|
Further and Higher Education (Scotland)
A debate on motion S2M-2273, in the name of Jim
Wallace, that the general principles of the Further and Higher Education
(Scotland) Bill be agreed to.
The
Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2273, in
the name of Jim Wallace, that the general principles of the Further and
Higher Education (Scotland) Bill be agreed to.
The Deputy Presiding
Officer: I call on
Allan Wilson to wind up the debate. Minister, there are 14 minutes left and
they are all yours.
The Deputy Minister
for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning (Allan Wilson):
You are very kind. I will try to use those minutes to best effect.
It is a pity that Alex Neil's speech was spoiled at the very end — he had
been doing so well — as I agreed with much of it, although I agreed with
little of what his colleagues said earlier.
As Alex Neil said, it is important to establish what the bill sets out to
do. The bill will provide for a more integrated view of lifelong learning by
establishing one strategic organisation for tertiary education in Scotland.
As Murdo Fraser did well to point out, the bill will allow decisions to be
made for both HE and FE in such a way as to maximise the benefits of
providing a direct read-across of the experiences of one sector to the
other. The bill will also provide a coherent link between the objectives of
post-school education and Scotland's economic objectives, which are of
course vital to the Executive. In addition, the bill will be important in
aiding achievement of parity of esteem between the different types of
learning providers in Scotland.
Given the debates of the past six months or so, it is interesting that Alex
Neil was the only one to mention the fact that having one council to oversee
both HE and FE will ensure that we get the best possible results from our
substantial investment in those sectors. Let me remind members of the scale
of that investment over the period of the spending review. By 2007-08,
annual funding for higher education will exceed £1 billion, which is almost
£300 million more than in 2003-04. That represents an increase of almost 40
per cent in cash terms, or 28 per cent in real terms. It would have been
churlish of the Opposition not to welcome such an increase in higher and
further education funding, so I am glad that Alex Neil referred to that
substantial increase in resources.
As my colleague Jim Wallace said, perhaps the single remaining point of
controversy concerns the new powers to set fee levels. From some of the
comments in the debate, it is clear that there is a general concern that
differential fees might be introduced under the bill, and a particular
concern about the fees imposed on medical students who come to Scotland to
study and those imposed on self-funded students. I will address the general
concern first, then the particular concern.
For the record, let me restate what the Deputy First Minister said in his
opening statement. The power to set fees is designed to be used only
sparingly and only where there is clear evidence that not doing so would
disadvantage Scottish students. Chris Ballance asked why we do not wait
until the position south of the border is clearer. As Jamie Stone correctly
pointed out, we have a legislative vehicle currently at our disposal and
such vehicles are not like corporation buses, in that they do not regularly
arrive in threes. The fact that we are making use of the legislative
opportunity to protect the interests of Scotland-domiciled students by
retaining powers to introduce differential fees does not mean that we will
necessarily choose to exercise those powers.
The claims of the NUS have been properly described by other members as
"over-egging the pudding". The Deputy First Minister has made it clear that
we do not intend to introduce variable fees in Scotland. The partnership
agreement between Labour and the Liberal Democrats states clearly that there
will be no top-up fees here in Scotland. One would have to be akin to
Rumplestiltskin and have slept through the past five years in Parliament not
to have noticed that the Labour and Liberal Democrat—
Brian Adam
rose—
Allan Wilson:
Talking of Rumplestiltskin—
Murdo Fraser:
He means Rip van Winkle.
Brian Adam:
Given that the principal bone of contention between members today relates to
fees and the Enterprise and Culture Committee has given ministers the
opportunity to consider alternatives, can the minister tell us in his
summing up on behalf of the Executive whether ministers will do so, without
committing to alternatives that they might consider?
Allan Wilson:
I said that in my intervention during Brian Adam's speech. There are issues
that we need to address, and I assure the member that we will do so. I am
making the simple point that the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister
and the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in the coalition have made it
clear that top-up fees are not on the agenda here in Scotland. I
respectfully submit that the situation cannot be clearer than that.
As Richard Baker correctly said — I am sure that Brian Adam would agree —
the introduction of the new variable fees scheme in England means that doing
nothing is not an option.
Murdo Fraser:
Will the deputy minister give way?
Fiona Hyslop
rose—
Allan Wilson:
I will take an intervention from Murdo Fraser.
Murdo Fraser:
I am grateful to the deputy minister for giving way to me in the competition
for his interest.
The deputy minister referred to the work that the Executive is doing to
examine alternatives. He must appreciate that the Enterprise and Culture
Committee has the important job of considering amendments to the bill at
stage 2. Conservative members will want to consider carefully what
amendments need to be lodged. It would be immensely helpful to us and to
other members of the committee in that deliberation if the Executive could
make available to us as much information as possible about the work that is
being done elsewhere on alternatives. Can the minister give us that
commitment?
