Student Finance (Committee of Inquiry)

– in the Scottish Parliament at 11:57 am on 2 July 1999.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party 11:57, 2 July 1999

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-82, in the name of Henry McLeish, on the independent committee of inquiry on student finance. I call Mr McLeish to speak briefly on, and move, the motion.

Photo of Henry McLeish Henry McLeish Labour 12:09, 2 July 1999

I intend, Mr Reid, to be reasonably brief. The history of the issue of student finance is now fairly well documented. There was a lively exchange of views on tuition fees during the general election campaign. On 17 June, this Parliament decided that it wanted to look seriously at all the contextual issues surrounding tuition fees, and we agreed to set up a committee of inquiry: the motion was passed by this Parliament.

Today, I hope-for two reasons-that the terms of reference, the time scale and the membership will be accepted. The first is that, in our deliberations, we always distinguish between the institution that we are in and the party political differences that might divide us on certain issues. Passing this motion today will reflect 55 days in the Parliament; it will also reflect that this institution is big enough to say that there are political differences in the Parliament and that we want all those differences to be the subject of an objective examination by an expert committee that this chamber has agreed to set up.

The second reason is that the people on the committee have been picked very carefully. In setting up the inquiry, I have met the two education spokespersons of the major opposition parties. That is the first time that that has happened in post-war Britain. I have also talked with Dennis, Tommy and Robin, to try to achieve consensus. Those discussions have been constructive and we have absorbed some of the points that others have made.

As the minutes unfold, there will still be outstanding differences, but I appeal to all members to try to establish unity around the committee after those differences have been voiced. That will not mean making concessions, which was my theme when I spoke before; it will mean that 14 people who have the confidence of Scotland and, I hope, the confidence of the Parliament, will be able to get on with a serious piece of work over the next six months. It will illustrate that, after 55 meeting days and a wonderful opening day yesterday, we can progress towards the new politics.

The committee is broadly based and reflects diversity in geography and gender. Higher and further education institutions are represented, and an independent element is involved. The committee's task is to take written or oral evidence, and to have a debate to which all organisations will have the opportunity to submit their views. After that, it will rightly be for the whole Parliament to review the committee's findings and to deliberate on what should be done.

I hope that all parties can unite around this inquiry. No one who speaks during the next 20 minutes should think that they are making a concession. It is vital that we put that fear aside and get on with the matter that is before us. If we can do that, I hope that we will have six months of debate. Politics is about the general election-that is absolutely right. This Parliament has also had its chance. What is wrong with letting the people loose on this important issue and asking those with an interest in education in every college, university, union and workplace to make their views known?

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the growing importance to Scotland's society and the economy of lifelong learning, the wide range of circumstances of those engaged in lifelong learning and the widespread concern about how students finance their studies; calls upon the Scottish Executive to appoint urgently an independent committee of inquiry with the following terms of reference and membership to report before the end of 1999, and calls upon the Executive to lay a copy of the Committee's report before the Parliament-

Terms of Reference To conduct a comprehensive review of tuition fees and financial support for students normally resident in Scotland participating, part-time or full-time, in further and higher education courses anywhere in the UK; To have regard to the desirability of promoting access to further and higher education, particularly for those groups currently under-represented, while taking account of the need to maintain and to develop quality and standards, and the position of Scottish further and higher education in the wider UK system; To make recommendations for any changes to the current system, and provide costed options where these may require additional resources; To present a report of its finding to the Executive by the end of 1999.

Membership Andrew Cubie (Chair), Morag Alexander, Rowena Arshad, George Bennett, David Bleiman, Eleanor Currie, David Dimmock, Marian Healy, Archie Hunter, Dugald Mackie, Ian Ovens, Heather Sheerin, Professor Maria Slowey, David Welsh.

Photo of George Reid George Reid Scottish National Party

This is a brief debate and speeches will be limited to three minutes.

Photo of John Swinney John Swinney Scottish National Party 12:12, 2 July 1999

I will begin with three constructive remarks. The First Minister should not be surprised that I make constructive remarks; it happens quite frequently.

First, the minister spoke of consultation. I appreciated the opportunity to discuss this issue with him. We have had input, some-although not all-of which he has taken on board.

Secondly, what I shall say about the committee of inquiry has nothing to do with the individuals that have been recommended for appointment by the minister. If individuals are prepared to offer their services to such an inquiry, they should be protected from being knocked about in the chamber. I have no intention of doing that today.

My third constructive remark-to complete the hat trick-concerns the minister's closing remarks. I was not surprised when he said that politics is about the general election. He is absolutely right. We had a general election that made it quite clear that the majority of this Parliament wanted the abolition of tuition fees. That inescapable fact has been rehearsed in this debate already and it has been the subject of an enormous amount of debate in this Parliament. By deciding to pass the decision elsewhere, thinking that we are serving our election mandate, this Parliament is losing sight of exactly what the people voted for at the general election.

