Scottish Parliament, 27 January 2000

583 contributions from 86 members. The official report.

Introduction

David (None, Lothians)

Good morning, everybody. Today, we have an all-day debate on the Executive's proposals on wider access to further and higher education. It will be interrupted only by question time this afternoon.

Members who wish to speak in the debate—this morning or this afternoon—should press their buttons now, so that while the minister is speaking we can calculate what length members' speeches should be.

Further and Higher Education

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I will start by briefly reminding members of the outcome of yesterday's discussions—if an objective judgment can be made of them. The Cubie committee report was excellent. It set out a new direction for student support and new principles that we wholeheartedly endorse. I hope that, later today, the whole Parliament will endorse them too.

Our response has been to consider the priorities. We were especially struck by the Cubie committee's reference to equity groups. If there is one issue that transcends all political considerations in Scotland, it should be the need to provide help for those who need it most and the need to break down the barriers—which are still substantial—that prevent access to higher and further education across the country.

We concentrated on three areas. First, we will abolish tuition fees. After the political discussion dies down, I hope that there will be a recognition throughout Scotland that that will be done. It will be achieved by the autumn. Secondly, we decided that bursaries should be targeted at low-income students. Regardless of where the taper takes effect, and regardless of whether one party's view of generosity is different from another's, I hope that our announcement yesterday provides substantial help for those on the lowest incomes in the country. Thirdly, we announced a graduate endowment to fund support for students in the future.

The partnership is no stranger to trying to improve access and funding for students. Since the coalition was established in May last year, we have doubled the loan funding for part-time students on low incomes to £6 million from 2000-2001. We have introduced a £9 million pilot scheme over three years to encourage students from low-income families to stay on at school with a view to going into higher education. We have also provided more cash for access funds to relieve financial difficulties that are faced by higher education students.

Aside from the political debate—which is an obvious concomitant of our discussion today—I want to impress on the Parliament that this is part of a continuing process of trying to address the issues that the Cubie committee quite rightly addressed. It was important for me to put the debate into the context of what had already been done.

I want to stress how absolutely imperative it is to help people on low incomes. That help does not start in university or college. At the moment, we have a pilot project in Ayrshire, offering an education maintenance allowance. Because of a lack of peer group pressure or a lack of resources, or possibly because their family has never been involved in higher and further education, potential students from low-income families often do not think that they want to go on to college or university.

The tragedy is that there are literally thousands of bright young Scots who—given the removal of constraints—would take up that chance. The Ayrshire project will provide £40 a week to students to encourage them to stay on at school. When they get into school, they have to ensure that they get the necessary qualifications. Substantial transition schemes such as those in Strathclyde and Glasgow make such a major change easier for students from low-income backgrounds.

We are in the position to provide real financial help when it matters so that such young people's student lives can be enhanced and so that they feel they want to be part of further and higher education. I hope that the Parliament will endorse that position today. I cannot stress too much that this is a crucial issue for Scotland. Although we might differ in the margins about what is or is not being done, I hope that we can agree that this is the central issue of the Cubie committee report and of today's debate.

The report comes out against a background of optimism and momentum in higher and further education. Recently, however, there has been much discussion about the diminution in the number of acceptances in Scottish higher education institutions. Figures published by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service suggest that there has been a 2.3 per cent decrease in acceptances in 1999-2000 compared with the previous year.

However, a press release that was not picked up last week contained the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council's figures for 1999-2000, which confirm a total of 121,000 full-time equivalents in higher education institutions. That is an increase—not a decrease—of 0.5 per cent. That trend might be small, but it is in the right direction, and we want to accelerate it in the next few years. The total number of part-time students—about 10,500—rose by nearly 500 full-time equivalents; there were 15,600 postgraduate students, which is an increase of 4 per cent, or 600 full-time equivalents; and the number of full-time and sandwich students was 110,700, which is a marginal increase of 250 full-time equivalents, or 0.2 per cent.

We have to use the package to build on a very positive trend without an ounce of complacency, which is why we want to inject a further 42,500 students—2,500 in higher education and 40,000 in further education—over the next three years.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Is the minister aware of any impending publication containing further statistics from UCAS that might put a rather different gloss on the figures that he has just outlined to Parliament?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I am always well aware of any reports that UCAS has published or is about to publish. However, an issue that we—and perhaps Mr Swinney's excellent committee—must examine is that although UCAS figures include every English college and university, they give only partial coverage of the colleges in Scotland that provide higher education courses. That tends to distort the figures. However, one issue that cannot be distorted is that the SHEFC figures show a positive trend in the number in higher education institutions, which should encourage Parliament. The important point is that the considerations of the Cubie committee and the Executive should complement what is happening in higher and further education.

Yesterday, I said that the Cubie proposals are part of an excellent report. However, it is important to stress that 30 or 35 recommendations need further work. We are quite happy to undertake that work, and I hope to have discussions with the convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to find out how that committee can participate in the development of some of those important issues.

However, I should stress that, in the near future, we want to proceed with the child care package. Many people accessing further and higher education want proper support for their children. We believe that that is vital, and I am working with my colleague Sam Galbraith to establish how we can provide the best package. I hope to have further discussions on that issue.

One thing that I was slightly staggered about was the fact that the means test, which underpins a lot of our work, has not been reviewed in the United Kingdom since 1962—almost 40 years ago. The impact of that is wholly ridiculous. Since then, life has changed. Society has changed. The structure of families has changed. A range of things has changed.

I think that the Parliament will agree that we want to examine those changes closely. It will be for both the Executive and the Parliament to do so.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the minister accept that the easiest way to deal with the means test would be to remove it altogether and to treat students as standalone individuals, deserving respect and not being judged by the income of their parents?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

It would be tempting just to say no. I would like to add the caveat that, in the rather bizarre piece of paper published yesterday by the Conservatives—bizarre is the most complimentary word I can find, Sir David—they portrayed what true conservatism still is, whether in Scotland or in the United Kingdom as a whole.

The Conservatives want students from families earning less than £15,000 to get over £4,000 full stop. That equates to a loan plus their bursary. Students from families earning £50,000, £100,000, £150,000 or £200,000 would get the same amount. In my view, that is not justice and is nothing to do with equity. What it reeks of is that while the face of conservatism may attempt to change, it remains firmly rooted in the privilege of the past. That attitude has no place in a modern higher or further education system.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

The principle is called universal provision. It applies to health. Why does it not apply to education? It is something that Henry McLeish used to believe in.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I am not sure David McLetchie should deliberate on what I used to believe in. That said, I think that every member of this Parliament, with the possible exception of the Conservatives, but maybe including two or three of them who might take a different view, believes in equity, justice and access.

