|
Further and Higher Education
Speech to Enterprise
Committee on Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
The
Convener: We move to agenda item 3, which is our stage 2 consideration of
the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill.
Section 5 — Fundable
further and higher education
The
Convener: Amendment 7,
in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 9 to 13, 16, 18 and
19.
The Deputy Minister
for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning (Allan Wilson):
I remember the day when I could have counted on the convener's support. I
suppose that the strong merits of the arguments that I present will have to
suffice.
During stage 1 there was discussion about the use of the term "learning
difficulty" in the bill. When we introduced the bill we believed that the
term reflected the comments of respondents to the consultation that preceded
the bill, such as Skill Scotland, which obviously had an interest in the
matter. The term "learning difficulty" was intended to reflect long-term and
short-term difficulties and the duty on the new council and fundable bodies
to consider the education and related needs of all students and potential
students. However, members will recall that during stage 1 we heard comments
on the matter, and the committee's stage 1 report recommended that the
Executive give further consideration to the terminology used in the bill.
We considered and discounted the term "additional support needs", which was
suggested by the committee. Members will be aware that the term is used
elsewhere in legislation and I understand that it is not good drafting
practice to use the same term in different pieces of legislation unless the
meanings are identical.
The amendments therefore alter the focus of the bill by including a
definition of "support needs", which will encompass difficulties in learning
as well as difficulties in participating in learning, which I think was the
crux of the committee's argument. They clarify that the needs referred to in
sections 7 and 20 specifically include support needs, so that the new
council and fundable bodies are required to have regard to support needs.
That approach removes the need for section 12, which defines "learning
difficulty". The duties in sections 7 and 20 will extend to all students and
potential students. The amendments have been discussed with and are
supported by Skill Scotland, and they address the recommendations that the
committee made to us.
I move amendment 7.
Fiona Hyslop:
I welcome the amendments. At stage 1 I raised concerns about the
presentation of the bill. I acknowledge that, as the minister suggested, the
term "additional support needs" has specific reference to the Education
(Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. However, I hope that
the minister will agree that the term "additional support needs" will need
to be explored in the context of further and higher education policy in
future. In the meantime, the amendments represent a step in the right
direction.
The Convener:
Do you want to wind up, minister?
Allan Wilson:
I am happy to do so. The requirements that are imposed on us in relation to
school children are obviously different from those that relate to students
in tertiary education. That is reflected in the revised terminology that the
amendments propose, but the general points of principle are not at odds.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
The Convener:
Amendment 8, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.
Allan Wilson:
Members will be aware of our partnership agreement commitment to increase
college opportunities for school-age pupils. The purpose of amendment 8 is
to avoid potential confusion about what the council will be able to fund.
Given the need for a student-centred approach to learning, the Scottish
Further Education Council funds college courses for school-age pupils that
comprise not a full unit but parts of different units, although a full unit
is necessary for a formal award. Such courses can prepare people for
participation in a further programme of learning, although they are not
necessarily designed predominantly for that purpose. The study of parts of
units has legitimate educational value for pupils who cannot cope with
studying a full unit and can offer a better way of engaging pupils who might
otherwise be disengaged from the learning process. Such activity is
currently funded and we have no intention of removing that funding.
However, there is potential for doubt about whether the studying of partial
units is covered by the definition of "fundable further education" in the
bill. Given the importance that both we and the committee ascribe to
school-college partnerships in increasing pupils' curriculum choices, it is
essential that we do not inadvertently limit the council's ability to fund
such provision.
Amendment 8 is technical. It would remove the phrase
"is designed predominantly to prepare"
from the bill and replace it with the simple term "prepares". That should
cover the study of partial units as well as complete units.
I move amendment 8.
The Convener:
No member has indicated that
they wish to speak.
Mr Davidson:
I had my hand up — you will have to get wider-angle lenses, convener.