Allan Wilson:
Yes. I am familiar with the stage 2 process and the dynamic that is attached
to it. I will address the issue that Alex Neil raised regarding the process
and I supplement that by pointing out that — as the Deputy First Minister
said — it is our intention to hold a wider public and stakeholder
consultation over the piece on the issue of self-funded students.
The implementation advisory group can report to ministers before stage 2 on
principles. Detailed technical work will need to be done, so the final
report will not be available before April or May. We will not have access to
that work at stage 2, which begins on 22 February. However, because of the
support funding systems that the Executive is already considering, we have
powers to take measures to provide support finance without making further
legislative change. There is the prospect of wider internal consultation
with the Enterprise and Culture Committee and we have powers at our disposal
to address the issue of self-funded students.
Fiona Hyslop:
The minister argues that the issues that are raised by the introduction of
variable top-up fees down south need to be addressed in Scotland. However,
his argument has been limited to medical students. If the introduction of
top-up fees down south will cause a problem of cross-border flows, why does
the minister not see the logic of addressing the issue in total? Why is the
Executive focusing solely on medical students, when it could be argued that
there will be a problem of cross-border flows in all subjects?
Allan Wilson:
I agree with Fiona Hyslop in principle and will address the detail of the
SNP's proposal later, although she will probably not like what I have to say
about it. We have taken a holistic approach to this issue. I will come on to
the points that Pauline McNeill and Murdo Fraser made very ably in respect
of the wider credit and qualifications framework and the particular issues
that are faced by medical and, potentially, other students.
FE and HE have worked hard to develop the sectors in a number of areas. One
such area is the development of the Scottish credit and qualifications
framework. I welcome the committee's support for inclusion of the framework
in the bill and I am pleased that we have been able to support the excellent
work that the sectors have driven forward. Pauline McNeill made a relevant
point about that work and, specifically, the requirement to attain five A
grades in a single sitting during S5 for access to medical courses. Rightly,
we have no control over university entrance standards. However, we support a
range of access activities in higher education, including the Scottish wider
access programme. We expect new access to medicine to be developed jointly
in programmes with our medical schools.
There is clearly a balance to be struck. We must maintain the cross-border
flow of students to which Pauline McNeill referred, which sustains our
medical schools, while ensuring — importantly — that there is opportunity
for Scotland-domiciled students, in particular, to access places in those
schools. I say to Pauline and other members that we must maintain existing
cross-border flows. I oppose Fiona Hyslop's proposal to set up a fees system
that would require England-domiciled students to pay more to study in
Scotland, because we welcome English students to our country to study. As
internationalists, all of us would want that to continue.
Alex Neil:
What the minister is saying is extremely interesting, but it proves that the
question is complex. I understand that the technical work will not be
completed until after stage 2, but it is incumbent on us to consider the
full report of the implementation advisory group before stage 3 of the bill,
which is scheduled for April.
Allan Wilson:
As I have said, we can share the principles of the group's work. I cannot
today give the member the commitment that he seeks, but we will work
actively with the committee to bring together the timetables of the two
bodies, if possible. As Alex Neil correctly pointed out, moves on medical
fees affect not just staffing of the NHS but, critically, the opportunity
that is provided to Scotland-domiciled students to study medicine and to use
their skills and professionalism here in Scotland, in the rest of the UK and
internationally. That is an important point. The Minister for Health and
Community Care is considering a range of developments in response to the
Calman report to ensure that there is greater staff retention in the NHS in
Scotland. Those will include wider measures that have been discussed in
general terms here today.
I question some of the motives of Fiona Hyslop and the SNP on this issue. As
my colleague Jim Wallace said, she continues to play politics with the
interests of students and to perpetuate the myths that fees exist and that
top-up fees are to be introduced in Scotland. Concerns arising from such
misrepresentations are not confined to this chamber but are disseminated to
the wider public. They become a self-fulfilling prophecy, because people are
dissuaded from applying to Scottish universities, which has a negative
impact on our wider objectives of broadening access.
The most recent contribution to the debate — the £67,000 prospective golden
handcuff — is the desperate act of a desperate nationalist party. It is
another gimmick that is designed to drive the voters away. As Brian Monteith
correctly said, it is not worth the paper or the envelope on which it is
written. As an internationalist, I could not possibly accept its narrow
nationalist connotations.
I thank all of the members of the Enterprise and Culture Committee for their
thorough consideration of the bill's general principles. I commend the
general principles of the bill to the Parliament.
To
view the entire debate, please
Click Here
|
