Scottish Parliament, 29 March 2001

396 contributions from 78 members. The official report.

Introduction

Business Motion

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Good morning. The first item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Euan Robson to move business motion S1M-1810, which is a timetabling motion for stage 3 of the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) (No 2) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the time for consideration of Stage 3 of the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) (No 2) Bill be allocated as follows, so that debate on each part of the proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion on the expiry of the specified period (calculated from the time when Stage 3 begins)— Group 1 to Group 3 - no later than 1 hour 30 minutes Group 4 - no later than 2 hours 30 minutes Motion to pass the Bill - no later than 3 hours.— [Euan Robson.]

Motion agreed to.

Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) (No 2) Bill: Stage 3

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

We move to stage 3 of the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) (No 2) Bill. I shall begin by making the usual announcements about the procedures that will be followed.

First of all we will deal with amendments to the bill. We will then move to a debate on the question that the bill be passed. For the first part of the proceedings, members should have a copy of the bill—SP Bill 22—the marshalled list containing all amendments selected for debate by the Presiding Officer, and the groupings that have been agreed. Amendments will be debated in groups where appropriate. Each amendment will be disposed of in turn and an amendment that has been moved may be withdrawn with the agreement of members present. It is, of course, possible for members not to move amendments should they so wish. The electronic voting system will be used for all divisions. I shall allow an extended voting time of two minutes for the first division that occurs after each debate on a group of amendments.

Amendment 4 is grouped with amendments 5, 6, 7 and 1. I invite Dennis Canavan to move amendment 4 and to speak to the other amendments in the group.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

I will begin my opening comments by addressing amendments 6 and 7. The purpose of this group of amendments is to ensure that graduates do not have to start paying a graduate endowment until their salaries reach a minimum level of £25,000 per annum. The amendments also seek to ensure that that threshold should be increased annually in line with the increase in either the retail prices index or the average earnings index, whichever is the greater.

I would like to make it clear at the outset that I do not think that a graduate endowment system is the best way to finance higher education. I favour the complete abolition of tuition fees, whether the upfront advance payment or the postgraduate payment. Many students perceive the graduate endowment as a form of postgraduate payment of tuition fees. The Executive failed to introduce immediate legislation to abolish tuition fees completely, despite the fact that the majority of members of the Scottish Parliament were elected on commitments to abolish them.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Does Dennis Canavan recognise that tuition fees are paid in full to the universities by the Executive? Members should use the right terminology; tuition fees are in effect abolished.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Whether we call them tuition fees or not, the fact of the matter is that, under the bill as it stands, there will be an obligation on students after they graduate to make a payment. Many students perceive that as a payment of tuition fees. Instead of introducing immediate legislation to abolish tuition fees in the first year of the Parliament, the Executive set up an independent inquiry chaired by Andrew Cubie. The Cubie committee put in a great deal of hard work. It took evidence from a wide range of individuals and organisations, including most—if not all—of the political parties that are represented in the Scottish Parliament.

Andrew Cubie's committee of inquiry eventually came out with a report, the recommendations of which were generally well received, yet the Executive is stubbornly refusing to implement them in full. Cubie recommended that graduates should not have to start making graduate endowment payments until they were earning a salary of at least £25,000 a year. As far as I can see, no threshold is mentioned in the bill, but the Executive has indicated that the threshold will be only £10,000. That is only 40 per cent of the threshold that was recommended by the Cubie report and it is only about 56 per cent of the national average wage of £18,000 a year—if we are to believe the figure that was given by the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals in evidence to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.

Those who argue that graduates should contribute to the cost of their higher education attempt to justify their argument by saying that people with a university degree have greater earnings potential than people without a university degree. In general, that is true, but surely no one can argue that people who earn £10,000 a year—less than £200 a week—are so well off that they should start contributing to the cost of their higher education.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Let me quote Dugald Mackie, one of the members of the Cubie committee, who gave evidence to us. When he was asked whether the £10,000 threshold had been raised with the committee—which consulted the length and breadth of Scotland with parents, teachers and university students—he said:

"that issue was not raised with us in the public consultations, particularly with students or their parents ... Although we certainly discussed whether the £10,000 threshold should be raised or stay the same, we decided to leave the issue alone as it had not really been raised with us."—[Official Report, Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 14 November 2000; c 1308-09.]

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Frankly, I am not surprised that the £10,000 threshold was not mentioned by those who gave evidence to the Cubie committee. It is ludicrously low and I would not have thought that any of the bodies that gave evidence to the Cubie committee would have suggested such a pitifully low figure. I understand that all the witnesses who gave evidence to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee were of the view that the Executive's proposed threshold of £10,000 was too low. The Scottish Trades Union Congress and others indicated that the Executive should accept the Cubie committee recommendation that the threshold should be set at £25,000.

One of the bill's declared objectives is to encourage more people to enter higher education. My fear is that many people—particularly young people from low-income families—will be discouraged from entering higher education when they realise that, after graduating, they could face having to repay a loan of £12,000 or more and having to start paying a graduate endowment even if their salary is as little as £10,000 a year.

Amendments 4, 6 and 7 would help to implement the Cubie recommendations in full. They would also ensure that the threshold of £25,000 a year is uprated annually in line with either inflation or the annual increase in earnings, whichever is the greater. As I said before, that is not my ideal solution, but it would implement the recommendations of the independent committee, which was set up by the Executive, and help to ensure a fairer deal for students and graduates, especially those on low incomes. I ask the Parliament to accept my amendment.

I move amendment 4.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I call Brian Monteith to speak to amendment 5 and the other amendments in the group.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I too have lodged an amendment that seeks to change the threshold at which the repayment of this iniquitous tuition tax starts.

Amendment 5 differs slightly from amendment 4 and other amendments introduced by other members at stage 2. The difference may be considered technical. I am seeking to enshrine the idea that the threshold is guided by the national labour force survey. My reason is simple. Cubie proposed a threshold of £25,000. That proposal was based on average earnings across the country, but there are average earning for the whole country and there are average earnings for graduates. The national labour force survey shows graduate average earnings and is therefore more accurate in showing what graduates can expect to earn. It is therefore more accurate at showing the level at which it would be right and proper to set a threshold. That is the technical argument.

We hope, through amendment 5, to extend the relief to students from this iniquitous tax. If there is to be a collection from students—we can talk about the principles separately—it is only right and proper that the threshold is set at a level that acknowledges that they have gained some benefit from higher education.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Brian Monteith keeps talking about a tuition tax, and we have heard about tuition fees from Dennis Canavan. I appeal to members to get the terminology right. The powers of this Parliament mean that we are not allowed to levy a tuition tax. If Mr Monteith feels that it is a tuition tax, why does he not challenge it?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The member may be anticipating one of my speeches. He will recall that that issue has already been raised by the leader of our group, David McLetchie. We will no doubt revisit it later today. If the bill does not set a threshold, we are quite within our rights to decide what name we should give it.

The national labour force survey for August 2000 showed that the average graduate of age 23 was earning £15,500, which is well over the £10,000 threshold. Even a graduate who is earning less than the average—say 70 per cent of the average—is earning £10,850, which is still over the £10,000 threshold. That graduate would still be liable to pay the graduate tax. I do not believe—and many people throughout Scotland do not believe—that collecting this tax at such a low threshold is just. That is why we have lodged amendment 5: it specifies the level at which the threshold should be set and bases that on the national labour force survey, because that survey accurately shows graduate earnings. It allows us to see the benefit that graduates have obtained.

Whenever the threshold was discussed during stage 2, the only justification that could be found for it, when reading the Official Report, was that it is simpler to collect, by using the Student Loans Company and the current loans system. I do not feel that it is right and proper that the Executive should introduce legislation purely on the basis of what is simple. Students are looking for justice. There is no social justice in this bill with such a low threshold. That is why we want to extend relief, if possible, by improving the bill with amendment 5. We will also support other amendments lodged by other members to make the bill better. If the bill is not improved, Conservatives will have only one option—to oppose it on principle.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I agree with much of what Mr Canavan said and with some of what Mr Monteith said. The purpose of amendment 1 is to flesh out a bill that is rather scant and lacking. Everything in it is left to regulations. We have to go back and remember the original purpose of the bill. Let us be clear: the bill came about because of election commitments on tuition fees. That will no doubt be commented on by Mr Monteith, Mr Canavan, me and others.

The First Minister himself instructed Andrew Cubie to carry out an inquiry. To some extent, the Scottish National Party did not agree with that; we just wanted election commitments to be adhered to. However, Andrew Cubie carried out an inquiry and it was made clear that the threshold should be £25,000. When the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee considered the issue, Mr Cubie and others indicated that a threshold of £10,000 was far too low. That is why we want Cubie's recommendations to be implemented, at least in part, by ensuring that no payment will start until earnings of at least £25,000 are reached.

Labour should consider what it is driving towards. Earlier this week, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning was quite rightly parading the fact that she is extending a pilot scheme from Ayrshire into Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire and Dundee to fund children to stay on at school. Mr Monteith disagreed with that. I find it rather ironic that he disagreed with that aspect of trying to improve access to education for the disadvantaged but is here today claiming that he is looking after the interests of the disadvantaged.

We could see the logic of the minister's drive to pay youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds to stay on at school. Our objection was that we did not know any of the details of the scheme or how long it would continue. We did not know whether what was happening was simply the extension of a trial. However, we certainly agreed with the principle.

The minister is encouraging youngsters to stay on at school by paying them so that they do not have to go and work in McDonald's or in a shop but can stay at home and study—but there is irony in what she wants to happen when they leave school. In Dundee, West Dunbartonshire and Glasgow, those youngsters will be encouraged to stay on, and be paid to do so, because the intention is to get them into higher education. However, no sooner will they be ready for higher education—if, as Mr Canavan rightly said, they are not put off by the thought of incurring debt—when they will be put off by the fact that, at a very low level of earnings, they will have to start paying back.

Amendment 1 therefore seeks to ensure that the principles of Cubie are adhered to. It also seeks to ensure that the principle that the Conservatives and the Government are trying to promote—of providing access to education to those from disadvantaged areas—is met.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The threshold is set at such a low level—£10,000—as to put people off. Not only the disadvantaged will be impeded by the bill as it stands. I am sorry to spike Brian Monteith's guns.

We accept the Executive's point that this is not simply a question of a graduate endowment or a tuition fee. Mr Rumbles can talk about the semantics, but the fact is that those who pay it will know what they are paying and they will not be affected by the terminology.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I would like Mr MacAskill to tell the chamber what exactly is the huge sum that someone earning £11,000 will repay each year.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am not going to do a quick calculation. Mr Rumbles has to understand two things. First, people are being put off going into higher education because they recognise that there will be debt. That is an impediment.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

rose—

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

People are being put off going into higher education, yet Mr Rumbles goes on about getting 50 per cent of people in Scotland to go into higher education.

Members should consider Finland, where they aspire to having between 60 and 65 per cent of people going into higher education. In Finland, they considered whether there should be tuition fees or a graduate tax and they decided against them because they would discourage people from going into higher education. This Government is being hypocritical. That is why amendment 1 is required.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will the member give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am sorry, but I have to move on.

Many things put people off. The second thing Mike Rumbles has to understand concerns repayment. The threshold at which repayment will commence is at a level that means that people on limited incomes in difficult jobs will have to pay. That is unacceptable.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

rose—

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The whole purpose of the bill is to provide universal education. The real irony in this debate is that we in the SNP have no difficulty supporting Mr Monteith because his position is more radical and more consistent with the principles of Andrew Cubie than what either of the Executive partners in the coalition has proposed. Mr Rumbles may think that, by semantics, he can avoid answering to people at the ballot box, but he cannot—a tuition fee is a tuition fee, whether or not it is called a graduate endowment. That is why we will move amendment 1.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I will refer to amendment 1, which was lodged by Kenny MacAskill, amendments 4, 6 and 7, which were lodged by Dennis Canavan, and amendment 5, which was lodged by Brian Monteith.