I am pleased that the minister agrees that further education colleges have a
role to play in providing suitable training for certain school pupils. I
would like him to answer one or two questions. First, will the provision
lead to an expansion in such courses? If so, will that expansion be funded
by education authorities through contracts with local colleges, or will
colleges have to fund it? Secondly, I am pleased that children will be able
to build up units as they develop, as that will give them much greater
opportunities. Presumably, the facility will not be limited to academic
courses, but will extend to practical courses that may lead to modern
apprenticeships and to attending college and so on. It would be helpful if
the
minister could answer those questions.
The Convener:
The minister should answer
them when he winds up. This is a debate, rather than a question-and-answer
session.
Allan Wilson:
As I said in my preamble, the funding council and—by virtue of the funding
council—colleges will fund the process, which may better the employment and
academic prospects of the students who take part.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendments 9 and 10 moved — [Allan Wilson] — and agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendments 11 and 12 moved — [Allan Wilson] — and agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
After section 7
Amendment 13 moved — [Allan Wilson] — and agreed to.
Section 8 — Funding
of the Council
The
Convener: Amendment 1,
in the name of Fiona Hyslop, is grouped with amendments 2, 3, 14, 14A, 4, 5
and 29.
The Convener:
Before I call the minister, I point out that, if amendment 5 is agreed to,
amendment 29 would be pre-empted. I ask the minister to speak to amendment
14 and the other amendments in the group.
Allan Wilson:
Section 8 sets out the conditions relating to the funding of the council.
The National Union of Students and others have recently expressed concern
about the section, as they believe that it allows for the introduction of
variable top-up fees. We have stated repeatedly — and I do so again on the
record today—that there will be no top-up fees in Scotland for
Scotland-domiciled students. Unlike the English arrangements, our proposals
do not envisage institutions setting their own fees or retaining the income
generated over and above the current level of tuition fees.
Top-up fees are being introduced in England and it is vital that we in
Scotland are able to act to counter any threat that could prevent
Scotland-domiciled students from getting places at Scottish universities.
All the key stakeholders, including the National Union of Students, accept
that that is the position, although there are different views about how
countering it is best achieved.
Having considered how best to respond to what everybody agrees is a genuine
threat, we created the implementation advisory group, which has been
considering the principle and the practicalities underpinning our intention
to review the level of tuition fees from 2006-07. The committee has now seen
a progress report on the work of that group, and I understand that members
have had the opportunity to read the notes of its meetings.
The problem appears to be particularly acute in medicine. The Calman report
found that non-Scotland-domiciled graduates tend to work outside Scotland,
which results in problems in recruiting for the national health service
here, and the Minister for Health and Community Care and the Deputy Minister
for Health and Community Care are considering how best to address that.
There remains the real threat that top-up fees in England will make studying
in Scotland more attractive for students in other parts of the UK. It is
necessary for us to address that threat. The bill does not itself set any
fee levels, but it provides ministers with powers to set a general fee level
and, where necessary, a separate, higher fee for a specific subject.
Much of the focus of the debate, including today's discussion, has been on
the new power to differentiate fees for different subjects, but very little
attention—and none this afternoon—has been given to the fact that the powers
under the bill make the process of setting fees much more rigorous and
transparent than has hitherto been the case. Under the bill, fee levels must
be set by secondary legislation. Critically, that allows for scrutiny by the
Parliament before the fee is set — it is a question that Parliament and the
parliamentary process will determine.
We have listened to the concerns that were expressed during the committee's
evidence gathering and in its stage 1 report.
Taken together, the Executive amendments will ensure that there is full
consultation before any change and that both the orders — the one for a
specific programme or course and the one setting the fee level — are subject
to the affirmative procedure.
That is an important change in the process, and it will ensure that the
appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any prospective change is undertaken.
We are due to consider the bill up to section 8 today. Amendment 14 covers
the point about consultation and amendment 29, which the committee will not
vote on today but to which I must still speak, makes both of the orders
subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 14 will include the new
Scottish further and higher education funding council as a statutory
consultee. In any consultation that takes place before the establishment of
the new council, we will consult the existing councils.