We need to build a system that reflects all the positive considerations. I would like the Tories' education spokesman to go to different parts of Scotland and tell people, "We don't care what your income is. We don't care what your background is. We want a commercial loan to be given to you. It will be income-contingent." They do not give a damn about the real issues that Cubie discussed and that we discussed. Unless they start to do that, they will continue to be lost in the fog.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Given the minister's comments, does he agree that the very principle he is talking about is increasing top rates of taxation? Would it not be better for the minister to argue with his party to increase the top rate of taxation, to pay for higher education and provide better grants?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

We are getting better bursaries with our package. We are getting the abolition of tuition fees. We are getting a student contribution, called the graduate endowment. I would have hoped that Tommy Sheridan would come some way towards my position, which is to say that this is real help for those in Scotland who will benefit from the package—and thousands of them will be in Glasgow.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The minister has touched on the abolition of tuition fees. I wonder whether he can help me out on a point that I am a little unclear about from his statement yesterday. He has made it clear that for Scottish students at Scottish universities, tuition fees will be translated into a graduate endowment in time for this autumn. Can he explain the mechanism by which that will done? Is any legislation required?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I am sorry for repeating myself, but the graduation endowment is nothing to with tuition fees. [Laughter.]

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It's the way he tells them.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The ministers are laughing too.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I am sure that if I repeat it 500 or 1,000—or even more—times, it may penetrate the minds of some of members in the chamber.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I am responding to John Swinney first, but I am happy to let Gil Paterson intervene in a moment.

There is no link between the graduate endowment and tuition fees. We in the partnership appreciate that, Scotland will appreciate it and the two main Opposition parties will be isolated.

The more encouraging feature is that we will be able to abolish tuition fees this autumn. That does not require legislation. There will be an Executive action. That shows that we will not hang around on this issue. We want to move quickly.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I cannot believe the minister if he is saying that the Executive is abolishing tuition fees. All it has done is put them on hire purchase.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I will be happy to explain some of the details of the report.

Students will get financial help. People appreciate that. Tuition fees will be abolished, no strings attached. There will be a graduate endowment that allows a contribution to be made to the future well-being and welfare of students.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

If the minister wants to get more children from lower-income families into higher education, why did the Labour Government, in its first year in office, slash the maintenance grant by £1,000?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Yesterday, David Blunkett, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, announced a package of measures to deal with hardship that takes in bursary provision, child care and the raising of the threshold for loan entitlement. I believe that that acknowledges what Mary Scanlon said. However, I am interested in what is about to happen in Scotland.

The Opposition seems to have changed its position. It campaigned vigorously for the abolition of tuition fees. Now that that has been delivered, it believes that tuition fees will continue under the guise of the graduate endowment. Surely, however, the Executive should be supported by all sides of the chamber for the fact that we will abolish tuition fees in the autumn of this year. Does the SNP support that? Does the Conservative party support that? I want to know whether they will support the abolition of tuition fees.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

rose—

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I will not give way as I must make some progress.

I want to examine some of the income groups that will see substantial benefits. The Cubie committee split mature students into two groups. It said that 40 per cent of them would be eligible for a bursary of about £8,000 and a loan of £7,940. We propose to allow mature students access to a loan of £14,000 and a discretionary bursary of £8,000. That means that our mature students could receive nearly £22,000 during their period of study. That compares favourably with the best bet in the Cubie proposals, which was £15,880, and the worst bet, which was £14,055. Not only will they get that money, they will be exempt from the graduate endowment. Mature students make up 30 per cent of the students in Scotland. This package is focused to widen access and it will give those students more money in their pockets when they start out.

The Cubie committee's proposals, which the SNP is signing up to—to be fair to the Conservatives, they are being consistent and have decided not to sign up to the proposals, but to ignore the committee—would halve the loan commitment for mature students. Our proposal retains the loan commitment and gives them more money when it matters: when they are starting their course. John Swinney will have a chance to explain why he wants to reduce the amount of money available to mature students.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Does the concept of giving money to students when they most need it apply to postgraduate students who are trying to meet loan repayments and pay off credit cards while working for poverty wages in McDonald's?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Under our proposals, no student will have any more debt to pay off. When it is recognised that there is substantial financial help at the lowest income levels, arguing Margo MacDonald's point is to go in two ways.

Let us spell out the facts about those who are earning £10,000 and less. Under our package, such people will have more than £16,000, combining loan and the access payment. Under Cubie's proposals, they would have slightly less than £16,000. Under our proposals, they will have slightly less debt than under the Cubie proposals—£10,055 rather than slightly over £11,000. This is an allocation of resources to where they matter.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the minister give way?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I must make some progress.

My final point may be of interest to the Conservatives, if they are still interested in what Cubie is saying. Under the Cubie proposals, it is suggested that families with an income of more than £50,000 should lose access to any state funding. That would mean that the family contribution for those with a combined income of more than £51,000 would rise from £7,740 to £15,880. We are suggesting, as a sensible measure, that those people should still be able to access a loan of £3,000, which would mean that their family contribution would be £11,055. That would ensure that they have less debt at the end of the process than at present and that a family would not jump that amount, in terms of parental contribution.

That is common sense. I would have thought that, if the Conservatives were true to their past, they would welcome what we are doing for that income group.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If we compare what the minister proposes with what Cubie proposes, yes, one has to welcome it, as it is an improvement on a poor recommendation from Cubie.

Does the minister accept that the problem lies in the fact that he is cutting the loan entitlement of the group he mentions and that the only barrier to ensuring that they have the same loan entitlement—or an increased entitlement—is the burden that it would place on the public sector borrowing requirement? Does he also accept that, by allowing those students a commercial rate at which they can choose how much they want to borrow, there would be no impact on the PSBR, and they would be able to fund their time at college or university themselves?

David (None, Lothians)

The minister has been generous in giving way, but he is now on his last three minutes.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

To sum up, none of what Brian Monteith is suggesting makes much sense, either to this Parliament or to the students of Scotland who want some improvement in their position.

Sir David, I accept your courteous invitation to wind up. What intrigued me greatly was the SNP's contribution to the Cubie inquiry—a good letter, as usual, written by John Swinney. In that letter, there is an ingenious suggestion that this Parliament may want to debate—one that we have not considered, and one that the Cubie committee did not consider.

The suggestion is that we should consider pre-graduation sponsorship by the business community. I am always willing to consider good ideas, as are my colleagues. Tucked away in the letter is that interesting little gem. I ask the SNP—I hope John Swinney will address it when he speaks—to what extent it wants the business community to get involved in student funding, and whether that means that, under SNP proposals, resources would be shifted into the private sector and the business community so that businesses can participate more wholeheartedly. All I ask for is a definition of that refocusing of moneys from graduate recruitment packages into pre-graduation sponsorship.

Yesterday, the Conservatives made a point that encapsulates their arguments for the future. In paragraph 10 of their response to Cubie, they say:

"Our argument is simple. If students loans are offered at a commercial rate and are income contingent they should not present a barrier to access and will be taken up only by those who genuinely need them."

So, commercialisation creeps in. Yesterday, a Conservative colleague raised the question of students going south. At the same time, however—on page 19 of the Conservatives' submission—they say:

"The operation of two different schemes within the UK is perfectly feasible".

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

In regard to loans.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

As a postscript they add:

"The reality of devolution, and one of the reasons why we see ourselves as the Party which has coped best with change to the constitution, is that it allows different systems to operate in different parts of the country. We are confident that on issues such as this that Scotland can dare to be bold enough to try new radical methods and are sure that the rest of the UK would follow our lead within a short period of time."