Amendments to change the threshold for the repayment of loans and for liability for the graduate endowment were lodged at stage 2. As Kenny MacAskill and Brian Monteith are well aware, they were defeated both times. However, I welcome the chance to set out the facts surrounding the graduate endowment and the threshold at which loan repayments will be collected, and the reasons why the Executive will not support the amendments. I welcome the chance, not least because of the misinformation that we have had to listen to this morning.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I am dealing with the amendments.

Kenny MacAskill's amendment 1 suggests that we vary the threshold for repayment through the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. To do that, we would need a completely different repayment system solely for the graduate endowment. The current threshold for the repayment of income-contingent loans is set in the Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) Regulations 2000. The relevant regulation imposes a duty on the Inland Revenue to collect loan repayments when the borrower's income reaches the appropriate level.

Kenny MacAskill is aware, because I told him at stage 2, that the imposition of such duties is a reserved matter. The Scottish Parliament cannot instruct the Inland Revenue to collect the endowment for us under a different threshold from that which is used for living-cost loans. That is what Kenny MacAskill's amendment 1 would require. In order to stay within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and implement amendment 1, we would have to create a whole new system of collection.

Brian Monteith's amendment 5 proposes that we avoid making a person liable for the graduate endowment until they reach an income that is in line with average graduate earnings. For that to work, we would need to create a whole new monitoring system to gauge when graduates hit average earnings. Moreover, graduates would appear to remain liable for repayments whether they continued to earn in excess of the average income threshold or their income fell below it.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I point out to Brian Monteith that I am dealing with his amendment. The problem that I have outlined is exactly the same as that of Mr Monteith's similar amendment at stage 2. I pointed out the flaw to him then.

In a similar vein, Dennis Canavan's amendments 4 and 7 seek to exempt graduates who earn less than £25,000 from liability. That raises again the problems of a separate scheme, which we rehearsed before. Undoubtedly there would be higher default rates as we tracked graduates, which would be over a period of years for many of them. The potential for slipping through the net would be far higher, adding to the cost of collection. Moreover, on those terms we could wait a long time to see any benefit from the graduate endowment.

Let us be in no doubt that the graduate endowment is being introduced to help fund the future support of low-income students. Section 2 of the bill requires us to devote the endowment income to student support. That is a key part of our package to widen access. Making collection more difficult will reduce the resources that the endowment generates, and will not support a move to widen access.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

A number of members have asked for clarification of why it is so beneficial to draw on the Inland Revenue. The reasons are the same reasons why relying on the Inland Revenue is the best way to collect living-cost loans: it is efficient and simple. Borrowers can be identified by the use of national insurance numbers without the need for a separate tracking system. The long-term default rate is negligible—the current estimate is 0.03 per cent of the total amount borrowed under the scheme. The system is straightforward, easily understood, is already in place, and most repayments are collected.

We have a clear policy of no more debt. That means that, even with a loan from the graduate endowment, the repayment period for any student will never be any longer than under the current system.

It is no coincidence that Kenny MacAskill's amendment 1 proposes £25,000 as the threshold, the same as that suggested by the Cubie committee. We know that Cubie reached that figure by adding the estimated premium that graduates earn and the average Scottish wage.

There is no significant scientific formula at work, and we should beware of adopting that figure without considering alternative thresholds and their benefits.

As I hope I made clear at stage 2, we have listened to the criticisms that have been levelled at the threshold during the progress of the bill. The threshold should be kept under review, and we are doing that in conjunction with our colleagues in the UK Government. I remind members that no one will be making graduate endowment payments for a few years yet. I therefore invite the Parliament to reject the amendment.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I had no intention of speaking on the amendments until I heard Kenny MacAskill's speech, on which I tried to intervene on a couple of occasions. The simple fact is that he failed to answer the question that Mike Rumbles asked as to how much a graduate who earns £11,000 a year will pay. The total is £90 a year. I want to place that in the Official Report . How much do such students pay under the present student loans scheme—£90 a year. How much will they pay once the graduate endowment comes in—£90 a year.

Students will not pay one penny more per year when repaying their debt than they do under the present system. That is a fact that the SNP and the Tories wish to ignore. Under the present student loans scheme, students have to repay the loan at a rate of 9 per cent of earnings over £10,000. That will stay the same—they will not pay more. It is about time that the SNP and the Tories put that on record, instead of misleading students and graduates by saying that they will have to pay more as a result of the graduate endowment.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

The minister seemed to make only one concession, namely that the threshold should be kept under review. What does that mean? How often will it be reviewed? How will it be reviewed? Will it be reviewed in line with the retail prices index or the average wages index? The minister did not satisfactorily address my main allegation that the threshold is far too low. His attempt at justification was that it would be simpler to collect graduate endowment payments if the threshold was set at £10,000 because of the student loans system.

I am not much of a supporter of the student loans system, but if the minister is such a great supporter of it, is it beyond his wit to examine it to see how it can be reformed? If the student loan threshold is too low, and it would be better for collection purposes to have equal thresholds, why not level up the threshold, rather than level it down?

The minister also said that similar amendments were lodged at stage 2 and rejected. That may be true, but at the final stage of the bill, the Parliament in plenary session ought to have the opportunity to express a view on the matter. I hope that the Executive will listen to that view.

The Executive's main argument seems to be that graduates tend to earn more, therefore they should contribute to the cost of their higher education. I do not quibble fundamentally with that argument. If it is the case that graduates earn more, of course they ought to contribute more, but the fairest method of contributing more is through a progressive system of income tax, rather than a graduate tax, which the bill will introduce.

I repeat my fear that, as it stands, the bill will act as a disincentive, rather than an incentive, to many young people who wish to go on to higher education. Once they graduate, not only are they entering the world of full-time employment, but many of them will have other obligations, including family obligations, mortgage repayments and so on. At that important stage in their lives, they will have to repay a debt of £12,000—or more in some cases—and they will also have to start paying the graduate endowment, even if their salary is as low as £10,000 per annum.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I have a point of clarification for Dennis Canavan. Under the new system, students will pay a graduate endowment of £2,000 plus the student loan repayment.

A table that was supplied to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee shows that, under the proposed system, students from lower-income backgrounds will be liable for £4,000 less debt than they incur under the present loan system and that 99 per cent of students will leave university with lower debt levels. Even including payment of the endowment contribution plus the loan, students will have less debt when they leave university than they do under the present system. That is an incentive, not a disincentive.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Even I—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Order. Just a second please, Mr Canavan. I remind members that interventions, by their nature, should be brief.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

What George Lyon says is beside the point. Even I must agree that the bill will introduce a system that is better than the status quo. The student support package that the bill proposes is at least an improvement on the system that the House of Commons introduced following the previous general election. However, it is not good enough to say that just because the proposal will be better than the status quo, we should accept it. My amendment would effect a much-needed improvement.

As I said, if there is an argument—and I think that there is—that people on higher earnings should contribute more to the cost of their education, the fairest way of ensuring that is by adopting a progressive income tax system, rather than placing a financial burden on many students. After those students have graduated, they will find it difficult to keep up the payments, and they may find that a disincentive to enter college or university.

I would never discourage a potential student from going to university, despite the financial difficulties that they would face. Part of the Parliament's job is to try to make it as easy as possible for young people to go on to higher education. Many members received higher education and throughout it received generous grants—many of us did not have to resort to loans or anything like that. It is wrong of us to try to treat the future generation of students less generously than we were treated. Therefore, I ask the Parliament to agree to my amendment.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There will be a division.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The result of the division is: For 43, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 4 disagreed to.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I ask Brian Monteith to move amendment 5, which was debated with amendment 4.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will clear up several points on which I did not intervene. I did not want to disturb the flow of some members' speeches, especially when, in some respects, we agree.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Mr Monteith, I must interrupt you. I have a point of order.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

On a point of order. My understanding is that amendment 5 has been debated and is only to be moved.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Amendment 5 has been debated, but Mr Monteith can make a brief statement, which I hope is what he is doing.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you for that clarification to Iain Smith.

I will pick up several points that were made. George Lyon consistently says that the Cubie committee did not consider the loan threshold because no representation was made about it. I have consistently told him that the Conservative party made representations and advocated that the loan threshold should be increased, but the member will not listen.

Iain Smith suggests that students will not pay more than they do now. They will not pay more because the loan entitlement is being reduced. That brings us to the deputy minister's point that students will not have greater debt. Students will not have greater state debt. It is the private debt that students will incur that will provide the disincentive that worries the Government so much that it must give relief to 50 per cent of the students who would otherwise pay the iniquitous tax.

Some students will not even be entitled to a loan. The deputy minister has told us that the Government is listening, yet he has lodged no amendments that show that. The original bill was flawed and was withdrawn by a very late letter before the deputy minister had to appear before the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for a second time. The performance of the deputy minister and his officials at that point left a great deal to be desired.

The deputy minister will not listen. He took no interventions and simply read a speech. The Government is bullying the bill through Parliament. The deputy minister may wish to bully the First Minister, but we will stand up for students. I call on members to back amendment 5 to ensure greater relief and greater social justice.

I move amendment 5.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There will be a division.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The result of the division is: For 45, Against 59, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 5 disagreed to.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I ask Dennis Canavan to move amendment 6, which was debated with amendment 4.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

I do not know if it is worth moving amendment 6, because it is consequential on amendment 4. Amendment 4 was not agreed to, so I do not want to press either amendment 6 or amendment 7.

Amendments 6 and 7 not moved.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Amendment 8, in the name of Dennis Canavan, is grouped with amendments 9 and 10. I ask Mr Canavan to move amendment 8 and to speak to the amendments in the group.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

The bill refers to the possibility—or indeed the certainty—that, if it is passed, the Executive will come to Parliament with a statutory instrument that sets out regulations. My experience of secondary legislation at Westminster is that the Government often introduces such legislation by way of a statutory instrument at dead of night. If Parliament has an opportunity to vote on the legislation at all, it is on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. In my experience, there is no opportunity to amend the regulations or the statutory instrument. Therefore, it is not the best example of parliamentary democracy in practice.

With the Scottish Parliament, I thought that we might have more opportunity not just to scrutinise secondary legislation, but to amend it and to tell the Government when it has got things wrong.

We heard the minister refer to a threshold for the repayment of the graduate endowment after graduation, but no threshold is mentioned in the bill. The Executive has indicated that it is in favour of a threshold of £10,000 per annum and has said that that threshold will be subject to review. Presumably, the Executive will come to Parliament with the regulations on the threshold and give details of the obligations on graduates to contribute to the graduate endowment fund.

In a sense, if we pass the bill in its present form, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke, because the bill has no details about the levels of payment that students will have to make. No mention is made of the threshold. As a result, we are unable to quantify the hardship that students will suffer from the passing of the bill and the regulations or statutory instrument that the minister may lay at a future date.

When the minister comes to Parliament with the regulations in the form of a statutory instrument, Parliament should have the opportunity to consider that instrument in detail—not just to vote yes or no, but to tell the Executive that it has got it wrong. Parliament should be able to suggest to the Executive where it has got things wrong and to instruct the Executive to come back to the Parliament with amended proposals.

For example, if the Executive is intransigent and stands by the income threshold of £10,000 per annum at which a graduate must make a mandatory contribution and, by the time the proposal is laid before Parliament, members—perhaps even a majority of members—consider that that threshold would be too low and that the contributions that individual students would have to make according to their means would be wrong, we should have the opportunity not just to turn down the Executive's proposals, but to tell the Executive what an alternative, fairer proposal would be. As well as ensuring a fairer deal for students, that would enhance the Scottish system of parliamentary democracy by giving the Parliament the power to tell the Executive to think again about detailed regulations.

I move amendment 8.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Amendments 8, 9 and 10 would introduce big changes to the procedure by which statutory instruments that relate to the bill would be made. Indeed, amendment 8 departs significantly from the existing rules that are normally followed for the making of statutory instruments. I do not believe that such changes are necessary.

The existing procedures by which statutory instruments are made are well known to, and well understood by, members. According to standing orders and the legislation that governs Scottish statutory instruments, the Parliament has a chance to formally accept or reject an instrument made by the Executive. If Parliament rejects such an instrument, the Executive is forced to withdraw it. Quite rightly, that means that ultimate control over statutory instruments rests with the Parliament.