Here is an interesting point for the committee to consider, although I am
sure that it was not envisaged by the member who moved amendment 1.
Amendments 1 to 5 would in fact remove any scrutiny from the setting of fee
levels. They would certainly remove the ability of ministers to set
different fee levels for specific courses. As I said earlier, that would
potentially leave us unable to respond should top-up fees in the rest of the
UK make certain courses in Scottish universities more attractive, leading to
Scotland-domiciled students being unable to get places on courses at
Scottish universities — that would be too bad.
I suspect that it was not envisaged that amendments 1 to 5 would remove the
controls that we have proposed for ministers when setting general fee
levels. However, if the amendments were agreed to, ministers would be free,
under section 8(2), to set such terms and conditions as they considered
appropriate, without any form of parliamentary scrutiny: we would have
untrammelled power so to do without any consultation.
Amendment 14A specifies NUS Scotland as the student body that should be
consulted prior to making an order under section 8(6) or section 8(7). When
we drafted amendment 14, we carefully considered whether we should include
an explicit reference to the NUS in Scotland, but we decided against that as
we felt that it would restrict flexibility now and in the future,
specifically with regard to any prospective name or constitutional change
that might or might not take place in the NUS here in Scotland and whether
any legal liability would be imposed on its successors. As members will be
aware, NUS-affiliated bodies do not include all student unions within
fundable bodies and the proposed mandatory reference to NUS Scotland might
not be appropriate for unaffiliated bodies. Although such instances would be
rare, they could occur.
Having said that, I am sympathetic to the aims and objective of amendment
14A, which as I understand it is to include a statutory reference to the NUS
in the process and not necessarily to exclude anybody else we might want to
consult in addition to the NUS. If Richard Baker considers it acceptable, I
suggest that we lodge an amendment at stage 3 that makes specific reference
to the NUS Scotland and/or their legal successors as a statutory consultee
in this context. We would ensure that the terminology that is used reflects
any prospect of constitutional or name change that might or might not
feature on NUS Scotland's agenda—I do not know about that.
Notwithstanding the differences of opinion between us on the relative size
of the threat or otherwise of Scotland-domiciled students being displaced
from Scottish courses of their choosing by virtue of our inability to set
differential fees, I ask Fiona Hyslop to withdraw amendment 1 and to not
move amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5, not least because they would remove any
parliamentary scrutiny of the process of setting general fee levels. The
effect of agreeing to the amendments would be to undo all the good work that
the committee has done in ensuring that levels are not set unilaterally by
ministers and that, prior to any change being effected, the processes are
subject to the affirmative procedure and so to parliamentary scrutiny and
approval by this and future Parliaments.
Amendment 14A
The
Convener: Before I call Fiona Hyslop to wind
up, I say to the minister that if he wants to participate in the general
debate, he is perfectly entitled to do so. That would give him the
opportunity to respond to some of the points made by Mike
Watson and others.
Allan Wilson: I
would like to respond to Mike Watson's point because it is a concern shared
by me and my minister colleagues.
We await the report of the implementation advisory group to address not just
the University of Strathclyde example of repeat-year students, to which Mike
Watson referred, but the position of repeat-year higher national students
and second-degree students. There are a couple of categories. Mike Watson
referred to loopholes and it is certainly our intention to close them
following our receipt of the implementation advisory group's report, subject
to consideration of its more general implications for student funding. I
hope that I have given the assurance that Mike Watson seeks.
David Davidson started by saying that he supported the Subordinate
Legislation Committee's position on using affirmative resolution to impose
changes in general fee levels, then he said that he would support amendment
1, which seeks to remove that affirmative process.
On the duty to consult, which we intend to introduce by virtue of amendment
14, it is of course implicit that we will take on board the outcomes of the
consultation process.
I have responded generally to the points that Fiona Hyslop made, but on the
question of there being a financial incentive, I totally refute the
proposition that any revenue raised would be used to supplement loan
revenues to students studying in England. There is no financial incentive
involved.
To view entire contents of meeting please
Click Here
|