If that is not waving the saltire and saying that Scotland can take the lead, I do not know what is.

The lion has roared and the mouse in the Conservatives' submission says that we should simply give everybody £4,000. They do not care whether a person earns £1 million or less than £10,000—this is old conservatism returned in a new guise.

I hope that later today the chamber will approve the package that the Executive has proposed. I hope that there will be more consultation and more committee dialogue. I hope that we will have the useful involvement of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee—of which John Swinney is convener—in ensuring that tuition fees are abolished in the autumn of this year. We will then move swiftly on to redressing some of the injustices in higher and further education. The Parliament should be totally committed to that.

I move,

That the Parliament endorses the Scottish Executive's framework, Working Together for Wider Access to Further and Higher Education, its proposals for the abolition of tuition fees for Scottish domiciled students studying in Scotland and its fair, focused and affordable proposals for widening access, promoting lifelong learning, alleviating hardship and providing support during study.

David (None, Lothians)

Thank you for sticking to the time limit. I see that some members who previously indicated to me that they would like to speak have not pressed the buttons on their consoles. If they still wish to speak, will they press the buttons so that we can improve our calculations on how long each member will have. Speeches should be about four minutes, but the occupants of the chair will allow injury time for interventions. That should mean that all those who wish to speak will be called.

The situation has not been helped by the fact that throughout Mr McLeish's speech my screen produced all sorts of interesting pictures that had nothing to do with the debate. That is new technology for you. [Laughter.]

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I think that I was one of those guilty of not pressing their button. I am sure that by the end of my speech a number of members would prefer it if I had not.

I welcome the opportunity to have a full debate on the Executive's framework document on student finance—it has been a long time coming.

The SNP has consistently argued for a stable regime of funding support for the higher education sector and for higher education students. At the election last year, we argued for the abolition of tuition fees. At that stage, Labour attacked us for taking that position, but the good thing was that the SNP was not alone in that battle—the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives both argued for the abolition of tuition fees for all students domiciled in Scotland.

At the election, the SNP also argued for the restoration of maintenance support for Scottish students. That was a pretty lonely battle. Labour had only recently abolished maintenance grants and the Conservatives had no credibility on and no commitment to the issue—a lack of commitment that they shared with the Liberal Democrats.

We now hear—with the benefit of the Cubie inquiry—Labour admitting the total failure of the policy that it pioneered in the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. Cubie described the existing system as discredited. Labour has now implicitly conceded that that is the case, but its admission has been pretty ungracious. The comparisons of the Executive's proposals that the minister made yesterday in his statement and today in his speech are not with the discredited schemes of the dreaded Conservatives, but with a scheme that the Labour Government produced and promoted and that the minister supported and defended during the 1999 election.

Let me remind Parliament of the Labour party's history on the matter.

"The new student support arrangements . . . are fairer than the present system."

Mr McLeish could easily have coined those words in setting out the Executive's latest position. They are not his words, however—they are the words of Brian Wilson, from a letter he wrote on 8 December 1997 to fifth-year and sixth-year pupils in Scottish schools about the proposals that the Executive has now dumped. If it takes just two years for the previous bunch of Labour proposals to fail the test of fairness and equity, why on earth should we take seriously the latest proposals, which were designed in a political environment to obtain a political fix and not in the considered environment of an independent inquiry?

The Labour party fought the election with a determination to keep tuition fees and denied, throughout the campaign, that there were any problems with the maintenance arrangements for Scotland's students. I am pretty sure that Mr McLeish denied the existence of those problems directly to me during the many debates in which we both participated during the election campaign. A bit more honesty from Labour ministers about the distress and anguish that they have caused Scottish students and their families would not go amiss.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Does John Swinney maintain his position that Labour has performed a complete U-turn on this matter, an accusation that he made during his appearance on "Scottish Lobby"?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I have made it clear in my speech that Labour has implicitly accepted the failure of its higher education policy. During the election campaign, the Labour party argued that there was no need to contemplate the abolition of tuition fees or to address the maintenance crisis for Scottish students. In his speech today, the minister has implicitly admitted that that policy has failed.

As I shall outline later, we now have exactly what Mr Lyon hinted at—a complete and total mess of a higher education policy. The Government has failed entirely to win confidence for its position and is now trying desperately to cobble together a compromise.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Will Mr Swinney make the SNP's position clear? On the one hand, the SNP is saying that tuition fees have not been abolished but, on the other, it is accusing Labour of making a U-turn by abolishing tuition fees. Which is it?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Let me clear that up— [Interruption.] I would love to respond to Mr McLeish's intervention, if our distinguished Deputy First Minister could contain himself long enough to hear my response.

Mr McLeish has performed an absolute U-turn on maintenance grants. That is a fact. He is also, in my interpretation, supporting a position that has translated tuition fees into deferred tuition fees. Mr Wallace and his Liberal Democrat colleagues—a distinguished band, who are all here today—have supported a position whereby their manifesto commitment to the abolition of tuition fees of all Scotland-domiciled students at UK universities has not been fulfilled. That is a fair, factual statement of all that has happened.

Donald Dewar (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I cannot resist the temptation to intervene.

My understanding of the SNP position is that it is implacably and totally committed to the abolition of tuition fees. However, one morning, I woke up to hear John Swinney say on "Good Morning Scotland" that Labour must implement in full the Cubie report. As the Cubie report would retain tuition fees, why does the SNP support its implementation?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The First Minister—I was going to call him the secretary of state—should take care when he listens to the radio in the morning. Perhaps it is getting a bit difficult for him—I know that listening to the media is a bit of a tortuous exercise for him these days.

The First Minister has been merrily peddling that line in the Scottish media, but he should recognise that I said that I supported the Cubie recommendations with one exception—I could not accept the inquiry's commitment to the abolition of the principle of free education. I cannot be responsible if broadcasters trim answers that people give—[MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—nor can I be responsible if the First Minister is a bit hard of hearing when he gets up in the morning.

It is opportune that the First Minister intervened on that point as, later in my speech, I will address the principle of free access to higher education in order to clarify beyond doubt the point that he misheard over his cornflakes that morning.

The SNP did not support the establishment of an independent inquiry as proposed by the Government. Back in June, we supported the immediate abolition of tuition fees and the setting of a remit for the independent inquiry that would allow it to examine the serious issues of student hardship.

I am glad that this debate has got too much for the First Minister, who is having to leave. I hope that he will listen to what I have to say on the television. [Laughter.]

David (None, Lothians)

Order. Members should settle down.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I take pleasure in recording the SNP's admiration for the careful way in which the Cubie committee conducted its business. I say careful, because the committee listened with care to many representations from around Scotland. I say admiration, because the inquiry produced a dispassionate set of proposals that—with one exception, as I have just explained to our departed First Minister—I am happy to support. Because the committee listened with care, we, too, should listen with care to what it said. The Executive has not done that.

Mr McLeish made his position on this issue very clear in an interview in The Scotsman on 13 September. He said:

"It doesn't serve the interests of the political debate if two or three Lib Dems say 'we have a committee but we will totally ignore the findings'. Public money is being used for this committee and the [public] want to see its findings."