That is not the only way in which concerns about statutory instruments can be raised. Committees scrutinise proposed statutory instruments and provide comments and criticisms on the proposals. If such comments indicate practical difficulties or fundamental defects, we have to consider and introduce an amending instrument as appropriate.

Mr Canavan should be aware that a set of draft regulations relating to the bill has been in the public domain since the bill's introduction last autumn. That practice is, as Mr Canavan knows, almost unheard of in Westminster. We have, since last autumn, consulted widely on those regulations and produced a further draft.

Amendments 8, 9 and 10 could lead to the ridiculous prospect of the Parliament requiring the Executive to introduce amendments to a statutory instrument that the Parliament has no power to make. Frankly, the Parliament would look absurd if we were to open up that possibility.

Mr Canavan is not happy that the responsibility for the making of regulations rests with the Executive and the responsibility for approving them or otherwise rests with the Parliament—he is, of course, entitled to his views on that. Amendment 8 is not specifically about the bill. I submit that it is quite wrong to try to use the bill to create a completely new form of legislation and a completely new form of legislative relationship.

Mr Canavan has not convinced me that there is anything about the statutory instruments that will be made under the bill that requires the ad hoc invention of a completely new form of secondary legislation. I invite Parliament to reject amendments 8, 9 and 10.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

We have heard it all now. In the words of an Executive minister, it is ridiculous to give the Scottish Parliament power over the Executive. I do not see anything ridiculous in that. The Parliament has the power to amend primary legislation. The Executive must accept such amendments if they are the will of the Parliament, even if the legislation has been introduced by the Government. If the Executive is afraid to put into primary legislation the detailed principles by which it will determine the graduate endowment and what will be a fair or unfair deal for students, and if the Executive—by using fear or concealment—expects the Parliament to give it carte blanche to introduce detailed, unamendable regulations later, that is indeed an imperfect system of parliamentary democracy.

Amendments 8, 9 and 10 might set a precedent, in that I cannot think of any previous primary legislation that gives the Parliament the power to amend the associated secondary legislation. However, members should remember that the Parliament is in its infancy. I hope that we are not slavishly following the practices of Westminster. If such a power is a precedent, it is a very good one.

A couple of weeks ago, there was another example of the Executive treating the Parliament with contempt. As a result, more people outside the Parliament realise the distinction between the Executive and the Parliament. Part of the job of the Parliament is to bring the Executive to account, to tell it when it has got something wrong and to tell it to think again. If the Executive is afraid to present us with detailed proposals in the primary legislation, Parliament should be able—to ensure a fairer deal for students—to amend the secondary legislation. If that sets a precedent for future legislation, so be it. It is a very good precedent.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There will be a division.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The result of the division is: For 46, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 8 disagreed to.

Amendment 9 moved—[Dennis Canavan].

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There will be a division.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The result of the division is: For 46, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 9 disagreed to.

Amendment 10 not moved.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Amendment 11, in the name of Dennis Canavan, is grouped with amendment 12.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

I think that amendment 12 should find the general acceptance of the Parliament, including members of the Executive, because it merely sets out a principle. Financial implications might follow acceptance of that principle, but I have not spelled out in detail what those implications would be. What I have said is that the Executive—or Scottish ministers—in exercising their powers under the proposed legislation should aim to ensure that students from low-income families are not prevented from pursuing a course of study as a result of that low income. That is an important principle.

I am sure that, in the course of their constituency case work, all members have come across students—fifth-year and sixth-year pupils—who are considering going on to college or university, or their parents who are worried sick about the financial implications, especially if the family is on a low income because of unemployment, sickness or the low pay that is all too prevalent among those who are fortunate enough to have a job. If the statements from the Executive and the Westminster Government on the matter amount to anything more than platitudes, they ought to fit well with the principles that are outlined in amendment 11. If we were to enshrine that principle in statute, Scottish Executive ministers would have a statutory obligation to take into account the possibility that young people might be deterred from going on to higher education by their, or their families', low incomes. That obligation on the part of the Executive would go some way to ensuring more access to college and university for students from low-income groups.

Over the past 20 or 30 years, under Governments of various complexions, there has been an enormous increase in the proportion of students who go on to higher education. When I went into higher education in the 1960s, the figure was about 10 per cent—Mr Morrison says 5 per cent. It might have been a bit higher in Scotland if we take into account both those who went on to colleges of higher education and those who went to universities. The figure is now 50 per cent or thereabouts—an enormous increase. However, there has been a less significant increase in the number of students from low-income groups who enter higher education. The Executive ought to address that problem more seriously. The Executive accepts that there is a problem, but if amendment 11 were passed by the Parliament there would be statutory obligations on the Executive to take the problem into account and to take the necessary steps to remedy it.

Amendment 11 spells out in a bit more detail how the principle that would be established by amendment 12 should be put into effect. If amendment 12 were accepted, the Executive would have to prescribe a level of family income. Ministers would then have to ensure that students from families that had an income below that prescribed level received a grant or some other form of maintenance that was enough to ensure that they were not dependent on loans or parental contributions. That used to be the case many years ago, when the maintenance grant was generous enough to allow students to live off it—even students from low-income families. Then, if students were able to get jobs during the long university holidays in the summer, they could live off their grant and what they managed to earn in the summer. However, that would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do now.

I am not suggesting that the Executive should ensure that all students should have a maximum grant. That would be an ideal solution to work towards, but amendment 12 does not suggest that at this stage. What it suggests is that, for students whose family's income is below a specific threshold, the Executive should try to ensure that there is a grant that is generous enough for them to live off.

Student poverty, unfortunately, is a reality for many young people today. In fact, the front page of The Herald today refers to recent research that was carried out by the University of Glasgow, which reveals that

"The mental and physical health of students in Scotland is suffering as an increasing number are forced to combine part-time work with full-time study."

As I said, students topping up their grants with part-time earnings or earnings during their holidays is nothing new. However, when students must work many hours, that can interfere with their studies.

The same report in The Herald refers to a young student who has severe financial difficulties; he has difficulties with his studies because his financial problems are so great. The report states:

"He is contracted to work 21 hours, usually over a weekend, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights, but last weekend he worked 43."

That is completely unacceptable. How is any young person expected to do well in a full-time course of study when he or she works that number of hours at the weekend? I understand that the Government and the Executive are on record as saying that, if students are going to work, they should not work any more than about 10 hours a week. However, student poverty is such that many students must work long, hard hours at menial tasks. Many are tired out by the time they go to their lectures, so that they not giving of their best.

I hope that the Executive will address student poverty. If ministers accept the principles that are laid out in amendment 12, together with the mechanism that is described in amendment 11, that would help to reduce, if not to eradicate, student poverty and it would allow students—especially those from low-income families—to concentrate on their studies, to do their best at college or university and, therefore, to fulfil themselves, get a better degree and be of greater service to the nation after they graduate. It would be a good investment in our future and their future if the principles that lie behind my amendments were accepted.

I move amendment 11.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Several members want to speak on this group of amendments. I ask members to restrict their contributions to three minutes so that we can make some progress. I call Brian Monteith.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am happy to keep my speech brief, but I want to place on record my party's views on Dennis Canavan's amendments. On amendment 11, I hope that he will respect the fact that we have a difference of opinion on loans and grants. The Conservatives have a principled position in favour of loans and many other members have a principled position in favour of grants. That is a debate that I am quite happy to enter into in more detail later in the proceedings, but I am unable to support amendment 11.

However, I believe that it is possible for the Conservatives to support amendment 12. The wording of amendment 12 is broad enough to gain the support of all members of the Parliament and I agree with Dennis Canavan that what he proposes should be possible. It should be possible for an amendment such as amendment 12 to be made to the bill, because it aims to ensure that students from families with low incomes are not prevented from pursuing a course of study. Amendment 12 would allow a Scottish Government the opportunity to institute new programmes of bursaries, or to change various charity laws to make it easier for universities to run bursaries and to raise income for that purpose. There are elements of amendment 12 that should allow members of all parties to support it; I offer my support for it.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

It is important for the Parliament to recognise that, some 20 years ago, we were in the midst of one of the world's worst economic recessions. We were two years into the Thatcher Government. We had high interest rates, high unemployment and high inflation. Twenty years later, we are told by all the ministers that we have never been in a healthier economic situation, with low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates and a booming economy. Twenty years ago, under the Thatcher Government, students had full grants and could claim housing benefit and income support. The problem is that, under today's Labour Government, in better economic conditions, they cannot claim housing benefit and there are no maintenance grants.

According to the National Union of Students—and to every other independent study—more and more working-class kids who are trying to enter further and higher education must leave education because they cannot afford to stay in full-time study. The problem with the expansion of student numbers is that the Government's national commitment to the wealth that is devoted to student support has not kept track with the increased number of students. Less of our national wealth is now devoted to student support than was the case 20 years ago. Amendments 11 and 12 seek to put into statute the requirement for the Parliament to support students from low-income families, so that they are not economically barred from access to full-time education.

In 1981, I was able to get on the ladder of opportunity to full-time education because of full-time grants and access to social security payments. Other members are in the same boat because they also got that help. It is not acceptable that we kick away that ladder of opportunity for other working-class kids.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I refer to Mr Canavan's remarks about students working in jobs for as much as 40 hours a week. That is absolutely accurate; I have met students who do worse hours than that. Just the other night, I met a young lady who was working at 11 o'clock at night in an Edinburgh hotel. She told me that she was on duty again at 6 o'clock the following morning in another Edinburgh hotel. She does three jobs to keep her going as a student.

In Glasgow, it is common for students to work all day Saturday in, for example, a shop and to start working again on Sunday or Monday in a bar. Student health is back to the state that it was in during the 1920s, when the young and poor coming out of the first world war tried to get themselves an education. Those gaunt figures are with us again; student health is going down all the time and student mental health is causing serious problems. There have been several tragic suicides at Scottish universities.

I remember when Gordon Brown and Robin Cook were at the University of Edinburgh; they were full beneficiaries of what the Wilson Government brought to them. I remember how they got their start in life, so that they could ensure that a different generation of students lived in poverty. I am sorry, fellow parliamentarians, but I could never go along with that. I support fully amendments 11 and 12.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I am delighted to say that the Executive shares Dennis Canavan's concern about the position of students from low-income families. We agree absolutely that increasing the number of students who benefit from higher education and who are from groups that have traditionally been under-represented, should be our priority. We recognise that targeting support at those students is part of how we will achieve that, but I hope that I can persuade Mr Canavan that amendments 11 and 12 will do little to help those students and that the amendments would be worth far less to them than the commitments that we have already given.

Amendment 11 seeks to ensure that there is a level of family income below which students will receive grants to reduce their loan dependence. We agree absolutely with that principle. It is exactly what we are doing and I am happy to confirm that it is what we will continue to do.

Bursaries—or, if members prefer, grants—will be introduced from this autumn for young students starting in higher education. Dennis Canavan would like to see the principle of targeted support reflected in the bill. We have considered that, but simply do not believe that that is the right way forward.

This year's new grant represents the first year of a long-term commitment to providing support to students from low-income families, which will greatly reduce their reliance on debt while providing more resources for them during their courses.

Amendment 12 seeks to ensure that low income will not prevent students from pursuing a course of study. Again, we agree that family income should not be a barrier to access to higher education and I very much welcome the opportunity that that amendment gives us to repeat that point.

I have mentioned that the changes to student support that we are introducing will target specifically low-income groups. As well as the bursary—or grant—for young students to which I have referred, we are also increasing by £500 the value of the overall package of support that is available for students from households that earn up to £15,000.

I believe firmly that the action that we are taking will, as never before, transform opportunities and unlock the talent of our least well-off young people. The Executive is happy to be judged on its record. I therefore invite the Parliament to reject amendments 11 and 12.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

I am grateful to the minister for saying that he shares my concern and that he agrees with the principle that lies behind amendment 12. I do not see why he does not accept that that principle should be enshrined in statute. It is all very well that the minister has the decency to tell Parliament today that he agrees with the principle that I am pursuing, but that might not be the case with future incumbents of his ministerial position. Here is an opportunity for the Parliament to ensure that the minister and all future ministers have regard to the special needs of students from families with low incomes, and that they ensure that the assistance that is available to them is enough to ensure that they are not prevented from pursuing a course of study as a result of their low family income.