A student came to see me at my surgery on Monday. She told me that in the first election ballot she had voted for the SNP in North Tayside because she believed that the abolition of tuition fees would be at the top of our priorities. She was confident that I would come to the Parliament and vote for the abolition of tuition fees. She voted for the Liberal Democrats in the second ballot, however, because she wanted the Labour party to be held to ransom over tuition fees. That is an example of the sort of discussions that I have had with my constituents, and it provides real evidence on which this Parliament ought to reflect.

During question time, Alex Salmond asked the First Minister how he felt the Parliament would meet the expectations of the people of Scotland. The Parliament would have been expected to take early steps to abolish tuition fees. The proposal before us today begins to cast doubt on the practicality of abolishing tuition fees for the academic year that will start next autumn. Practicality is an important word in this debate and one that was used by Mr Rumbles in our debate on the subject a couple of weeks ago.

Even with this inquiry, we may face practical difficulties in achieving the abolition of fees. That is a difficult prospect for students to face up to. An increasing number of students tell me that there is an obstacle to gaining access to higher education because it is perceived that going to university costs a lot of money. Until we do something dramatic-and substantial-to change the situation, we will not deliver the expectations of the people of Scotland.

The minister has presented his recommendations to Parliament today and we will have the opportunity to vote for them in a few moments. Members of my party will register our principled commitment to immediate action to abolish tuition fees, and we will cast our votes accordingly.

Photo of Brian Monteith Brian Monteith Conservative 12:16, 2 July 1999

I do not propose to revisit the debate on tuition fees. It would be too painful for Liberal Democrat members to be reminded of the treachery that they visited upon the Scottish electorate when they entered into their deal with Labour.

Photo of Brian Monteith Brian Monteith Conservative

People who know me, Donald, know that I smile a great deal.

The Scottish Tories have made it clear that we oppose the creation of the committee of inquiry because we believe that free higher education is non-negotiable. To link tuition fees to the important question of student hardship is to give up on that principle, to betray it and to put it on the negotiating table. We think it important that there should be a committee of inquiry into student hardship, but that is not what is on offer here.

I welcome, however, the consultation that was provided. That is an important step forward. Although we had some useful input, we are disappointed that there were some matters about which we were unable to convince the minister to change his mind. It is not our committee, nor is it Henry McLeish's committee; it is Jim Wallace's committee and we shall see how the Liberal Democrats respond to its findings.

The committee, who sits on it and who chairs it, are not particularly important issues for us in the chamber today; it is not our committee. We had something to say about the committee's remit and construction and, although Mr McLeish took into account some of what we said about our concerns for Scotland-domiciled students, we were disappointed that there is only one student on the committee, not two. In limiting representation on the committee to one student, it was obvious to us that a representative of the National Union of Students would be chosen. The universities of St Andrews, Glasgow and Edinburgh, which are not members of the NUS, will not have the direct representation that they would otherwise have had. Edinburgh University Students' Association has a proud and honourable record of dealing with student welfare-it could certainly be claimed to be better than that of the NUS.

The individuals who make up the committee are not our concern, but we are disappointed that there is only one student. There are four business leaders, two trade unionists-

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

Please do not give way. You must begin to wind up now, Mr Monteith.

Photo of Brian Monteith Brian Monteith Conservative

We can speak outside later. I am sure that it will be enlightening. [Laughter.]

Photo of Brian Monteith Brian Monteith Conservative

It is a great disappointment that there are people from many different parts of the community on the committee, but only one student. The Scottish Tories will vote against the establishment of the committee, purely because we want to make it clear that, as a matter of consistency, we believe that there is no need for that committee to discuss tuition fees. It is a matter of principle. Were the minister to have proposed a committee to discuss student hardship, we would have supported it. We thank him for the period of consultation, but we must be consistent-unlike some of the other members of this chamber.

Photo of Pauline McNeill Pauline McNeill Labour

I think that it is. I am sorry that you would not allow my intervention.

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

I am sorry, I must ask the member to sit down. Please be seated.

Photo of Pauline McNeill Pauline McNeill Labour

But Mr Monteith must declare his interests.

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

You must not do that. There are no interventions in the closing stages of a member's speech. I call Mr Canavan.

Photo of Dennis Canavan Dennis Canavan Independent 12:21, 2 July 1999

I would like to thank Mr McLeish for giving Robin Harper, Tommy Sheridan and me some advance indication of his thinking before he lodged this motion. I hope that that custom will continue. I would like to make it clear, as I said to the minister, that I do not see the need for an inquiry. The majority of the members of this chamber were elected on commitments to abolish tuition fees. Now that we have our powers, we should go ahead and legislate to abolish tuition fees.

It was interesting to hear Wendy Alexander say, in the previous debate, that the Executive is unwilling to outsource the important matter of local government finance to an independent committee of inquiry, as it is apparently willing to outsource the equally important matter of higher education finance.