I could not agree more. However, it is not two or three recalcitrant Liberal Democrats who are ignoring the findings, it is the entire Administration. We should be listening with much greater care to the findings of the Cubie committee and taking its views much more seriously than the Executive is doing in its proposals.

I have made it clear that on one point the SNP parts company with Cubie. We part company on the point of whether the principle of free access to higher education is a principle worth sustaining. Why do we take that view? The reason is clear. We believe that a majority of MSPs were elected to this Parliament expressly to defend that principle. That is why back in June we moved our amendment to the Executive motion—to hive off the issue of tuition fees and settle the matter then, enabling an independent inquiry to tackle the issue of student finance dispassionately. We cannot support the Cubie proposal for a graduate endowment, because it breaches the principle of free access to higher education. This Government's proposal to replace the old tuition fees with a new tuition fee called the graduate endowment should be opposed for exactly the same reason.

The Executive tells us that the graduate endowment is required

"to recognise the benefits all graduates obtain from higher education".

What benefits do students receive when they are in higher education? The principal benefit that they receive is tuition. The principle of free access to higher education was breached by tuition fees. The breach has continued with the failure of the Executive to abolish tuition fees for all Scotland-domiciled students. It has been perpetuated by the establishment of a graduate endowment that is founded on the recognition of the benefits that all graduates obtain from higher education.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am unclear about the SNP's position on one point. We know that stage 1 of this process is the Executive's abolition of tuition fees at the earliest practical opportunity—

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is the endowment.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That is stage 2, if you want to call it that. The Executive is moving to abolish tuition fees for students starting in August and September at colleges and universities. Does Mr Swinney support that abolition this year, at the first practical opportunity—yes or no?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

My position could not be clearer. I want to see the abolition of tuition fees for all Scotland-domiciled students as quickly as possible. However, I do not want them replaced 12 months later by a graduate endowment, which is what is on offer.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Mr Swinney may be coming on to address this, but will he advise the chamber how the SNP would pay for the £108 million net cost of its proposals to support Cubie without the graduate contribution?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I have no idea where Mr Brown gets his numbers from, but we can debate that later.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Tell us what the figures are.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I have no idea where Mr Brown gets his numbers from.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Perhaps I can help. The Cubie committee's proposals would have cost £71 million. If the graduate endowment proposed by Cubie is excluded, £34 million can be added to that figure. If the SNP rejected any graduate contribution, the total bill would be £105 million. Those are the figures, and it is important that John Swinney tells us today where he would find that money. We will feel pain in finding £33 million. How much pain would there be in finding £105 million?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Not for the first time in this debate, the minister is very helpful. Of course, he will realise that the net difference between the proposals for which we have argued—Cubie plus—and the proposals that the minister is funding is £12 million this year. If the minister can find the resources that he says he can to fund the current proposals, I have no doubt that we can find the £12 million to fund the proposals for which we have argued.

In addition, the minister should consider our range of proposals to expand the revenue base of this Parliament, such as the extension of value programme. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats could align themselves with their federal leader and try to persuade the Government not to proceed with its ludicrous cut in the basic rate of taxation at a time when our public services are under enormous pressure. The Liberal Democrats should not give me any lessons in finance.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member give way?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I have given way to Mr McLeish several times, but I want to proceed with my arguments—there is much more to come in this speech.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

No. I am running out of time and have much more ground to cover.

In considering the continuation of tuition fees and the translation from upfront to back-end tuition fees, I am struck by a religious comparison. We are witnessing a battle between the Free Church and the Free Church (Continuing). Our version of that is tuition fees and tuition fees continuing. A fee is a fee is a fee, whether one is charged today or repays tomorrow. Either education is free or it is not.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

rose—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In the wreckage that remains of the coalition agreement lies the issue of Scotland-domiciled students at universities south of the border. Perhaps this is the moment for Mr McLeish to address—this may be the point that he rises to make himself clear—the difficulties that will be faced by Scottish students attending universities in England and Wales, when the course of their choice is offered only there. I did not get an answer when I raised that issue yesterday; perhaps Mr Stephen will give me an answer when he sums up.

It is time for the Executive to come clean on that point. European law does not prevent the payment of the tuition fees of Scottish students at UK universities. The problem lies in the unwillingness of the UK Government to deal with any consequences of the Scottish Parliament's rightful entitlement to take decisions within its jurisdiction. If Westminster were prepared to pick up the tab for the fees of EU students at English and Welsh universities, as the Scottish Executive proposes to do for the fees of EU students at Scottish universities, the issue would be resolved. The reluctance of Westminster ministers to face the realities of the total failure of their higher education policy holds Scotland back from a fair and stable regime.

The Executive statement makes great play of the 10,000 young students who will receive access payments of £2,000 per year, and the 5,000 students who will benefit from more support while studying. We welcome that, as we have long supported maintenance regimes.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am interested to know how the SNP would fund its proposals. It is obvious that Mr Swinney has not understood the Cubie economics, but perhaps he will understand the economics of his own manifesto, which said that the SNP had allocated £38 million to abolish tuition fees for Scotland-domiciled students attending higher education institutions in Scotland and furth of Scotland. What part of that £38 million did he earmark to pay the fees of European students attending institutions in England and Wales? How much of that £38 million was earmarked to fund the fees of English students who, if Scotland were independent, would be foreign nationals?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Wallace has raised two separate issues. The first question is adequately explained in our proposals for funding the arrangements for students from outwith Scotland. The figure was sourced from the House of Commons library, which I take to be a reputable source of estimates of the amount of money that would be required.

If Scotland were independent, of course there would be differences and changes. However, if Mr Wallace thinks that English students coming to Scotland are to be viewed with hostility, he demonstrates a little Scotlander attitude with which I do not associate myself.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

rose—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Mr Wallace should sit tight while I give a critique of his position. Much of the—

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Will Mr Swinney give way?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

No, I want to proceed with my speech.

Much of the heat of this debate has centred on the role of the Liberal Democrats in the coalition partnership. On 17 June last year, Liberal Democrat members argued in this chamber that the quickest way of securing the abolition of tuition fees was to have a committee of inquiry. During that debate, I asked a Liberal Democrat member—I think that it was Mr Rumbles—to explain the logic of that idea. Now it is clear. The minister has told us this morning that no legislation is required and that this is an Executive action. So what was preventing the Liberal Democrats from voting for a motion to abolish tuition fees last June rather than wasting time to reach the position that we are now in, where we will have an extra year in which that burden will continue to fall on Scottish students?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I must declare an interest. Before coming to this Parliament, I was a lecturer at Aberdeen College for four years. I therefore have first-hand experience of how colleges work and of the receipt of those fees. If Mr Swinney were to read the Official Report , he would see that I said at the time that to abolish tuition fees then would ruin the finances of further and higher education establishments. The SNP motion called on the Executive simply to withdraw fees, but suggested no alternative plans for the universities and colleges. What is being proposed is the fastest possible practical way to abolish tuition fees for students starting courses in the next academic year.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I simply do not understand that logic. The Liberal Democrats say that there must be a graduate endowment to complete the picture, but tuition fees are allegedly to be abolished this October. We cannot have it both ways, but that is exactly what the Liberal Democrats are trying to do.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Will Mr Swinney give way?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I have only one minute left and I still have other points to make.