The minister said that the Executive is providing more resources to help students. It might be the case that the Scottish Executive is providing more resources than the Westminster Government provided to Scottish students, but we should not use the Westminster Government as a yardstick. We should consider student poverty as it exists in Scotland today and we should take every available step to eradicate it. Although the Scottish Executive might be doing better than the Westminster Government, students today receive less in grants than students received 30 years ago—or 40 years ago under Harold Wilson's Labour Government. Today's new Labour ministers ought to be ashamed of that.

We all realise that a limited amount of money is available in every budget and that matters must progress more slowly than we would like. However, when over 30 or 40 years there is regression rather than progression, that does not say much for the principles that the minister has enunciated and which would be enshrined in statute if the Parliament agreed to amendment 12.

Amendment 11 would ensure that there was a practical scheme for the implementation of the principle that is laid out in amendment 12.

I repeat that student poverty is a big problem in Scotland today. I referred to the case of the student from the University of Glasgow in my earlier speech. I will quote from him. He says:

"I went from being a full-time to a part-time student because my performance was suffering ... I felt drained during lectures and was not able to take in information. Generally, I was too tired to find the energy to study."

No wonder, when he must work for 43 hours at the weekend. Why does he have to go out and work as much as 43 hours at the weekend? It is, as the article in The Herald states, because he

"currently carries a student loan debt of £5000, has a £750 overdraft, and £500 of credit card debt."

That is one example—of many in Scotland today—of the poverty that is being experienced by the student population. Students are looking to the Parliament to try to eradicate that poverty, so that they are able to study with peace of mind and so that, when they eventually graduate, they will not have a millstone of debt around their necks. They will be able to go out into the world and fulfil themselves.

There is an argument that they must pay, because they will be on higher earnings because they will have had the privilege of a university education. I repeat: the mechanism for making them pay would be a more progressive system of income tax. I hope that the minister will make appropriate representations to his colleague Gordon Brown on those matters. When Gordon was student rector of the University of Edinburgh back in the 1970s, I think that he would have agreed with every word that I have said today.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There will be a division.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The result of the division is: For 31, Against 77, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 11 disagreed to.

Amendment 12 moved—[Dennis Canavan].

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There will be a division.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The result of the division is: For 46, Against 63, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 12 disagreed to.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Amendment 1, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, has been debated with amendment 4.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

In moving amendment 1, I should say that none of the deputy minister's earlier comments satisfies the SNP that section 3 is anything other than a political fix. Notwithstanding the recommendations of the Cubie inquiry, the figure of £10,000 was fixed, and the Executive has sought thereafter to justify it. Only yesterday, on 28 March 2001, the deputy minister dispatched to the convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee a letter that sought to justify the costs and calculations of the threshold. One would have thought that, if the Executive were progressing on that basis, it would have taken such a decision at the outset, rather than trying to justify its position the day before the stage 3 debate.

This is a matter of principle; it is about the principles that lie behind the Executive's electoral commitments, the Cubie inquiry and universal education. The SNP has no hesitation in adhering to those principles; it will be for new Labour and agricultural Labour to make up their own minds about those principles.

I move amendment 1.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There will be a division.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The result of the division: For 46, Against 62, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Amendment 2 is in the name of Kenny MacAskill.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Many of my points have been made previously by Dennis Canavan, Tommy Sheridan and indeed Robin Harper, not only in his role as an MSP but in his role as rector of Edinburgh University. This is also a matter of principle. The question of the restoration of benefits does not simply go back to the principles of the Cubie inquiry, which indicated that the lack of benefits was a clear factor in student debt; it goes back to the principles of the welfare state and of Beveridge, whom the members of agricultural Labour will recall was a Liberal. This issue is all about having the opportunity to receive a benefit as a citizen's right and entitlement if that individual is unable to gather or obtain any money.

When I was a student—which was many years before Tommy Sheridan was a student—benefits were available. It was not a licence to scrounge, but an opportunity for a citizen to receive his right and entitlement. If he cannot earn, he should be able to make such a claim.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I ask members to keep the background noise down when other members are speaking.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Restoring benefits would not cause a deluge of claims by students, many of whom would obviously not be eligible if they were employed. However, those who are unable to obtain employment—which I hope would amount to a few—should be able to obtain a citizen's rights as a member of our society. Such principles were enunciated by the Labour Government when it set up the welfare state, and were adhered to by the Cubie committee.

The Executive has acknowledged that the problems of student debt and of students' disinclination to continue their studies are not down simply to tuition fees or graduate endowments, but to many other matters, particularly the lack of benefits such as housing benefits and social security benefit at key times. As Dorothy-Grace Elder, Dennis Canavan and Tommy Sheridan have pointed out, students are under substantial pressure. Amendment 2 provides a limited opportunity for a student who does not receive a grant or has no income at summer or Christmas to benefit from society's assistance, as is their right and as, when I and other Labour members were students, we had the opportunity to make a claim for benefit if we could not obtain employment.

We acknowledge that the Parliament does not have the power to deliver that, as social security is reserved. However, the very least that we can do and that our students are entitled to expect is for the Parliament to tell Westminster that social security benefits should be restored to students, as the Cubie committee and others have recommended. If Westminster refuses to do so, all we can do is return to Scotland and decide whether we should have power over social security instead of having to go cap in hand south of the border. I have no hesitation in moving this amendment not just because of the principles of the Cubie committee, but of the principles of the welfare state.

I move amendment 2.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Before calling the next speaker, I appeal again to members to keep the level of background noise down in the chamber, as it is very distracting.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

In supporting amendment 2, I want to give the chamber some food for thought for the future. In the Parliament, a group led by Stuart Duffin is researching a basic birth-to-death income scheme that would replace the whole system of benefits. I will not to go into all the details of the scheme just now, but I will say that introducing such a scheme for all young people from 16 to 24 would remove many of the complications that we have been debating this morning. This is a simple plea to members to start thinking about a basic income stream. The Irish are considering that possibility. It would simplify all the problems that students face if we introduced a basic income stream for all students aged 16 to 26. Future consideration should be given to that.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I ask all members to consider what amendment 2 is inviting them to do. We are being asked to support representation being made to Westminster to reinstate the right of students to social security benefits. Most Labour members, at some time in their previous employment, supported those calls and opposed the removal of the right of students to social security benefits. Even the Liberal Democrats at Westminster support the reinstatement of benefits for students. All that amendment 2 is asking is that representation is made.

I hope that there will be unanimous support for the amendment. It is asking for a minimum level of income to be set for students—that is what income support is: a minimum level of income. If we continue to refuse students that minimum level of income, we continue to condemn them to a life of poverty while they study.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

When amendment 2 was discussed at stage 2, it was pointed out to Mr MacAskill that it proposes to give Westminster a veto over legislation in the Scottish Parliament and that the right way in which to tackle the situation is for SNP members to turn up at Westminster and, along with the Liberal Democrats, lobby to get it changed. I suggest that that is the right way in which to achieve what the amendment seeks to achieve, instead of holding up the Scottish Parliament in doing its work.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

As George Lyon says, amendment 2 was lodged at stage 2 and was rejected. As I explained to Kenny MacAskill then, the payment of benefits is a reserved matter.

It is especially surprising that amendment 2 has been lodged by an SNP member. Let us be clear about what the amendment sets out to achieve. The bottom line is that it would make legislation that was passed by the Scottish Parliament dependent on the actions of UK Government departments. I can say categorically that it is not appropriate that the Scottish Parliament should delay its legislation pending action by the UK Government in a reserved area. That is not the way in which the Scottish Parliament should work, and it is not how it is going to work.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister guarantee that that will never happen while the present Executive is in office?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I am delighted that Mr Wilson has made such a devastating intervention. I am at a loss as to how to answer it.

It is apparent that Kenny MacAskill and his nationalist colleagues think differently about the way in which the Scottish Parliament should work. Amendment 2 appears to suggest that we should give the UK Government a veto over legislation in the Scottish Parliament. However, it would be highly inappropriate for us to pass power back to Westminster. If the SNP and other members want to raise the matter of social security benefits for students, they should do so through the appropriate channels. As George Lyon pointed out, the proper way in which to do that would be to lobby Westminster directly, as social security is a reserved issue. We all appreciate the fact that Scottish National Party members have great difficulty in turning up for any debate in the House of Commons—only this week, they failed to turn up for an important debate on the Scottish economy.

We are not ignoring the issue of the interface between student support and the benefits system. In implementing our new student support system, we have ensured that the relationship between student support and benefit entitlement is as smooth as possible. For example, the new school meals grant will ease the transition from benefits to full-time study and help all student parents on low incomes. We are ensuring that the new assistance, such as the mature students bursary fund and the school meals grant, will not affect benefit entitlement. I therefore invite the Parliament to reject amendment 2.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am surprised that the minister and Mr Lyon have not read the amendment. The word veto is not mentioned. It says that representations are to be made, and thereafter, in part (b), that Scottish ministers must have

"laid before the Scottish Parliament a written report of the response made by Her Majesty's Government to those representations."

If Her Majesty's Government was not prepared to restore eligibility for social security benefits to students, that would not impede an Executive of any political hue in proceeding in the matter. It would, however, raise the opportunity of inquiring whether social security benefits should continue to be run from south of the border. People would have to make their own judgment on that. What we are asking for is the minimum amount to which we think that students are entitled.

The bottom line is that the Executive should be prepared to go down to Westminster and at least ask for benefits to be restored to students. That is what its members agreed with and supported when they were in opposition, although apparently they are now not even willing to go to Westminster to ask for that. We are not asking anyone to go cap in hand; we are asking the Executive to restore what we believe is the right of every individual citizen. Given that 50 per cent of our young people are now becoming students, the Executive is preventing 50 per cent of young people from obtaining benefits although they cannot work. That is why we have no hesitation in adhering to principle once again and in urging the Parliament to support amendment 2.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There will be a division. [Interruption.] There is a problem with the electronic voting system. Members who are just entering the chamber can relax, as we are having to delay the vote. The clerks are now resetting the system.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 74, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 disagreed to.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

That concludes consideration of amendments to the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) (No 2) Bill.

Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) (No 2) Bill

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1780, in the name of Wendy Alexander, which seeks agreement that the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) (No 2) Bill be passed.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I am delighted to move this motion today. The bill forms the cornerstone of a package that will deliver significant improvements to student support in Scotland.

It is a tribute to the workings of the Parliament that it has moved so quickly from the introduction of the bill to stage 3 consideration. I pay tribute to the efficient and careful way in which the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee went about its task. The committee's adherence to a tight timetable means that the benefits of this bill will be felt by students from autumn this year. I thank committee members for their contribution. I am also grateful to Nicol Stephen and Alasdair Morrison for the consideration that they have given to the bill and for time that they have spent dealing with the details of the bill to ensure that we got it right.

I would also like to pay tribute to the stakeholder groups, who, in evidence-giving sessions in the committee and through the valuable work that was undertaken by the student support technical advisory group, have worked to ensure that students benefit from a scheme whose details are as fair as possible.

I also commend the Cubie committee on its 1999 report, which led to the proposals before us today. We are following the guiding principles that the committee set: targeting resources, flexibility and support for those most in need. We have also followed the recommendation that we bring in an endowment with repayment linked to earnings.

The principle of Cubie was the principle of an endowment. The principle is that an investment in a student's education allows that student to reap the rewards of that investment for the rest of their life. On average, women in Scotland who have gone to university earn £1 million more in discounted lifetime earnings than those who have not. That bounty is earned over a lifetime. We are asking for £2,000 in later life to pay for a four-year course in which the Scottish Executive will have invested in excess of £20,000. That is the principle. I note that Cubie suggested that the endowment should be over £3,000 but we are asking only for £2,000.