Tommy Sheridan and I have lodged an amendment to the motion that would add Kenny Hannah's name to the committee's membership. I understand that the amendment has not been selected for debate, which is unfortunate. We are not alone in wanting more students to be members of the committee of inquiry. Kenny is president of the students' association at Glasgow Caledonian University, and an executive member of the National Union of Students. He also organised and led yesterday's successful student march from Glasgow to Edinburgh to lobby the Scottish Parliament.

There are different strands of opinion in the NUS on tuition fees. Some, like Kenny Hannah, are absolutely opposed to them. Others seem to take a more ambivalent stand, possibly because of new Labour influence and careerism in student politics. For example, during the election campaign in Falkirk West, some Labour students from the University of Strathclyde were bussed into the constituency to campaign for the only candidate who was committed to keeping tuition fees. That must have been a first in the history of Scottish education-students being bussed from one end of Scotland to the other to campaign for tuition fees. The election result speaks for itself, but I do not want to rub it in.

I do not know David Welsh. It may be that he is absolutely opposed to tuition fees, but will Henry McLeish tell us whether David Welsh was nominated by the NUS, or simply hand-picked by the minister? As I said, there are different strands of opinion among students.

Henry McLeish also said that he would like the matter of tuition fees to be taken out of the hands of the politicians and put into the hands of an independent committee of inquiry. That sounds almost like passing the buck. The committee of inquiry will report back, not only to the Executive, but to this Parliament, and it is this Parliament that will take the ultimate decision about the matter, and legislate on it.

Yesterday, the powers that enable us to legislate on such things were transferred. We ought to use them to empower the people of Scotland and build a better future for them. Investment in higher education is an investment in that future. By eventually legislating to abolish tuition fees and by bringing back grants for students from low-income families, we can help to build a better future, especially for the young people of Scotland.

Photo of Henry McLeish Henry McLeish Labour 12:25, 2 July 1999

I fear that after 55 days we should not be too optimistic-the new politics has some way to go. Nothing that has been said this morning nullifies the need for an independent examination of the major issues that are at stake. I say to Brian Monteith that of course student hardship will be examined. It is important that it is examined in relation to widening access and to tuition fees and their impact on the number of school pupils applying to university. That is already in the committee's terms of reference.

I say to Dennis that everyone signs up to the new politics and then says that they want the people to get loose vis-à-vis representatives on an inquiry. Well, hang on a minute. Politicians can use the general election, parliamentarians can use the Parliament, so what has anyone got to fear from 14 people-who might be representative of real substantive issues-looking at the matter and giving the Parliament and the Executive the wisdom of that inquiry?

Photo of Henry McLeish Henry McLeish Labour

No, I am not giving way Alex.

It comes back to the main stream of politics, because politics is about policies and resources, which it is clear the inquiry will address. I believe that the Executive has attempted to be constructive-the comments have reflected that and I welcome them. On the other hand, we as parliamentarians should never be afraid of putting big issues out for consideration and coming back to the Parliament and the Executive to take the final decisions.

My final point relates to the time scale. Other members have made the point about next year's university applications. I have tried to balance that important issue with the need for a comprehensive inquiry. Six months may seem too short in some people's eyes, but it achieves a balance between having a comprehensive committee of inquiry and providing an important opportunity to acknowledge the politics of the matter.

Photo of Henry McLeish Henry McLeish Labour

I am not giving way, John, because I am just about to finish.

This is broadly based, it is the way in which we should go forward and I repeat that nobody is making a concession. Remember that the Parliament has already passed the motion to set up a committee of inquiry. With two of the major parties opposing the committee, we are, in a sense, throwing out one of our first decisions. I ask colleagues to reflect on that simple point-the integrity of this chamber, in terms of the issues it discusses, is at stake. I make a plea to members to allow the committee to be united in its purpose of examining the inquiry issues and coming back to us with its findings.

Photo of Dennis Canavan Dennis Canavan Independent

On a point of order. In view of the debate, can we have a vote on the amendment in my name?

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

I am sorry, but I have not selected that amendment. There will be a vote on the motion as a whole. Before we move to decision time, I call Mr Tom McCabe to move motion S1M-83 and Mr Mike Rumbles to move motion S1M-73.

Photo of Phil Gallie Phil Gallie Conservative

Before we move to any decisions, I would like to raise a point of order on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I understand that the deadline on joining the CPA is the middle of July. Next year, the Commonwealth nations will meet in either London or Edinburgh. Could you, as the Presiding Officer, seek information on an application to join and take that forward in the coming weeks?

Photo of Lord David Steel Lord David Steel Presiding Officer, Scottish Parliament

That is not a point of order. The CPA is writing formally to me-that matter can go before the bureau or the corporate body during the recess. I am sure that the Parliament will wish us to progress that matter and meet any deadline that exists.