In June 1999, Mr Wallace raised a point—

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

rose—

David (None, Lothians)

Mr Swinney has been generous in giving way, but he has indicated that he is winding up and will accept no more interventions.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Not happy with the wording of the Opposition amendment in the June debate, Mr Wallace said:

"The amendment would also mean that . . . Scottish students studying in other parts of the United Kingdom would still have to pay tuition fees. That, expressly, was not part of the Liberal Democrat manifesto."—[Official Report, 17 June 1999; Vol 1, c 594.]

It may not have been part of Mr Wallace's manifesto then, but it is now. The Liberal Democrats have signed up to a position in which they have delivered an unsatisfactory package and failed on their manifesto commitments.

On the day of the publication of the Cubie report, George Lyon said in a radio interview:

"The deferred system is unacceptable to us."

A repayment of £3,000 on a threshold income of £25,000 is unacceptable, but take £1,000 off that fee and drastically lower the threshold to £10,000 and, somehow, the deal is acceptable.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Will Mr Swinney give way?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I have to wind up now.

The style of the scheme is the same, but the shape is a bit fatter, a bit wider and hits more people. The hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats' submission to the Cubie committee could not be clearer.

The Liberal Democrats' submission is a wonderful document. I could not quite believe it when I saw it. It is entitled "Towards Free Education". Were they in the ministerial car when they decided to go towards free education? Was the ministerial car so comfortable that they decided not to reach that destination? They have certainly failed to reach it.

This is a shabby deal. It is not a mature, sensible, modern view of where Scottish higher education funding should be going in the 21st century—the description that Mr McLeish gave yesterday of the Cubie report. It is a political fix designed to keep two parties together in coalition. It is an admission of failure of Labour's higher education policy from Westminster. It is an abandonment of the principles of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, who, despite their protestations, have replaced front-end tuition fees with back-end tuition fees, creating a big disincentive for Scottish students to go to the university of their choice.

The deal will not last. It will not pass its essential tests. Scotland's students have been betrayed by the Executive. They deserve better, and we will hold the Executive to account for its failure to deliver. [Applause.]

I move amendment S1M-461.1, to leave out from "endorses" to end and insert:

"resolves that the principle of free access to higher education must be restored; calls upon the Scottish Executive to abolish tuition fees for all Scottish students at UK universities and opposes the proposals for a Scottish Graduate Endowment as tuition fees by another name, and demands the implementation in full of the other recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Student Finance."

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

In the beginning, there was a man called Tony Blair, who was determined to be Prime Minister at all costs and to say anything and do anything to achieve that objective. In the style that has become his trademark in his first thousand days in office, he promised before the previous election that he had

"no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education".

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

rose—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

I shall accept interventions in a moment, but I would like to get started first.

Tony Blair then broke that promise within months of coming to office. Not only that; he abolished what remained of the student grant system at the same time.

The Labour party in Scotland stuck with that policy throughout the Scottish parliamentary election, although fees were highly unpopular, and it won seats in this Parliament on that basis. I respect the Labour party for its integrity on that issue during the Scottish election campaign. It was not easy to defend that policy on the hustings, given that it must have run counter to the political instincts of most of the party's candidates. So I give the Labour party respect for sticking to its guns. However, the coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, are an entirely different proposition. How much must they now regret all those pledges about abolishing tuition fees that they made during the Scottish election campaign. Who can forget those old election favourites, Jim Wallace and Sir David Steel, the Presiding Officer?

David (None, Lothians)

You are treading on dangerous ground now.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Who can forget them duetting on that catchy little number,

"tuition fees are dead as of next Friday"?

That was Friday 7 May 1999, lest we forget. Another number was:

"The people of Scotland have made it non-negotiable".

Presiding Officer, we then had your good self taking the lead with words such as:

"tuition fees will go if Labour do not get an overall majority",

and, of course, with that much-loved comedy record:

"Mr Dewar has no choice but to accept that tuition fees are effectively dead".

After the election, that happy little duo broke up and went their separate ways. Jim Wallace disowned his earlier compositions and the promises that he made to his fans in his famous election rhetoric piece, and went off to join Donald's rival group, which he had been planning to do all along. Meantime, the Presiding Officer moved on to much higher things, and it was left to a few die-hards to keep the faith alive. Donald Gorrie put out an angry release, calling Wallace's new group

"the biggest bunch of liars you could meet".

Given the events of the past few days, how prescient that remark was. And of course, we had the redoubtable Mr Raffan maintaining that he would

"never, ever compromise on tuition fees".

The Liberal Democrats were given an early opportunity in this Parliament to vote to abolish tuition fees, and to do so with effect from September 1999, because it could be achieved by Executive action, as the minister acknowledged. Instead, most of them meekly followed their leader in voting with Labour to establish the committee of inquiry.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

rose—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Not just now.

Not surprisingly, that about-turn was not popular with supporters of the Liberal Democrats, who concluded, along with the rest of us, that the party was not one of principle, and had promised to abolish tuition fees only for short-term chart success. The party had no real artistic integrity, and simply was trying to be all things to all men, as per usual. So it came to pass that for the first time in our history, a political party was beaten at politics by a football team.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

rose—

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

rose—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

I will take Mr Jenkins first, and Mr Smith later.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

If I remember after all this time, Mr McLetchie said at the beginning of his speech that in the beginning was Tony Blair. Am I right in thinking that before the beginning there was chaos and darkness?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Very good. The Bible also has a lot to say about— [Interruption.] Before Tony Blair, we had seen the fastest expansion in higher education this century. That is a fact, and I will address it later. In addition, in the Bible, which Mr Jenkins clearly is fond of quoting, there is a great deal about truth, honesty and integrity—qualities that he and his party have failed to exhibit in the past eight or nine months.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Rather than quote Genesis, would not it be more accurate to say that Maggie begat Tony?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

We have probably had enough of the Old and New Testaments.

When we were in office, we did not introduce tuition fees for our students. One of our proudest achievements—as I attempted to explain to Mr Jenkins—was that during that 18 years the number of students going into higher education in the UK rose from just under 800,000 in 1979 to just under 2 million in 1997. In Scotland, the number of school leavers going on to further or higher education rose from 17 per cent to 43 per cent in the same period. We are proud of that achievement, which came about without the introduction of front-end or back-end tuition fees or tuition taxes.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Is David McLetchie equally proud of the fact that the efficiency savings that the Conservative Government imposed on higher education reduced it to a parlous state? This Government has begun to restore it.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Dr Simpson should not delude himself. That is complete nonsense.

No one pretends that there is an unlimited pot of money for higher education or any other branch of expenditure— [Interruption.] Perhaps the Scottish National party does, but I certainly do not. As we demonstrated in the debate yesterday on the Budget (Scotland) Bill, it is absurd for Dr Simpson to pretend that the Executive has unlimited pots of money and that universities are exempt from producing efficiency in the delivery of education to our children, when no one else is.