The issue of the threshold dominated the debate but the threshold is not a matter of principle and we think that there is a case for revisiting it. However, no one will be making payments for a few years. I ask those in this chamber who say that they care about the burden of red tape on businesses why they want to inflict on employers two different systems of repayment.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I do not have time.

The Cubie principle was that the endowment should be based on the ability to pay, which should be based on income. That is different from the mortgage scheme with a market interest rate that the Tories propose.

We heard a familiar tale from the SNP. It does not believe in the graduate endowment or the Cubie principle but, again, gives us an easy, uncosted promise that nobody would have to pay anything. In the SNP's five-day-old tax plans, there was not a ha'penny to fund that promise.

The truth is that the coalition parties have stuck to the Cubie principles, have moved beyond the denunciations and have delivered for students.

The other substantive point that was made in the debate was on the issue of student poverty. I say to Dennis Canavan that it is precisely because of the kind of stories that he told today that we are committing an additional £50 million to this landmark achievement in the provision of student support.

We have abolished tuition fees and from this autumn we are introducing bursaries—grants by another name—of up to £2,000 a year for young students from the poorest backgrounds. Those with a family income of less than £15,000 will be able to access an extra loan £500. What does that mean? It means that the spending power of students living away from home will increase by 13 per cent and that that of students living at home will increase by 17 per cent—that is more than four times the rate of inflation. I note also that Cubie indicated that there should be an increase of only 13 per cent.

To put all that in perspective, I will point out that, in 1980, students had to live on £3,189, in today's prices. This August, students from the poorest families will have access to £4,315—which is more than £1,000 more in grants and loans than they would have got 20 years ago. That means that Scotland's least well-off students will get a better deal than either the SNP or the Conservatives suggested that they would in their evidence to the Cubie committee.

Another way in which the world has changed in the past 20 years is that there are now more mature students. That is why we have introduced a mature students bursary fund.

The overall package adds up to a better deal for the least well-off students. No one will have more debt, 45 per cent of students will get more money each year than they do now and we will remove students from joint and several liability for council tax. Altogether—getting away from the denunciations and considering the delivery—we are giving young Scots their best ever chance to go to university. By reintroducing bursaries and ensuring that the poorest students have more to live on than they have had for more than 20 years, we are delivering.

The bill is ready to be approved by the Scottish Parliament and to pass into law. It is a significant achievement for the Scottish Parliament. It is a clear example of the partnership Government working together to respond to the wishes of the people of Scotland. The bill will work towards the provision of an inclusive higher education sector in Scotland that supports and empowers all Scots. I am pleased to move the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) (No 2) Bill be passed.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The subject matter of the bill has been discussed and debated at length in the chamber and in committee. Amendments have been few and this debate is to be brief, mainly because the bill is lacking in specification and detail. Committees have commented on the failure of the Executive to clarify the criteria that will qualify some for grants and ensnare most with a tuition fee.

In the debate following stage 3, it is customary in the Scottish Parliament to applaud the passing of another milestone as our legislature embeds further legislation for our nation. I cannot and will not do so on this occasion. Obviously, the bill contains elements that are sensible and overdue. It is right, for instance, that our Parliament should address the iniquities that students face with council tax and the difficulties that many faced in the absence of a grant. However, while such elements are welcome, the bill has to be considered as a whole. The Scottish Executive cannot mask the iniquities in the bill by lacing it with overdue and inadequate legislative advances. Moreover, it is scandalous that the Scottish Executive should seek to ensure the passage of the meat of the legislation by leaving it to regulations. The Scottish Executive has been told and knows well that the regulations cannot be amended but can only be accepted or rejected. Accordingly, Executive diktat is to be used to enforce the digestion of the Executive's unpalatable proposal.

The nub of the matter, however, remains the same: a tuition fee is a tuition fee, whether it is paid at the beginning, the middle or the end of the course. Renaming a tuition fee a graduate endowment is not an abolition but is, in the words of Winston Churchill, a "terminological inexactitude". He who is guilty of the greatest terminological inexactitude is the minister responsible for a department in which language and interpretation is crucial—the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice, Jim Wallace. I am referring to his declaration before the elections to the Scottish Parliament—elections that were supposed to usher in a new era for Scotland and for Scottish politics.

As a prelude to that new way of governing, Jim Wallace indicated that tuition fees would be killed stone dead. The phraseology may have changed, but the definition remains the same: students in Scotland require to pay for their higher education. Jim Wallace may call it a graduate endowment, but the effect is the same: it is simply a tuition fee by another name. It is yet another Liberal Democrat sell-out.

Student debt will not be addressed by the endowment. Access to higher education for those from disadvantaged families will not be improved. This is a missed opportunity; this is not Cubie. The Executive partnership has excelled itself in hype and hyperbole. New Labour invents tuition fees; the Liberal Democrats rename them a graduate endowment. Then, both parties, sickeningly, claim credit for their abolition. When the bill is passed, the sycophantic Lib Dem clapometer will go off the scale. The Lib Dems will be claiming that the partnership that they brokered has delivered. However, when the minister signs the bill, she will also be putting her signature to two other things: first, an invoice—in due course—to an already indebted student community for the privilege of learning; and secondly, a political death warrant for the Liberal Democrats for selling out Scottish education, which they hypocritically claimed was so dear to their hearts.

Those of us who benefited from the foresight of a past generation, in its provision of universal higher education, can take no satisfaction from the bill. Those who gained so much, but who choose to provide so little, must hang their heads in shame. The passing of the bill will not be a milestone for the Parliament, but will be a millstone for the student community, and a tombstone for the coalition partners.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What have we heard today from the terror of the Cabinet? What will we hear today from other members of the coalition Government in their closing speeches? We will hear, and, in the press releases, we will read about a commitment to social inclusion.

Where was the principled support for social inclusion when Tony Blair introduced tuition fees? Where was the principled support for social inclusion when every Labour MSP here today defended that position in standing for the Parliament?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will Mr Monteith give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have no time; please sit down.

When will we hear of the commitment to social justice? Where is the social justice in students being penalised because of their families' incomes? At the age of 18, a student can enlist in the armed forces and die for his or her country. She or he is treated with respect, as a consenting adult, when it comes to sexuality. When attending a higher education institution, however, the student is viewed as a dependant. Where is the dignity in that? Where is the social justice in that? We will be told that the goal was to encourage students from low-income families. That is well intentioned, but the bill does not do that. The bill characterises everything that is wrong and bad with the British and Scottish Governments that run our countries.

Rather than standing up for socialist principles and redistributing income through progressive taxation, as Mr Sheridan suggests, the measures in the bill bring in stealth taxes. Make no mistake, the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) (No 2) Bill represents yet another stealth tax.

The Executive has the audacity to tell us that the bill is good for us. The Liberal Democrats have fallen for that. They have not abandoned any principles, however—because they did not have any in the first place. If the minister believed that there was no disincentive as a result of the tuition tax, why give exemptions to 50 per cent of students? Where is the social justice in forcing students to be more in debt to the banks and the credit card companies, and in forcing them to work longer hours because their loan entitlement has been cut?

We will also hear that the bill is a victory for coalition politics, a victory for the partnership and, in particular, a victory for the Lib Dems. They will claim that the tail is wagging the dog. The truth, as always, is quite different. The bill does not abolish tuition fees, as students and anyone else who is living in the real world will realise. An undergraduate tax has been replaced by a graduate tax. It may have been reduced from £3,075 to £2,000, but it is still a tax. The eligibility for the exemptions may have expanded from 33 per cent of students to 50 per cent of students—but it is still a tax. Those reliefs have been funded by reducing the loan entitlement of students, forcing more students into greater overall debt. Students have to pay higher commercial interest rates than they would normally have expected to pay if they had not taken out the graduate investment.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will Mr Monteith take an intervention?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I will not. I have no time.

Then we have the case of Scottish students—in which Mr Rumbles will be particularly interested—who wish to study in England. Many of them have to study in England because of the nature of their chosen course.

This is nothing more than a low, shabby deal, which puts money in some students' pockets at the expense of other students. But then, when the student leaves university, not content with bullying the First Minister, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning wants to see that student mugged and their money taken back out of their wallet.

The bill is not what it seems. We have sought at every stage to improve it, but have failed. Let us be clear: the Government has not listened. There are alternatives to the bill: tuition fees should and can be abolished. We have a bill that is available to lodge, but the Government is insisting on proceeding with its own bill. There are no principles in the bill; there are no principles in the coalition partners' support for it. We oppose the bill in principle.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

If ever we saw an indulgence in hype and hyperbole, that was in Mr MacAskill's speech a few minutes ago. When it—[MEMBERS: "Hyperbowl?"] When it comes to principles, let us consider the Tories, and the incredible statement from Brian Monteith that they are standing up for students. Does he not remember who abolished student grants in the first place?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

It was Labour.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Student grants were abolished by the Tories.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

In fact, while the Tories reduced grants, it was the new Labour Government that abolished them.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

They reduced them, yes.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the bill, because it completes the second stage of the student support package that the coalition is introducing. Let us make this clear to everyone: tuition fees are gone. No student or parent was asked to pay student fees this year—not one.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Yes—one was: a Scottish student who went to England.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I challenge the Opposition to bring forward any student who paid tuition fees this year. No parent or student in Scotland has been asked to make a contribution after they leave university, despite the fact that they have not had to pay tuition fees this year. That is a fact—it is up to the Opposition to produce anyone who has actually been asked to make that contribution.

There has already been a response to the policies pursued by the coalition, with a dramatic increase in the number of students in Scotland last year; this year, because students do not have to pay tuition fees, their number is running 10 per cent ahead of that for last year. Students are voting with their feet, in support of coalition policies.

Every organisation that gave evidence to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee supported the principle of graduates making a contribution to funding living costs for the next generation of students. The only organisation to stand against that is the SNP. It is on its own once again.

The bill makes available to students from poorer backgrounds about £2,000 in grants. That is a huge step forward in trying to encourage students from poorer backgrounds to come into further and higher education. It is a big step forward for social justice.

The bill ring-fences the contribution made by students—remember that only 50 per cent of them have to make it—in order to ensure that funds are available for the next generation of students' living costs. The bill also reduces student debt by up to £4,000 for students from poorer backgrounds and leaves 99 per cent of students with less debt than they would have under the present system, even when the £2,000 contribution is taken into account. That is a tremendous step forward in encouraging students from poorer backgrounds to enter further and higher education.

Nobody would dispute the fact that most of the bodies that gave evidence to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee expressed concern about the £10,000 threshold, which we have heard so much about. However, I draw members' attention again to the Cubie committee, which took evidence the length and breadth of Scotland, from students, parents and student organisations. In evidence to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, a member of the Cubie committee stated clearly that the issue of the £10,000 threshold was not raised with it, despite the fact that under Cubie's proposals the student loan system would still be in place.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

If the threshold is not an issue, why did the member's colleague, the former Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, tell us that he thought the threshold was too low?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I will come to that point. I was only repeating the evidence that was given to the committee.

The Scottish Executive consultation received 106 replies, of which only five raised the issue of the £10,000 threshold. The Executive listened to students and parents in that consultation. I accept that organisations have raised the issue, but the right place to deal with it is Westminster. The Liberal Democrats are pursuing the issue and will argue for an increase in the threshold.

Students in Scotland no longer have to pay tuition fees. When the bill is passed, students will have access to grants of up to £4,000. Student debt will be reduced by up to £4,000. Ninety-nine per cent of students will have less debt, even once the £2,000 contribution is added. Most important, the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition will have delivered the best student package in Europe.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We now move to open debate. As we have time in hand, members' speeches can last up to five minutes.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for allowing me to take part in this very important stage 3 debate. As a member of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I thank all those who were involved in our work on the bill: the committee members, the clerks and all the stakeholders who gave evidence to the committee. Like other members of the committee, I found that evidence very interesting.

Before I was elected to the Parliament, I worked in further and higher education for 17 years, mainly during the period of Tory rule at Westminster. Like my Liberal Democrat colleague George Lyon, I say that I would not like to take a lesson on principles from Brian Monteith's party.

