good deal for Scotland's students. We will consult on the possibility of introducing such a system.
That is where the graduate endowment comes in. That endowment will be used exclusively to fund improved maintenance for disadvantaged students. We can debate this issue today for a clear and simple reason—it is because of devolution. It is because we have a new and modern Parliament that was elected by proportional representation and that can deliver distinctive policies for Scotland. It is because of Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians working co-operatively together—
It is because you have a strong Opposition.
Will the minister give way?
Andrew Wilson (Central Scotland) (SNP)
rose—
I will not give way.
I agree with Andrew Wilson that this has been the defining issue of the Scottish Parliament. Today is the defining moment; today the Executive is delivering. That has happened because of the Government partnership and because of the setting up of the Cubie inquiry and—
Will the minister give way?
No, thank you.
It has happened because of the excellent work done by Andrew Cubie and the members of his committee. By working together we have agreed a way ahead.
I have already spoken to many students and student leaders about our proposals and I can confirm that we intend to consult widely with them and others, including students, teachers and principals.
I was unable to ask a question at First Minister's questions today and I would like to set the record straight about the so-called warm welcome that has been given to the package.
Representatives of the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals might comment favourably on the proposals. Has the minister, however, seen the comments that have been made by the president of the National Union of Students in Scotland, the president of the University of Strathclyde students association, the president of Glasgow Caledonian University students association and the president of the University of St Andrews students association? They are all hostile and they all talk about the intolerable burden of repaying tuition fees from earnings of £10,000 per annum.
Many people have broadly welcomed our proposals, but some have expressed concern. I have met several of the individuals whom John Swinney mentions and I will meet them again next week. The more I explain our system to them, the more they like it.
I will move on, because I want to focus on some of the anomalies and on some of the concerns that Robin Harper and others in the chamber have expressed. There has been a lot of misunderstanding because of misinformation. We do propose something different on repayment from what is suggested in the Cubie report, but we are suggesting nothing that will cost a Scottish graduate a single penny more per week than either the present system or the SNP's proposal.
All the main parties in the chamber propose the retention of some form of student loans. It is under the student loans system—not some system that
has been set up by the Executive—that repayment levels kick in at 9 per cent of a graduate's income over £10,000. We can guarantee that no student will have more debt; most students will have less debt on graduation with the scheme. Because of that there will be no extra repayment burden on students. I give this extra guarantee: every student from a low-income family will have up to £4,000 less debt and extra spending power of up to £2,000 as a result of these proposals, amounting to a total entitlement each year of £4,135.
To answer Andrew Wilson and Margo MacDonald's concerns, would loans still exist under the SNP proposals? The answer is yes. Would the SNP use the student loan system to collect those debts? The answer is yes. What would that repayment rate be? The answer is 9 per cent of income over £10,000. Will a student pay more a week under our proposals in comparison with the SNP's proposals? The answer is no.
rose—
Will they have less money for their bus fares, Margo? The answer is no. The most disadvantaged students will get a bursary of £2,000 a year under our proposals, in comparison with a maximum of £500 a year under the SNP manifesto commitment.
Will the minister give way?
I must make progress. I have very little time and a lot of ground to cover.
Much has been made of the cross-border issues facing Scots who wish to study in England and Wales. Let me be clear about our intention. We wished to treat all Scots the same, but a significant problem was drawn to our attention. Members have asked for the legal advice and I will try to be helpful on that point.
Article 12 of the Treaty on European Union prohibits discrimination on the ground of nationality against nationals of other EU states. The imposition of fees on students who are students of other member states as a condition of access would amount to discrimination if the fees were not imposed on nationals of the host member state.
We had to consider whether we, in Scotland, as part of the UK member state, could provide that Scots—who for this purpose would be regarded as UK nationals—did not pay tuition fees in the rest of the UK. Given the risks of challenge by other EU nationals and based on the best advice available, we produced the proposals that are before us today.
Let me also be clear that the same issues arise with the solutions proposed by the Scottish nationalists, by the Cubie committee and by the Scottish Conservatives.
Order. Members, please be seated.
I am disappointed with the legal advice and I would like it to be different. As part of our consultation exercise, we will examine all the anomalies that have been mentioned in the chamber today, to consider whether they can be addressed. However, let us be clear that I can accept criticisms from John Swinney and others about manifesto commitments, if I make a concession, or do a U-turn, or negotiate something away. Even if the Liberal Democrats had an overall majority in this Parliament, even if we held every one of the 129 seats and even if John Swinney had joined us on the negotiating team, the problem would still exist.
Join us, John.
The SNP's policy declares that it will fund all fees furth of Scotland—it is not quite the same policy but exactly the same problem.
Will the minister give a pledge to the Parliament that, as part of his consultation process, he will bang just a little bit harder on the door of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to get him to solve the consequences of this policy? As the Deputy First Minister said, this is not about the law; this is about the money.
That is not true. Mr Swinney completely missed my point. He was not listening.
Will the minister give way?
No. I am near the end of my speech. I have not yet dwelt on the Conservatives' contribution to the debate. Because of time constraints, they may be pleased to hear that I will not dwell on it further.
The main issues that I wished to cover were those that I have just raised. We intend to examine in depth John Swinney's question, Mary Scanlon's concerns and other points of detail. We will provide detailed answers to all those concerns. There is much work still to be done. We have promised to respond to all the Cubie committee's recommendations and we intend to do so by the spring.
Today we announced a major package of proposals aimed at widening access and encouraging more people into both higher and further education. Further proposals on, for example, child care, will follow. We will consult widely on those proposals and we look forward to working closely on them with John Swinney's Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.
Our proposals on student maintenance and the graduate endowment scheme will require an act of this Parliament and we intend to introduce legislation before the end of this year. The procedure for ending tuition fees is simpler. It does not require an act of Parliament or secondary legislation. It is sufficient to amend the regulations of the Student Awards Agency for Scotland.
For that reason, I have prepared a letter to David Stephen, the chief executive of the Student Awards Agency for Scotland, asking him to put in hand the arrangements that are required to fund the tuition fees of all Scotland-domiciled students at Scottish higher education institutes from the autumn of this year.
If the Parliament supports this motion today, we will issue that letter today, for today is the day that abolition of tuition fees can be delivered by this Parliament, alongside a major package of student support that will widen access to higher education. I commend this motion to the chamber.