An even more significant achievement in the period while we were in office was the fact that the proportion of students from low-income families going on to higher education went up from 4 per cent in 1980 to 25 per cent in 1997. That proves that our policies were making higher education more accessible for all.

In keeping with that tradition, we were the first party to produce a costed scheme to abolish tuition fees, the Saltire award, costed at £42 million and agreed at that figure by the Cubie committee. We were naturally delighted when all the other parties—bar one—joined us in the Scottish Parliament election campaign: the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Socialist party and the Green party all joined us in the call to abolish tuition fees for Scottish students.

Our scheme and the other parties' ideas were based on listening to the concerns of people in Scotland, listening to the fact that the tuition tax—the tax on learning—was highly unpopular. Our scheme would abolish fees outright for Scottish students—no matter where they studied—and give them real choice as to the university that they attended and the course that they followed. We do not accept that it would fall foul of any European Union law. As I said, it has been fully costed.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Is it not the case that under the Conservative scheme, the abolition of tuition fees would be funded by charging students double the current interest rates for their student loans? They would be charged commercial interest rates on their loans, which would make them worse off.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

That is not true. The detail of the scheme is that the repayment timetable of the loans is income contingent. We do not deny that an element of state subsidy is involved in providing for the maintenance of our students. What we say is that it should be directed through a commercial loan scheme, so that the amount of money involved does not become a burden on the public sector borrowing requirement and a constraint on the spending policies of the Executive. I do not accept that it makes people worse off.

We have lodged a member's bill in this Parliament, on which I hope members will have an opportunity to vote, to bring in our scheme, notwithstanding the fact that we are now being invited to proceed with the dog's breakfast of a proposal produced by the Scottish Executive, which takes the Cubie recommendations and makes them even worse.

A particularly inglorious aspect of this saga is the parochialisation of Scottish universities and the discrimination against Scottish students who wish to study at universities elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That has apparently happened because of legal advice given to the Executive.

We are told that it cannot be done, and that EU law forbids it and presents an insurmountable obstacle. We asked yesterday whether the Scottish Executive would publish the reasoned opinion on which that decision was based, but that request was refused point-blank. So Henry and Jim's lawyers say no. They are a busy band of legal eagles, not only ruling out the proposals of Mr Cubie's committee—and he is himself a distinguished lawyer—but busy analysing our proposals and those of the SNP and the Liberal Democrats and saying that they would not work either.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

What do Mr McLetchie's lawyers say? If he comes forward with a proposal to get round the problem, as was said yesterday, the Executive will look at it and act on it.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

We are convinced that our scheme will work. If the Executive and HM Government would publish the detailed reasoned opinion, we could have an informed debate on the subject in Parliament. We are being asked to accept the simple assertion by the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning that it cannot be done. This is a major constraint on the policy-making power of the Parliament. The minister says no and we are supposed meekly to accept that without examination or scrutiny.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

rose

—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

One minute, Mr Swinney. That is from a minister in an Executive that preens itself as a champion of freedom of information—what a fraud.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Is not it incumbent on a Government that supports freedom of information—as my party does, although Mr McLetchie's party does not have much to be proud of on that in the past—and which is asking Parliament seriously to debate an issue and to recognise serious legal obstacles to proposals being taken forward, to treat Parliament with more courtesy and to make that legal opinion available to Parliament?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

I agree. Mr McLeish talks a lot about openness, inclusiveness and involvement and I believe he is sincere in that, so I hope that when the proposals are examined by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, he will give the legal facts and allow the matter to be scrutinised and debated.

After all, if we look at the record of the lawyers advising the Scottish Executive to date, they have hardly covered themselves in glory. The same lawyers allowed Mr Ruddle to walk out of Carstairs without pulling out all the legal stops to prevent him; they did not think it worth while appealing the case involving temporary sheriffs. The Scottish Executive was singularly ill prepared for that landmark decision. Perhaps we should import a few French Government lawyers—as we have seen with the beef ban, they do not quail in terror before EU law when it comes to defending the interests of their citizens and their Government. They use their creative talents to further the policies that their people want.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

rose

—

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

rose

—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Why is it that the £700,000 investigation undertaken by Mr Cubie's committee did not examine the EU implications of its recommendations, so that our debate could be fully informed by his research?

I think Mr Smith was first.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I ask Mr McLetchie, who is himself a lawyer, whether he is advocating—as he seems to be—that the Executive should ignore and break the law. Is he seriously suggesting that?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Of course not. I wish that the member would not make such fatuous remarks. Everybody who knows anything about the law knows that it is capable of many different interpretations. There are many creative minds that could be put to work to find a non-discriminatory solution to the problem that would not fall foul of European law. I call on the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

rose

—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Not now, Mr Swinney. I must move on.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Give way.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

rose

—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

No. I have had enough, Mr Jenkins. I am sorry. [Interruption.] No. I have been very generous.

The compromise deal that has been agreed by the Executive is a con that simply substitutes a tuition tax for a tuition fee. It increases division in education and reduces the opportunity for Scots to study elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Jim Wallace and his colleagues have hailed it as a great triumph for their party and a fulfilment of their commitment. I hate to lecture Jim Wallace on his election manifesto—a work of pulp fiction, if ever there was one—but it committed his party to

"Abolish tuition fees for all Scottish students at UK universities."

Indeed, during our debate on 17 June, Jim Wallace reminded Ms Sturgeon of that fact by repeating the quotation. He went on to attack her, and the amendment that she moved that day, on the ground that

"Under the proposal that she is asking us to vote for, Scottish students at English universities would still have to pay fees."—[Official Report, 17 June 1999; Vol 1, c 618.]

Those were Mr Wallace's words; they are on the record.

Under the Executive's proposals, those students will still pay fees—

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I accept that those were my words. I have indicated that I am dismayed and disappointed that we cannot deliver on that.

If Mr McLetchie would stop for one moment and think, he would realise that the amount concerned would be affordable if we did not, potentially, have to pick up a tab of about £20 million to fund European Union nationals at English and Welsh universities. It is something that we want to do, but it is not being done because the consequences are that we could end up spending substantial money from the Scottish block on funding EU nationals at English, Welsh and Northern Irish universities. I think that the Scottish people would rather see us invest that vast sum of money in Scottish education.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

I understand Mr Wallace's point—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Is it the law, or is it money?

David (None, Lothians)

Order. Mr McLetchie must be allowed to speak. He is in the last minute of his speech.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

I understand Mr Wallace's point; I accept it, but the fact is that he is accepting a blithe assertion on the legal position, and the creative minds have not been employed in achieving the fulfilment of his pledge.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

rose—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

No, thank you, Mr Jenkins.

This is a cost-cutting exercise. After all the time and money that went into the Cubie proposals, and the discussions that have been had, it seems now that we will go from a position where 60 per cent of students pay fees in whole or in part, to one where 50 per cent of graduating students will pay a tuition tax in full.

The Executive says that things will be no worse. That may be okay for members of the Labour party—they can square that with their own consciences—but the Liberal Democrats were supposed to make things better. They may be able to kid themselves, but they cannot kid the Scottish people. Contrary to what Liberal Democrats may think, we did not all come up the Clyde on a bicycle. Henry McLeish has—

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

rose—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

No, thank you, Mr Jenkins—you probably could manage to come up the Clyde on a bicycle.