From my experience, I think that we certainly need to raise substantial amounts of money if we are to widen access. We must widen access not to the groups that continually attend further and higher education colleges and universities but to socioeconomic groups 3 and 4. Even when there were full grants, the percentage of people from socioeconomic groups 3 and 4 attending university did not hit double figures. The packages that we are discussing today and our lifelong learning strategy must attack that problem. I believe that the bill does so.

I will concentrate on widening access to all within our communities, whether people want to enter a first-steps programme, a further education college or a university. The bill cannot be seen in isolation from the wider lifelong learning agenda, but it has key elements that will help to promote wider access to education and training and remove barriers. We must not forget the work that is being done across the board and in which the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is participating fully.

As George Lyon said, the proposals have been designed so that no student incurs more debt under the new system than they would have done under the current system and, crucially, so that students from poorer families end up with less debt. That is very important.

I welcome the introduction of a scheme enabling part-time students to borrow up to £500 to assist with study costs. In my previous job, I saw the changing patterns of people's learning. More and more people are studying part time. That financial help will be most welcome and will encourage more people to come through the doors, sometimes as their first step. The first step is often into part-time education.

I also welcome the introduction of a young students access bursary scheme, which will be administered by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland and will provide help for young students' living costs, depending on their family's income. I also welcome the establishment of mature students bursary funds, which the committee recommended. Those funds will be administered locally so that there can be flexibility in help and support for the mature students who need it. That represents a move away from 100 per cent loans to support through bursaries for many students.

The bill is good news for Scottish students and in particular for those on low incomes. Those on the lowest incomes, who have never paid fees, will receive up to £4,000 a year in additional bursary support.

As George Lyon said, many students will be exempt from the graduate endowment. They will also benefit from the additional £10 million access payment fund.

I am pleased that not only mature students but lone parents and students with a disability will not be liable for the endowment.

No one has mentioned the fact that someone undertaking a higher national certificate or diploma at further and higher education colleges will be exempt. Perhaps the minister will say what stage has been reached by the technical working group that is considering how students who complete an HNC or HND at further and higher education colleges will be affected if they move on to take a degree.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Like Marilyn Livingstone, I was a lecturer in further and higher education. How much would it cost a student to do a one-year top-up course to upgrade from an HND to a BA, for example in business studies? Would that student pay the £2,000?

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

That is the question that I am putting to the minister. From the evidence that we took, we learned that the technical working group was examining that matter. I am asking how far down the road the group is. We were assured that such students would not pay the full sum, but we do not know the details.

The Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals welcomed the hypothecation of money from the endowment. That means that there will be money in further and higher education for the students who most need it—the future generation of students from socioeconomic groups 3 and 4, who we hope will attend colleges.

I welcome the bill as part of the wider lifelong learning agenda, which has social justice at its core. In particular, I welcome the announcement of £20 million over three years to ensure that further education students have equity of funding with students in higher education. I support the bill.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Earlier on, Conservative members sought guidance on the time that would be available for the debate and we were given to understand that it would be restricted to half an hour. As a result, not only did we trim our speeches, but we did not take interventions, as that would have made it difficult for us to put across all the points that we wanted to make. I now understand from the methodology that we are following that we are in open debate and that we will proceed to 12.30 pm. Is that correct?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The timetabling motion allows us to run until 12.30 pm. Therefore, as I indicated to the chamber, I will allow speeches of up to five minutes in this section of the debate. We have 45 minutes in hand.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I will pass on the opportunity of speaking for 45 minutes.

I will speak from a personal historical perspective. My wife and I put three sons through higher education, with diminishing help from the state. During their time in higher education, the minimum grant diminished, disappearing altogether by the time that my third son had gone through university. We all know that the Tories made that decision. I put that on the record because it is important to remember that they began the process that put us in the situation in which we find ourselves today.

Rather regrettably, student loans then became the flavour of the time, and with student loans came student poverty, which Dennis Canavan mentioned. I will plagiarise some of the copy to which he referred this morning. A report in The Herald today on research carried out by Dr Claire Carney at the University of Glasgow found that almost half of the 1,600 second-year students surveyed were working part time for an average of 14 hours a week, compared with a Government expectation of 10 hours a week. The most important part of that report was the finding that, in seven out of eight indicators of physical and mental health, student health among those surveyed was significantly poorer than the health of a comparable cross-section of the population. That is not good news.

Such reports will not encourage potential students who might be uncertain about a career choice of entering higher education. They might prefer to take their talents to jobs outwith higher education, in order to earn a regular salary. Their wasted, misapplied, misdirected or redirected talent might be a loss for them as individuals, and also a loss to the nation.

I recognise that some of the help that is being given to people from financially poorer backgrounds will be useful. However, does the minister appreciate just how much pressure there is to conform to the non-academic norms in many areas? When full grants still existed—with travel expenses and tuition fees paid for and everything that there used to be—I recall that a sixth-year girl sought an interview with me just after new year, to say that she was leaving school, because the peer-group pressure from her friends who were not studying was too much for her to sustain. Are the grants sufficient to turn such situations round? I hope so, but I doubt it. Will those who will not obtain grants, or who are on the margin of grants, and who are faced with tuition fees in the long term, be deterred? I think that they probably will be.

I propose a slightly frivolous compromise. Rather than arguing about graduate endowments or tuition fees, perhaps it would be more appropriate if we called the bill the higher education invoice (student tariff)—or HEIST—bill.

The starter level of £10,000 for repayment is nonsense. Although George Lyon referred to how few objections there appeared to be to that level, the National Union of Students Scotland says:

"the scheme departs from any notion of financial benefit from higher education ... It cannot be right to demand a financial contribution from graduates who have not benefited financially from their education".

Given that level of £10,000 for repayment, none of us in the chamber is able to suggest that a graduate would benefit from their higher education.

Having abolished grants completely, Labour now brings back a few; having condemned the Tories' loans system, Labour has refined it; and having abolished tuition fees, Labour reinstates them, post graduation. As I used to write on the end of essays, "Not good enough. Could do a lot better."

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

If any speech encapsulated the bill, it was that of Mr Lyon. If I may, I will pick upon his quaint utterance of "hyperbowl". That is not a term with which I am familiar, but it seems redolent of a big, gaping receptacle. In the context of his contribution to the debate, that seems wholly appropriate. It was clear from his speech that ignorance is indeed bliss, because the Tories did not abolish grants or introduce tuition fees—Labour did. I say to Mrs Livingstone—who seems to have deserted the chamber—that no Scottish student paid tuition fees under 18 years of Tory government, and a grant was given to any Scottish student whose income circumstances required it. Let us have no hypocrisy from the Liberal Democrat benches.

The bill has always seemed to me to be strange: what its authors seek to present it as is not what, on analysis, it is. If the bill is to taken seriously as a credible attempt to abolish tuition fees, where within it is the phrase "abolition of tuition fees"?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Will the member give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Certainly.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Does the member not agree that the bill has nothing to do with tuition fees, which have been abolished?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The bill may, in the perception of Liberal Democrats, have nothing to do with tuition fees, but in the perception of everyone else—with the exception of Mrs Radcliffe's Labour colleagues—the bill has everything to do with tuition fees. With the fondness for verbal usage that the Liberal Democrats are so keen on, the bill is an attempt to use vocabulary to create a postgraduate tuition fee by any other name. No one outside the chamber who has half a brain—

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Will the member take an intervention?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No—I have already taken Nora Radcliffe's intervention.

No one outside the chamber will accept for one moment that the bill supports the abolition of tuition fees in any way. It is a patent instrument for the maintenance of tuition fees, switching them from an up-front charge for people going to university to a deferred charge for people who have left university.

Perhaps there is nothing particularly surprising about the bill. If we are to be bluntly honest about the approach of the Labour party, it never wanted to abolish tuition fees—good heavens, the Labour party introduced them, so why on earth would it seek to abolish them?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will Annabel Goldie give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Very well.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

For the record, does the member agree that her party's Government severely reduced the level of grant, but that it was the new Labour Government that abolished grants?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

As I made clear, no student in Scotland suffered under the Conservative Government as students have suffered under the Labour Government, or as they will suffer under the bill's proposals.

The bill is both hypocritical and duplicitous. The hypocrisy is that the Labour element in the chamber does not want to abolish tuition fees—no one believes for one moment that it does. However, it had to satisfy an electoral compact with the Liberal Democrats, who were on record before the Scottish Parliament elections as telling everyone who wanted to listen that they wished to abolish tuition fees. It is amusing and, I am sure, almost distressing to the public and our audience outwith the Parliament to see the braying—some might say asinine—discomfiture of the Liberal Democrats when they are forced to try to defend the indefensible.

Quite simply, in the partnership agreement that accompanies the unholy electoral alliance that is the Executive coalition, the Liberal Democrats said, "You've got to do something that looks like abolition of tuition fees." The Labour element of that coalition, which was not interested in the slightest in the abolition of tuition fees, said, "Leave it to us—we'll mesmerise you with a

document that will say everything but 'get rid of tuition fees'."

That is the patent nonsense with which we are now confronted.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No. I am sorry, but I do not have a lot of time.

The bill contains a proposal that is patently a charge on our students. Although members of the coalition parties might not want to accept the evidence, all the evidence that was taken made it crystal clear that the imposition of a deferred charge, tax or fee—members can call it what they will—on our graduates is a deterrent, and to seek repayment at a £10,000 threshold is penal. Some would say, and the Conservative party has argued, that it is a tax.

In principle, the Conservative party is unable to accept the bill, as it is patently dishonest. Section 1 does not do what it sets out to do—on the contrary, it maintains a provision for Scottish higher and further education that we, and to their credit, members of the Scottish National Party, are opposed to. Once upon a time, the Liberal Democrats were also opposed to it. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, Conservatives will not betray their commitment to the electorate; we will honour and abide by it.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Voters often say that they are cynical about politicians. They need only listen to a speech delivered by Annabel Goldie to feel that. She talked about hypocrisy, yet I have never heard a more hypocritical speech in the chamber. We must have a little bit of honesty in politics. Annabel Goldie used the word hypocrisy—she levelled the charge at the Liberal Democrats. Dishonesty in politics serves nobody, whether it is the Tories yesterday, talking about lowering income tax but putting more into public spending, or today, talking about how much they supported the students during the 18 long Tory years. The Tories started the attack on student support, which the Labour-Liberal coalition in the Scottish Parliament is now reversing. The Tories should take the responsibility where it lies. They started the downward spiral for students. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have reversed the trend.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

No. Annabel Goldie would not take an intervention.

As George Lyon said, the first stage of the process was the abolition of fees last year. The Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) (No 2) Bill is the second stage of the process. Fees have been abolished—it is as simple as that.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

If fees have been abolished and the Liberal Democrats have achieved what they told the electorate they would achieve, why, when they did not want to introduce anything else, are they in support of the introduction of a graduate endowment, otherwise known as a tax?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am happy to answer that question. I am absolutely clear that if the Liberal Democrats had a majority in the Parliament, we would have stopped after the first stage of the process, but we are in partnership with the Labour party in the coalition, and that is what coalitions are about—winning some, losing some and compromise. The most important point about coalition politics is that the partners do not get all that they want all the time. We have managed to abolish tuition fees, which was our main aim, and we are now in the second stage of the process, which we are happy to sign up to, which is the graduate endowment.

The most important point about the bill, and the reason why I am particularly happy to sign up to the second stage of the process, is the inclusion of section 2, on the use of graduate endowment income. When the bill was introduced in October, that section was not included. I am absolutely delighted that it is now. It says:

"The Scottish Ministers shall, in making budget proposals to the Scottish Parliament, include provision that the income arising from the graduate endowment for the financial year to which the proposals relate be used for the purposes of student support."

That is what the bill is all about—student support. There will be a ring-fenced fund, to which, in the early years, the Scottish Executive will contribute.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

If it is a ring-fenced fund, where is the core funding on top of which the extra comes? All the ring-fenced fund will do is substitute money that would otherwise have come from general taxation.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That is not true. The Executive is absolutely committed to paying into the student graduate endowment fund until, in future years, the fund is completed by contributions from ex-graduates. I am delighted to support the bill. It will ensure that £2,000 grants are made available to our poorest students, which is worth while in itself. George Lyon talked about the bill providing the best student support package in Europe and I absolutely agree that that is the case.

