Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should have in front of them the reissued bill—SP Bill 2A (Revised); the reissued marshalled list—SP Bill 2A-ML (Revised); and the groupings, which I have agreed. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes in the event of a division this afternoon, and the period of voting for that and for any other divisions will be 30 seconds.
Section 3B—Effect on student support
There is one group with two amendments. Amendment 1, in the name of Jeremy Purvis, is grouped with amendment 2.
I congratulate Mr McLetchie on perhaps the first formal act of the new coalition that is developing in the chamber—his moving a motion on behalf of Mr Crawford.
The amendments in the group tidy up the amendments that were agreed during stage 2 consideration of the bill. At stage 1, there was debate about whether an unintended consequence of the abolition of the graduate endowment would be the removal of a duty on ministers to provide specific support for students through bursaries and the servicing of student loans. The current statutory provision in the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Act 2001 that allows ministers to provide such support amended the provision in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and required ministers to make specific budgetary provisions for the use of the funds raised through the graduate endowment.
Members know that the funds raised through the graduate endowment could not be used for anything other than student support and that specific reference to that effect had to be made in each budget bill. That provision would be abolished if the bill were passed later this afternoon, as the graduate endowment would no longer exist and so the funds would not be raised. Inadvertently, in passing the bill as it is currently drafted, we would ensure that there was no longer a specific requirement for ministers to indicate within the budget process what support they are providing specifically for the young student bursary scheme, which was previously funded through the graduate endowment.
The Government says that there will be no diminution in the funding that will be made available for the young student bursary scheme but, even with the best of intentions, the minister cannot bind her successors to that. The provision in the 2001 act that the bill will abolish states in statute that ministers are required to make funding available, and it is appropriate that that should continue to be reflected in statute.
I am grateful for the support of the Scottish Government officials who advised me on the wording of my amendments. Amendment 2 concerns the budget proposals that would require to be outlined so that funding for student support is not adversely affected when we pass the new measures this afternoon. I hope that my amendments will receive cross-party support.
I move amendment 1.
I am glad to be participating in today's stage 3 debate, which will finally kick tuition fees into the bucket where they belong. I thank the students from the University of Edinburgh, who mobilised their peers to protest today.
Jeremy Purvis seeks to amend the bill to guarantee that student support will not be adversely affected by the abolition of the graduate endowment. I accept that he is trying to be constructive and make the bill more acceptable to a party that introduced the graduate endowment, and although the amendments are not entirely necessary, I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that there is no difficulty in agreeing to them.
The abolition of the graduation endowment will improve student support, remove the worrying burden of additional debt from current students and give them stability and confidence when planning their future. However, until we can be sure that Labour and the Tories will concede that they are wrong in their opposition to the aim of the Scottish National Party Government to make higher education in Scotland free once again—and there was a hint of a breakthrough in Annabel Goldie's comments at First Minister's question time—I guess that it will be down to the SNP, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats to speak up for Scotland's students.
The Tories have flip-flopped all over—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
I am about to anticipate it. Miss Campbell, I would be grateful if you could address the amendment that we are meant to be discussing.
I have addressed the amendment; I am explaining why I think that the abolition of the graduate endowment is—
I do not think that that is appropriate under the discussion of amendments, Miss Campbell. If you would confine your remarks to the amendments, I would be grateful.
Today's abolition of the graduate endowment, including the amendments, will stop students being penalised financially and affected by the hardship that the endowment causes. The Government should be applauded for tackling student financial hardship and for making Scottish education free once again—
Oh, come on!
Miss Campbell, I am afraid that you are not referring to the amendment.
Today's bill is not an end in itself but a start—
I am sorry but I am moving on to the next speaker.
That justifies our arguments, which will follow this afternoon.
We supported Jeremy Purvis's amendments at stage 2, so we have no objection to the amendments that he seeks to make today. The matter is technical and in no way changes the effect of the bill. It certainly does not represent any kind of victory on student funding. However, it will be helpful to have the clarity that a legislative requirement on the provision of student support that might otherwise have been affected by the new act will give. Therefore, we have no objection to amendment 1.
I call Christina McKelvie. [Interruption.] Her name seems to have been withdrawn. I call Murdo Fraser.
As Richard Baker pointed out, the wording of amendments 1 and 2 would replace wording that Mr Purvis inserted at stage 2. The amendments would not change the bill's substance or policy intent. On that basis, the Conservatives are happy to support Mr Purvis's amendments, although if Mr Purvis has ministerial ambitions, he should improve his drafting technique.
To put amendment 1 in context, two thirds of students cannot afford to repay the graduate endowment fee in cash, so they add it to their student loans, and one third of it is lost in administration charges. It is not an efficient generator of income for student support.
The terms of the original act meant that any income was uncertain because it came in via student loan repayments, had to be applied in-year, and could not be baselined. This Government—and, indeed, the previous Administration—did not rely on income from the graduate endowment to finance support for students, and the current budget for student support runs at more than £500 million.
When the amendment to introduce new section 3B was first lodged at stage 2, I resisted its inclusion for two reasons. First, it was redundant, given that there could be no adverse effect on the student support budget and because of the actions that we have taken since, in the budget and spending review. Secondly, I thought that technically Mr Purvis's amendments were not expressed in terms that represented accurately the way in which budget proposals are made.
Throughout the process, I have given clear assurances that the student support budget will not be adversely affected by the bill. That is clearly stated in the policy and financial memoranda, and I repeated the point on the record in the chamber and in committee during stages 1 and 2. The key point is that, due to the overly complicated system that was set up to account for the graduate endowment fee, income was never used directly for core student support. Instead, it was used to free up resources to fund other in-year pressures, such as language courses for non-English speakers, that we have now taken steps to mainstream. Through the Budget (Scotland) Bill, which the Parliament passed, we have been able to baseline those additional pressures, while increasing the amount of support that will go to students.
Over the next three years, we will invest an additional £119 million in student support, to allow the abolition of the graduate endowment fee and the introduction of new support, in the form of a grant for part-time students to replace loans. In 2010-11, £30 million will be invested in improving support for students. Later this year, we will consult students and other interested parties on the best way in which to invest that money.
I am happy to support the amendments, even though they take a posture on student funding. There is no shortfall or adverse effect to address. However, the amendments provide for post-budget approval of the actions that the Government has already taken to increase student support by providing £119 million over three years for that purpose. I am willing to take a generous view of the matter today, if it means that we can reach a consensus on removing this inefficient and unfair tax. I am satisfied that redrafting the amendments has improved them. If my supporting them will allow us to provide a final assurance that the bill will have no adverse effect on student support budgets, I am content to do so.
I am grateful to the Government for acknowledging that students need to be given a final assurance that the bill will have no unintended or intended adverse effects on student support. I will leave ministerial ambitions to my colleagues on the Conservative benches.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Jeremy Purvis]—and agreed to.
That ends the consideration of amendments.