Henry McLeish demonstrated the amazing capacity for self-delusion in the Executive when he said today that the graduate endowment had nothing to do with tuition fees. That is absolute nonsense.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

rose—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

The minister also talked about repeating that point 500 times, but the "big lie" theory of politics did not work for its previous practitioner and it will not work for him or the coalition.

The truth of the matter is—

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member give way?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

No. I am in my last minute.

David (None, Lothians)

No. He is in his last minute.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member give way?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

No, I am sorry. I am in my last minute.

David (None, Lothians)

He is not giving way.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

The truth of the matter is that the majority of students going from school to university will be worse off as a result of the new arrangement. That is nothing to be proud of.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member give way?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

No. I am summing up.

The proposals are a stealth tax—a tax on learning and achievement—and they demonstrate the poverty of the Executive's ambitions. The Liberal Democrats in particular should be hanging their heads in shame for recommending this shabby deal to the Parliament. The only edifying thing that will come out of the whole affair is that no one will ever believe a word that the Liberal Democrats say, about anything, ever again. Thank goodness—it is about time, too.

The motion is yet another reason for the Scottish public to be cynical about the Parliament and politicians in general. We need to get the Parliament back on the right track, as a matter of urgency, to address the issues and concerns that matter to people in Scotland. That means abolishing tuition fees before, during or after the completion of education—as Mr Gorrie said; I agree with him on that. Our amendment seeks to achieve that; the Executive's shabby deal does not.

I move amendment S1M-461.4, to leave out from "endorses" to end and insert:

"rejects the Scottish Executive's framework for its failure to abolish unconditionally tuition fees for all Scottish students and its introduction of a new tuition tax which together with the reduction in loan entitlement for a significant number of applicants puts many Scottish students in a worse position than before."

David (None, Lothians)

Mr George Lyon will open for the Liberal Democrats.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. [MEMBERS: "Here we go."]

The cheers have started already.

I give a warm welcome to the new package of student support, as announced by the Executive. I remind everyone that the package is worth £200 million over the lifetime of the Parliament. That is a huge investment in student support.

First, I pay tribute to the hard work of Andrew Cubie and his committee. They established the guiding principles that student support should maximise the opportunity for everyone to gain access to high-quality lifelong learning, and that it should promote social inclusion and the knowledge economy, and enhance a civil society. The package addresses those basic principles.

Cubie identified the present arrangements as being broadly discredited—John Swinney alluded to that in his speech. He identified loan aversion and, most important, tuition fees, as barriers to accessing higher and further education. The £200 million package, which abolishes tuition fees and reintroduces grants of up to £8,000, removes those barriers and provides the best student support package in Europe.

It is a fair package that reverses—

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I seek some advice from George. I do not intend to make a habit of it.

The son of one of my constituents is a medical student at the University of St Andrews. He has to spend three years at St Andrews and two at the University of Manchester. Will George tell me whether a different set of rules will apply for the three years the individual concerned spends at St Andrews to those that will apply when he is at Manchester? How should I respond to my constituent?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Of course there will be a different set of rules. Devolution was designed to set up Scottish solutions to Scottish problems.

This is a fair package, which reverses 20 years of cuts in student support by Tory and Labour Governments and abolishes tuition fees.

John Swinney, in an interview yesterday, and Tommy Sheridan, in the Parliament yesterday, both accused the Labour party of doing a U-turn on abolishing tuition fees and reintroducing grants.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

rose—

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am glad that John Swinney and Tommy Sheridan recognise that the U-turn came about because the Liberal Democrats are in government, delivering their manifesto commitments. Members cannot have it both ways: they cannot accuse the Labour party of doing a U-turn and accuse us of not delivering.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am grateful to Mr Lyon for giving way.

He said that the Liberal Democrats had delivered their manifesto commitment. Correct me if I am wrong, but did the Liberal Democrats not have a manifesto commitment to abolish tuition fees for all Scotland-domiciled students at UK universities?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

We did. As I have said already, if the Scottish National party or the Conservatives have the solution, they should bring it forward. We are willing to listen to it.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I have just taken an intervention. I need to make progress.

The new £200 million package of student support, which abolishes tuition fees and brings back generous grants of up to £8,000, demonstrates that the Liberal Democrats, in government, are delivering on education. Coming on top of the £80 million for education that is already in place, over the period of this Government that is a total of £280 million extra for education. That is a significant investment in our children's future. It is the Liberal Democrats who have delivered that.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will Mr Lyon clarify whether the new arrangements for tuition fees, to be introduced in August this year, will apply to all students, whether new or existing? If they apply to existing students, perhaps he can answer the following question, which was e-mailed to me this morning by a member of the public:

"My daughter is in first year of a University course. I will have paid £1025 fees this session. With the abolition of fees will my daughter only have to pay £975 after she graduates and is earning £10,000?"

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Next year she will pay nothing.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

What about when she is earning £10,000?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

She will pay nothing. Does the member not understand that student fees are abolished from 1 September? [Interruption.]

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Order. Please continue, Mr Lyon.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

She will not pay the endowment grant; from 1 September, tuition fees are abolished.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I have given way several times.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Will the member give way?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Yes. [Interruption.]

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Order.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

It might be helpful if I clarify the situation. Student fees are being abolished. That means that the fees of students in the situation that Nicola Sturgeon describes will continue to be paid until the end of their course. Those students will not have to pay the graduate endowment.

I remind members that the graduate endowment is being introduced to fund a package of maintenance for students from disadvantaged families. That is its purpose.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I would like to discuss some examples of the benefits of the new package. Mature students will no longer have to pay tuition fees. They will also benefit from £10 million additional grant support, worth an average of £2,000. They will be exempted from the graduate contribution scheme, but will still be entitled to full loan support. That means £2,000 extra cash while they study and not a penny extra in debt when they graduate.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Can George Lyon give examples of employees whose daughters and sons will qualify for the full grant or access fund entitlement? Given that he referred to the comments that I made yesterday, does he agree that his new Labour partners should apologise to the students of Scotland for introducing fees in the first place?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I support the comments made by Tommy Sheridan yesterday.

Students with a family income of less than £10,000—10 per cent of students—will not have to pay tuition fees. Those students will benefit from £8,000 in three maintenance grants and a total of £2,000 extra to live on. Furthermore, they will graduate with £4,000 less debt than under the current arrangements. That is a huge benefit to those students who are grossly under-represented in higher and further education.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Will the member give way?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I have taken several interventions and I would like to make some progress.

Students with a family income of £22,000 per annum will have their fees abolished and will receive £1,200 extra grant. They will graduate £4,330 less in debt than under Cubie's proposals.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am conscious of the time.