The bill is part of a two-stage process. I am particularly pleased with the Liberal Democrats' input, working with our Labour partners in coalition, to delivering the bill. We got rid of student tuition fees in the first stage last year; we are now instituting the student endowment as part of the second stage of the programme. The bill is about working together for the advantage of our students, enabling students to access further and higher education and removing barriers. I am particularly proud of that.

I must say that the Tories' contribution to the debate is absolutely astounding.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

The main criterion on which the bill should be judged is whether it will encourage more people, especially young people, to go on to higher education, particularly students from low-income families. I doubt very much whether it will. If more students do go on to higher education—and I sincerely hope that they will—it will be despite the burden of post-graduate payments rather than because of it.

I am disappointed that the Executive refused to enshrine in statute the principle that students from low-income families should not be prevented from pursuing a course of study. The Executive refused to accept any amendments at stage 3—so much for it listening to the Parliament. Even amendments that were in line with the Executive's declared policy and those that sought to implement the recommendations of the Cubie committee, which the Executive set up, were deemed unacceptable by the Executive.

On the threshold for payment of the post-graduate contribution, Wendy Alexander asked why we should inflict on employers two different systems of collection. The main aim of the bill is not to create or reduce burdens for employers; the main aim is educational. I say to Wendy Alexander that the burden on employers would be reduced—indeed eradicated—if the proposed system of graduate endowments were replaced by a fairer system of income tax, which employers would simply operate through pay as you earn. Instead of a fairer system of income tax, whereby people, including graduates, on higher earnings pay more, we have the imposition of post-graduate tuition fees. I know that the Executive does not like that term but, like it or not, the endowment is a form of graduate tax or tax on education.

It used to be generally agreed that a progressive system of taxation was based on the principle of "from each according to their means; to each according to their needs"—that is a basic socialist principle. Today's Labour Government and the Lib-Lab Executive in Scotland seem to be afraid to implement that principle. Instead the Executive has concocted a system of graduate taxation.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Does the member recognise that the Scottish Parliament does not have control over income tax, which is reserved to Westminster, which the member left? Dennis Canavan keeps referring to the endowment being a tax. If he feels that it is a tax, which the Parliament is not allowed to levy, he should challenge it.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

The Parliament is allowed to levy taxation if it wants, although its taxation powers are minimal—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Mr Canavan.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

The Executive is afraid to use those taxation powers—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Mr Canavan, I must ask you to face your microphone when you are speaking, otherwise the chamber will not hear you and neither will the official reporters.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

My apologies. I was saying that the Parliament does have taxation powers and that the Executive is afraid to use them. The Parliament's taxation powers are minimal, but the Executive could make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding a much fairer system of income tax, whereby people, including graduates, on higher incomes would pay more.

Can I say anything positive about the bill? The only thing is that it is at least an improvement on the status quo—it is an improvement on the system that was introduced by Westminster—but I do not think that that is good enough. When the matter was debated in the House of Commons, I pointed out that many of today's Cabinet ministers were beneficiaries of a generous grants system, which enabled them to go on to get the benefits of higher education. It is rather ironic that those same Cabinet ministers are now kicking away the ladder of opportunity from many of the young people of today, particularly those from low-income families. The same charge can be levelled against the Scottish Executive.

Investment in higher education is an investment in our future, but the bill does not ensure that there will be an adequate level of investment. The Executive is selling our students short. It is missing a golden opportunity to show the Scottish Parliament acting as a standard-bearer in ensuring a much fairer deal for our young people, who will, we hope, build the new Scotland and help to build better opportunities and a better future for all our people.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, let me begin by repeating what Marilyn Livingstone said by way of thanks and gratitude to everyone who came to give evidence to the committee during the course of the bill. I also thank the minister for her congratulations to the committee.

Before I deal with the substantial points, as the Minister for Parliament is in the chamber, I want to make a parliamentary point about the legislative process through which this bill passed because it may affect other bills in future. At stage 1, the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee unanimously concluded that there was the wrong balance between the primary and the secondary legislation and that some materials that were designated for the regulations should really have been in the bill. The committees did not push that point because of the tight timetable that was required to implement sections 3 and 4.

I ask the Minister for Parliament to consider the issue for future legislation, because it would be bad news for Scotland if we continued to get the wrong balance. Everybody knows that to change primary legislation requires a three-stage consideration by the Parliament, whereas there is no ability to amend regulations—there is only the ability to say yes or no. The functioning of our legislative process would be helped if we took that lesson on board. I hope that the Minister for Parliament will consider that point.

Dennis Canavan hit the nail on the head when he said that, when we are considering the bill and the Cubie report, the central issue is whether the bill will increase access to higher and further education in Scotland. Marilyn Livingstone pointed out a dogged statistic that has been with us for many a long year: the percentage of students from low-income families who have gone on to higher education, irrespective of the financial regime governing grants and loans, has remained pretty much static almost since the war, despite the Robbins reforms of the 1960s and other changes that have taken place since that time.

Since the bill is likely to be passed, I hope that we do not accept that issues such as the payment threshold are carved in stone. The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee is about to undertake a substantial inquiry into lifelong learning. The inquiry remit includes all post-school education and training. I imagine that a key aspect of our inquiry will be to address the issue of access to further and higher education. The committee will want to look again at whether sufficient financial and other support mechanisms are in place to try to increase the number of young people in social classes 3 and 4 going into higher education.

Kenny MacAskill mentioned the East Ayrshire educational maintenance allowance scheme initiative. I support the expansion of that scheme, and I hope to see its extension throughout the rest of Scotland, at some time in the near future. Early indications as to the success of the pilot scheme are encouraging. It does seem to be getting people from lower-income backgrounds into higher and further education.

The threshold issue will have to be addressed again. I think that even the Executive agrees that a threshold of £10,000 is ridiculously low. The threshold at which loan repayments start has not been altered since 1997-98, when the new income-contingent scheme was introduced. The repayments for the endowment will start in 2004, by which time seven financial years will have passed. The value of the threshold has eroded by about £1,000 a year. However, the threshold was set far too low to start with; we need a substantial hike. The threshold should be set in line with earnings. That brings us back to the principle behind the Cubie recommendation of a threshold of £25,000, which was to reflect the beneficial effect of a higher education on earnings. That is an important principle reflecting fairness and equity.

Ministers have three years—or perhaps they have two years, after which we will have a year—to consider what will happen after 2003 before the scheme starts in 2004. Once the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has completed its inquiry into lifelong learning, we should take the opportunity to return to this issue and do what is necessary. Our ambition should not be that students from low-income families leave higher education with less debt; our ambition should be that they leave with no debt.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I want to reinforce a point that I made earlier. This bill is an improvement on what went before and I am very glad to see it. However, what have been shown in the debate this morning and in debates during the preceding months—and I am referring particularly to the contributions from Dennis Canavan—are the complications that remain to be addressed.

We need a system of support for all young people—a system that, in the interests of social inclusion, gives equal value to the contributions of all young people between the ages of 16 and 24. We need a system that values people and supports them whether they are employed, unemployed, still at school, leaving school, at college, at university, in full-time education or in part-time education, and whether they are single parents, leaving care, at home or leaving home. We need a system of support for young people that meets all the needs of all young people between those ages.

This bill, in part, addresses the needs of students in colleges and universities. We need to consider wider issues and to be more progressive. I repeat what I said earlier about what the Irish are considering. With our colleagues at Westminster, we should start to consider the idea of introducing a basic income scheme, the first part of which should be for young people between the ages of 16 and 24.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I thank all members who have spoken today and I acknowledge their comments.

By supporting this bill, the Scottish Parliament is upholding three important Scottish virtues. The first is a reverence for learning, which is enshrined in the aspiration of the democratic intellect. The second is our national sense of fairness, with the greatest support going to those who need it most. The lad o pairts must not be held back by the financial circumstances of his or her home. The third Scottish virtue is honesty and thrift—not making fraudulent financial commitments that we neither cost nor say how they will be paid for.

The coalition parties are delivering for Scotland. We are reflecting this nation's sense of reverence for learning, our sense of fairness and our honesty and thrift in our dealings. Scotland should be proud of a Parliament that, in its first session, is upholding the virtues that Scotland holds dear and is giving Scottish youngsters, particularly our poorest youngsters, their best ever chance to go to university.

Let me deal with three of the points that have been raised. First, Marilyn Livingstone asked whether those paying for one-year top-up degrees would pay the graduate endowment. I am happy to confirm that those who transfer from a higher national diploma to a one-year top-up degree will not pay the graduate endowment. The latest draft of the regulations from the Executive is framed to say that.

Annabel Goldie talked about what the Scottish electorate wants. That is not the strongest suit of her party. I note that her party's proposals for loans not to be related to the ability to pay and for graduate endowment repayments to be related to the market's graduate mortgage rate of interest are likely to find as much favour with the electorate as some of her party's other proposals on student support.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

No, I have two minutes. Let me move on.

I will deal with the more substantive observation, which was made by Dennis Canavan and Tommy Sheridan. Dennis Canavan suggested that the ladder of opportunity is being kicked away. I want to deal very precisely with that point, and I will do it with illustration to Tommy Sheridan, who is not gracing us with his presence any more.

Tommy Sheridan went to university in Stirling in 1980. If he went up as a low-income student in 1980, less than £3,200 in grant was available to him. If he were going up this August as a low-income student, he would have access to more than £4,300 in bursary and loan support. That additional £1,100 is the fundamental nature of our determination to tackle student poverty without raising the debts of any low-income students. No one will have more debt than they do today, but 45 per cent will have more help.

The convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, Alex Neil, made a point about the threshold for repayment. We have said that there is time to revisit the threshold before anybody pays a ha'penny of graduate endowment, but this Parliament should not send a signal to employers in Scotland that we will ask them for two separate repayment schemes.

I welcome the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's determination, as the convener indicated, to examine access. That is the nature of the challenge that faces us. We need to change the fact that 10 per cent of students come from social classes D and E backgrounds. Many Labour and Liberal Democrat members feel that many challenges lie ahead of us.

Scotland's higher education tradition gave us four universities when our nearest neighbour had just two. That precious tradition extends far beyond the issues of student support. We need to nurture it more effectively as a Parliament.

Today, we have the opportunity to endorse a bill that seeks to address the long-term future of higher education support. It is the sort of measure of which the whole Parliament can be proud. It is taking an important step forward. I thank the many members who have taken an interest for their support. I call on the Parliament to give its support to the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) (No 2) Bill.

Business Motion

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-1804, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request-to-speak button now.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees:

(a) the following programme of business— Wednesday 4 April 2001

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Executive Debate on Looked After Children and Adoption Services followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-1683 Richard Lochhead: Removal of Reliefs for Water and Sewerage Charges for Charitable Organisations Thursday 5 April 2001

9.30 am Executive Debate on Structural Funds followed by Ministerial Statement followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Ministerial Statement followed by Ministerial Statement followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-1511 Karen Whitefield: Airdrie to Bathgate Rail Link Wednesday 25 April 2001

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Executive Business

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 26 April 2001

9.30 am Scottish National Party Business followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Executive Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business and (b) that the Rural Development Committee reports to the Health and Community Care Committee by 24 April 2001 on The Feeding Stuffs (Sampling and Analysis) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/104).— [Mr Tom McCabe.]

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

No members have asked to speak against the motion. The question is, that motion S1M-1804, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures are in place to ensure the smooth running of all examinations taken by secondary pupils this year. (S1O-3198)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Ministers have acted to strengthen the Scottish Qualifications Authority's board and its senior management team. We monitor closely progress towards the 2001 examinations and I will continue to provide regular reports to Parliament on that progress. Neither the SQA nor I are complacent. It is inevitable that some problems have been identified, but the SQA has taken action to deal with them. From now until August, it is vital that everyone who is concerned about Scottish education puts the interest of those young people first and works constructively to deliver results.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I do not disagree with anything that the minister has said so far.

Last year's problems left a lack of confidence in the examination system in Scotland. In an effort to instil confidence that the problems are in the past, will the minister give serious consideration to returning all marked scripts from this year's diet of examinations to the relevant exam centre for verification? That should be done at no expense to the school or college, given that the problems were brought about by the deficiencies of the SQA.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As I have probably said in the chamber before, I do not believe that we should take any steps this year that could detract from the key aims of completing last year's diet of examinations and ensuring that this year's diet runs accurately and on time. Returning the marked scripts could have affected not only the SQA's administrative procedures, but the recruitment of markers for the coming summer.

We will consider returning marked scripts for the new winter diet of examinations next year. The SQA is consulting on that proposal and we hope to announce the results of that consultation well in advance of the new winter diet.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister agree with the Educational Institute of Scotland that while a close watch must be kept on the progress of arrangements for this year's exams and, in particular, on the provision of markers, those who run scare stories that have no real basis in fact cause unnecessary anxiety to teachers, parents and pupils and do no service to Scottish education?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

A number of incidents have taken place in the past two or three weeks in which individual facts and figures have been either distorted or misrepresented. That does no service to the young people who are preparing for their examinations. Everyone in the chamber will agree that we want those criticisms or concerns to be reported to the Parliament and to the SQA, so that we can act upon them. However, they should not be exaggerated in public in a way that scares pupils in our schools.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

As the minister knows, most of the student records and portfolios at Morgan Academy in my constituency were destroyed in the recent fire that engulfed that school. I thank him for his swift response in sending an SQA official to Dundee last week, to reassure staff and students that no candidate from Morgan Academy will be disadvantaged in the forthcoming exams as a result of that fire.

Will the minister give that same assurance on the record, both on his behalf and on behalf of the Scottish Executive? Will the report that he receives from the SQA following the official's visit to Dundee last week be made available to the school and to the education authority?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am happy to comply with that request.

Both John McAllion and Kate MacLean were in touch with me quickly about Morgan Academy and I am happy to ensure that the SQA takes account of the special circumstances at the school. I would also be happy to visit the school, and I believe that such an arrangement will be made after the Easter break. That will be an opportunity for me to examine some of the other difficulties that will face the school following the disastrous events of last week.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Executive what assistance it will make available to crew members of fishing vessels in any decommissioning scheme. (S1O-3194)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The proposals for decommissioning are being worked up. The intention is that the decommissioning grant will compensate for removal of the fishing vessel and its licence. How recipients disburse that compensation and any funds from the disposal of fixed-quota allocations is a matter for the owners and crews involved and will depend on the structure of that ownership.

The fishing industry reports a shortage of crew at present and decommissioning may help to address that issue. However, if necessary, anyone who requires appropriate support and advice on seeking alternative employment will be given it.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Does the minister accept that share fishermen, who share the responsibilities and hardships of fishing vessels, should have the right to a fair share of the decommissioning redundancy package? I strongly support the Executive's £25 million decommissioning scheme. However, I put it to the minister that it is imperative that the scheme includes specific conditions to require fair redundancy terms for crew members who lose their jobs.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I share the view that it would be inequitable if that did not happen, but it is difficult for the scheme to intervene in redundancy provisions, which will depend on the contracts of employment that crew members entered into.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the minister confirm that during the recent tie-up campaign, Executive sources, in particular at the Labour conference, briefed journalists that one problem with a tie-up scheme was that it would not allow payments to crews? Will the minister further confirm that the Belgian tie-up scheme includes provision for crews and that the campaign in Scotland argued specifically for payments for crews, because the objective was to keep the industry together? How can the minister and Executive sources say that there is a problem with a tie-up scheme because it does not contain payments for crews, when he has just admitted that his policy of decommissioning offers nothing for crews, except the loss of their jobs?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I do not think that even Mr Salmond would expect me to answer questions about a briefing of which I am unaware and about matters that took place at a Labour party conference—he will excuse me from that.

It is quite wrong to suggest that a decommissioning scheme does nothing for crews. One of the key purposes of a decommissioning scheme is to make the fishing fleet viable and therefore to give a long-term assurance of employment in the fishing industry.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

If the minister examines the history of what happened after the closure of the Icelandic fisheries, he will learn that there are men who were employed as crewmen, for example in the pool scheme in Aberdeen, who still await any possibility of compensation. That example should be very much in his mind at this time.

Does the minister accept that he must refine any scheme that he comes up with and acknowledge the fact that crew members will not get help from a decommissioning scheme, but could get it from a tie-up scheme, which is what members asked for before?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am familiar with the regulations that applied at the time of the extension of the Icelandic waters. However, I do not think that that is a parallel to the way in which we are embarking on the decommissioning scheme.

Mr Davidson cannot say with absolute certainty that the scheme will not benefit crewmen, because that will depend on the structure of ownership of the vessels. I can only repeat what I said to Mr Home Robertson: I recognise the inequity of how the scheme might look, but I do not believe that we have the power to intervene in redundancies, which will depend on the contracts. I take on board the points that Mr Davidson makes.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the multidisciplinary review of child protection announced on 20 March 2001 is expected to reach a conclusion. (S1O-3222)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No child in Scotland should fall through the child protection net due to poor communication or co-ordination between the staff and agencies responsible for their care. The multidisciplinary review will focus on improving systems right across Scotland with that objective. The review will start in June 2001 and the report will be published within 12 months.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

The minister will be aware of the concerns about child protection surrounding children's residential institutions in my constituency. Does he agree that staff in such homes have a demanding job, often facing violent outbursts from children from disturbed and abused backgrounds? What steps are being taken to improve the service for children who need to be removed from the family home and for the staff who work with them?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

In the light of recent experience, I am considering how best we can use the provisions of the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill to lever up standards. When the bill is enacted later this year, we should examine the training of social workers and other staff who work in such homes and how that is integrated with the training of other staff, so that there is a multidisciplinary approach. At all times, we must not fail to remember that children in such homes are among the most vulnerable in our society. Whatever we do for them should be at least as good as what we do for the rest.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

What progress is being made on the consultation paper on the index of adults who are unsuitable to work with children? When does the minister expect to announce the outcome of that consultation?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The results of the consultation will be available soon. It is our intention, later this year, to legislate for that index so as to ensure that adults who are unsuitable to work with children are properly identified and restricted from so doing.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many people are presently on bail awaiting the service of a murder indictment and what the average length of time is since the appearance of any such accused person on petition. (S1O-3191)

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

A significant number indeed. I am obliged to the Lord Advocate for his response. Does he agree that, notwithstanding the European convention on human rights requirement that accused persons be admitted to bail unless under exceptional circumstances, the Crown Office should indict cases of homicide within four months and not use the absence of the 110-day rule to fail to proceed within a reasonable period?

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its estimate is of the impact on tourism of the foot- and-mouth disease outbreak and what plans it has to promote tourism from overseas particularly in low risk areas unaffected by the outbreak so far. (S1O-3208)

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Visitscotland estimates that the cost to the tourism industry in Scotland is currently around £10 million per week. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Tourist Authority are putting over the key message that the United Kingdom is open for business. Information about Scotland is a key part of that message. Visitscotland is considering urgently how to get the maximum possible impact from its marketing campaigns, using both its existing resources and the additional funding that we announced yesterday.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister indicate how much of the additional £5 million that has been allocated to visitscotland will be spent on marketing? Will he encourage visitscotland to use part of the resources that it earmarks for marketing to promote Scotland overseas independently of, as well as through, the BTA, as it is entitled to do?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

A fair proportion of the money that was given to visitscotland yesterday will, of course, be spent on marketing. Any marketing that visitscotland does overseas will be done in close conjunction with the BTA. Everyone recognises that that is the eminently sensible way to proceed.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Yesterday, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning said in the chamber that there was a possibility that, from the £5 million that has been allocated to visitscotland to try to improve the current situation, area tourist boards might receive a rebate of their subscriptions. That would alleviate conditions, but informed estimates suggest that the cost of doing that could amount to £4 million. Is the minister suggesting that only £1 million from the package will remain for the purposes to which Mr Raffan alluded?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I am happy to advise Annabel Goldie that her figure is not correct. We understand that the subscription rate that is currently paid by ATBs amounts to in the region of £2 million. That leaves visitscotland with about £3 million to be used for other matters. Visitscotland has additional resources that it has yet to allocate. For reasons that we all appreciate, it had to pull a spring marketing campaign, which leaves about another £2.2 million on the table. Visitscotland will use some of that resource in the UK to market Scotland as a holiday destination.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister consider setting aside some of the £5 million, which is being made available to Scottish Enterprise, to provide for an emergency overseas marketing grants scheme for individual companies, so that they can be helped with marketing themselves on the web and elsewhere?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Alex Neil raises a fair point. I will be happy to discuss it with the enterprise networks.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

I welcome the suggestion that normal public access should now be restored to the countryside north of the Forth and the Clyde, but does the minister agree that the drawing of such an arbitrary line is not enough? In many areas south of the Forth and the Clyde, public access would create no significant risk of the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. Will the Executive therefore encourage landowners to permit such access? That would help hillwalkers, climbers and ramblers, as well as the tourist trade.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Again, that is a fair point. It is important that we get across the message that Scotland is open for business. Large swathes of Scotland are open. We must recognise that and market parts of Scotland as being open.

The question of private landlords has arisen. Some of them have kept their "keep out" signs in place and that concerns me. Industry representatives have brought the issue to my attention and I intend to write to the Scottish Landowners Federation to establish exactly what the situation is with the many private landowners who insist on keeping their "keep out" signs in place.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive what action is being taken to improve the safety of trunk road links into the central Borders. (S1O-3197)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Road safety on all trunk roads, including the trunk road links into the central Borders, is continually monitored. Where localised sites are shown to have accidents arising from a common cause, accident reduction measures are implemented to address the particular problems identified.

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

I hope that the minister recognises the importance of the trunk road network in the Borders—while we wait for the railway. Does she accept the road safety worries over the A68, the A7 and the A701? The A7 includes a stretch that has recently been detrunked and which is difficult for the local council to maintain. Can the minister offer any help in that regard?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Two elements are important. First, we have allocated £70 million over the next three years to local authorities to enable them to do more repair and maintenance work on local roads and bridges. Secondly, later this year, additional work—to the value of £1.2 million—will be done on the A68 at Soutra hill. We expect that work to take between four and six months from start of construction to finish.

Work is going on. We are also considering updating and refreshing the route action plans with a view to further programming in future years.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Is the minister aware of several improvements in the route action plan programme for the A7 that are strongly supported on safety grounds by the A7 action group? Will she give a commitment that those schemes will remain in the revised route action plan, which is due shortly, and that they will be considered for implementation before 2004 in the event of any slippage in the major schemes that she is committed to in her programme?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I cannot give the member a guarantee that those schemes will automatically move up into our roads programme should there be any slippage. We are considering the medium-term and long-term improvements that were identified on the A7 Auchenrivoch scheme and other schemes, with a view to incorporating them in the trunk roads programme.

As members know, I have announced this year's roll-forward of the trunk roads programme. We intend to do that annually to introduce extra road schemes, especially where we have to tackle safety programmes.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Does the minister agree that one way of improving safety on the Borders road network would be by reopening the Edinburgh to Carlisle railway line via Galashiels?

David (None, Lothians)

I suppose that the question is just about in order.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

We have provided the Scottish Borders Council with the resources to consider the parliamentary preparation that will be required for that railway scheme and—critically—to consider the funding issues. As members know, the scheme is not cheap. We want the council to have the opportunity to consider ways of bringing in money, whether from private or public resources.

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many modern apprentices are employed in the construction industry and what proportion of the total number of modern apprentices that represents. (S1O-3207)

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

There are currently 4,300 modern apprentices who are training within the Construction Industry Training Board framework. That represents one in four of all modern apprentices in training in Scotland.

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

The minister is obviously well aware of the expected expansion in the construction industry as a result of the proposals in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. She will also be aware that the effect of the chronic failure of many construction employers over the past 10 years to take on apprentices is now being felt. Will she consider making it a requirement that employers tendering for such work must take on a certain number of apprentices, to make use of the talented young people in the construction trades?