Those figures demonstrate that, across the range of income levels, the majority will benefit from the package. However, the biggest beneficiaries—this relates to Tommy Sheridan's point—are the students from low-income families who are currently vastly under-represented in our Scottish universities. That is a significant step forward.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

If those benefits are as Mr Lyon describes—and I do not accept that they are—why should a small group of people living in a community such as Langholm be deprived of those benefits because of their geographic location? They have little or no choice but to study in Carlisle.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

As the minister said in his reply yesterday, he is very willing to consider providing the grant maintenance package to those students who are attending universities and further education colleges south of the border.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

He did not say that.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will the member give way?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Will the member give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Give way.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I have taken many interventions. [Interruption.]

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Order.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I want to discuss the graduate contribution scheme, which the Opposition is trying to present as some form of tuition tax. Let us get the facts straight: 50 per cent of students will be exempt from repayment. There is a cast-iron guarantee that the majority of students will have less debt than under the present system, even with the loan and contribution combined.

We have also guaranteed that, with the loan and the £2,000 contribution combined, no student will owe a penny more than they would under the current loan system. No graduate will pay a penny extra on their monthly payments, and the majority of graduates, even with the loan and the contribution taken together, will pay off their debts much more quickly than they would under the current arrangements.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

rose—

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

rose—

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

No graduate loans will take any longer to pay off, and most students will pay off their debts much quicker. That is good news for students, and it deals with the issue of loan aversion that Andrew Cubie highlighted in his report.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

rose—

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I have listened closely to Mr Lyon. Will he explain to the chamber and to the watching public why on Scot FM, on 21 December, he said that the Cubie report did not go far enough?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Exactly—and that is why this deal abolishes tuition fees with no deferment whatsoever. Fifty per cent of students will not have to make any contribution to the graduate endowment.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

rose—

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Will the member give way?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I have given way a good number of times, but Fergus should not worry, because I am keeping an eye on him and he will get a chance yet.

We have heard a good deal of criticism from the SNP and the Tories that Scottish students at English universities will not have their fees abolished. I am glad that they recognise that they are being abolished in Scotland. I repeat our challenge of yesterday: if they have a sensible solution to that intricate legal problem, let us see them put their money where their mouths are and come forward with proposals.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

rose—

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

rose—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

rose—

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

As the minister indicated yesterday, he will be willing to examine and act upon any real solution to the problem that is proposed.

I will give way to Fergus, who has been very patient. I am always very generous to him.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Thank you. Speaking as a humble lawyer, I feel that a debt renamed is still a debt, and that a debt deferred is a debt preserved. To illustrate the logic that has been employed by the Liberal Democrats, I ask George Lyon whether he thinks that to defer capital punishment is the same as to abolish capital punishment. Would the answer be different if capital punishment were renamed as involuntary discontinuance of respiration? [Laughter.]

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Fergus has just demonstrated why he needed a career change.

What do the Opposition offer us? David McLetchie of the Tories is now pretending to be the students' champion. That is nothing less than two-faced political opportunism. The Tories have no credibility on higher education and student support.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Eighteen years of Tory rule featured cut after cut, 13 separate cuts in all, from the abolition of minimum grants to the removal of benefits and the annual cuts in grants. Eighteen years of Tory cuts created the crises in student funding and the higher education sector. The Tories were the architects of student poverty, so I hope that we will see no crocodile tears from Mr McLetchie.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Tony Blair is the architect of student poverty. And if it was all cut, cut, cut, will Mr Lyon explain why the number of students in higher education in the United Kingdom rose from just under 800,000 in 1979 to nearly 2 million in 1997, a major expansion of which Conservatives are proud? Answer that.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Mr McLetchie has given the explanation of why the Tories were the architects of student poverty. The numbers rose and no extra money went in; indeed, the money was cut.

The other Opposition party and partner, the SNP, has so far had five different policies on student support since the previous general election. There have been no fewer than three in the past seven months. The SNP has been consistent in only one respect—the price tag keeps rising, from £50 million at the election in May to more than £110 million today.

John Swinney pledged yesterday that another £20 million would be made available for English students studying in an independent Scotland. Indeed, Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP education spokeswoman, told The Sunday Times in September 1998 that the Scottish Parliament could not afford to reintroduce grants. She said:

"When we have got the resources of independence, then we will restore student grants."

Perhaps that is why the SNP manifesto for the May election promised a grant of just £500 a year for the poorest 20,000 students.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will George Lyon set out to Parliament both the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment on student maintenance for last May's elections and the proposals for student maintenance that his party suggested to the Cubie inquiry?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

On our commitment on student maintenance, the manifesto mentions

"maintenance of up to £2,000 a year".

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will George Lyon give way for a further small intervention?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

No, I want to finish.

A Scottish Parliament run by the SNP could afford only a grant of £500 a year. The grant proposed by the Liberal Democrat/Labour Executive will be four times greater and will cover 30,000 students—10,000 more than the SNP pledge.

On every issue faced by the Parliament, the SNP's policy has been quite simple: if the Executive spends £100, it will spend £200. Time and time again, the SNP doubles the spend.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

rose—

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

For example, when the Executive says that it will spend £100 million on roads, Kenny MacAskill doubles that figure again and again and again and says that the SNP will spend £800 million on roads. It is the same again today. The Executive is spending £50 million and John Swinney says: "I'll double your money. We will spend £110 million". This is game show economics.

The SNP's spending pledges since September stand at £2.3 billion, which is £15 million a day of promises. Even supposing the jelly chancellor Andrew Wilson's balls come up in the lottery every Wednesday and Saturday for the next year, he still could not raise enough money to meet SNP pledges. The SNP's double-your-money policies are more suited to Chris Tarrant on the telly, but of course Andrew Wilson would need to phone a friend.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

rose—

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

If it were not for the Scottish Liberal Democrats in government, there would be no Cubie report, no abolition of fees, no reintroduction of £8,000 of grants and no £50 million package for education. We have demonstrated that, under devolution, radical Scottish solutions can be delivered for Scottish problems.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

rose—

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The question today for the Tory and SNP Opposition partners is whether they will vote with us to abolish tuition fees and restore grants, or whether they will abandon their manifesto commitments and vote against a package that delivers £200 million extra to Scottish students.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

We now move to the open session of the debate. As normal, members will have four minutes to speak.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The debate about student funding is a variant of the wider debate about universal versus targeted benefits, and is helped by the concept of opportunity cost, which is unfortunately outside the conceptual universe of the SNP. In other words, it may be desirable to implement Cubie plus at £105 million or even Cubie plus plus at £200 million a year, but not if that means raiding other budgets.

Since 1997, I have taken the view that, ideally, university tuition should be available as a universal benefit, but not if the opportunity cost of that is fewer students in higher education and slowing down the process of widening access for students, particularly those from lower-income backgrounds. I am therefore delighted that the package before us today enables tuition fees to be abolished and access to be widened. Because the opportunity cost of less access is not there, I fully support that aspect of the package.

My primary concern in this debate about student funding has always been about the abolition of grants. Let us remember that grants have always been a targeted or means-tested benefit. I am an honest enough Labour politician to admit that the Labour Government at Westminster has made one or two mistakes in its first 1,000 days. I think that the abolition of grants was one such mistake.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I would just like to make a short intervention. I have been a wee bit encouraged by the Liberal Democrat members behind me. Could Malcolm Chisholm tell us what he thinks are the other mistakes that the Labour Government has made?