Group 2 is on the power to specify tuition fees. Amendment 1, in the name of Chris Ballance, is grouped with amendments 2, 14 to 16, 3, 20, 17, 17A, 18, 7, 4 and 5. If amendment 2 is agreed to, amendments 14 to 16 are pre-empted. If amendment 20 is agreed to, amendments 17 and 18 are pre-empted. If amendment 17 is agreed to, amendment 18 is pre-empted.

Amendment 1 seeks to delete a provision that is a scar on the face of an otherwise excellent bill. The question of top-up fees has nothing to do with the bill, which was the result of a consensual committee inquiry. In general, all parties in the Parliament agree on the bill's central provisions, which deal with the merging of the funding councils. Why did the Executive decide to produce—out of thin air—a proposal that will allow it to introduce variable top-up fees at some point in the future?

The Enterprise and Culture Committee heard from the National Union of Students Scotland, whose representative said:

"Our policy on the issue is clear: we have a clear stance against any form of differential or top-up fees, whether the fees vary by institution or by course. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that if variable fees exist, students—primarily those from low-income backgrounds—are more likely to select their courses based on price than on what they have the ability and talent to study."—[Official Report, Enterprise and Culture Committee, 9 November 2004; c 1207.]

The Association of University Teachers told us:

"We remain implacably opposed to variable fees in Scotland."

The British Medical Association said:

"The BMA is very uncomfortable with any plans to increase tuition fees in Scotland, particularly the prospect of a separate higher fee for medicine".

The Executive has said that it has absolutely no plans to use the measure if it is agreed to by the Parliament today, but if it has no plans to use it, why on earth introduce it? This is not just about this Executive; it is about future executives and ministers. I have complete faith that the Deputy First Minister has no intention of using the measure to introduce variable top-up fees, but equally I have no faith that he will be Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning for the rest of time. We cannot guarantee what the minister's successors will do. The issue is what is on the face of the bill. It is about the law of Scotland that we are passing. The measure will enable the minister to introduce top-up fees in a way that he has said he is opposed to doing.

Other amendments have been lodged, but amendment 1, which would simply delete the measure, is the cleanest and simplest way of doing that. Amendment 1 represents good drafting policy and good law, and it was judged by the drafting clerks to be entirely adequate. If we agree to amendments 1, 2, 3, 20, 4 and 5, we will remove from Scottish law the possibility of variable top-up fees being introduced, therefore I urge members to vote for the amendments.

I move amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 20.

In point of fact, you should move only amendment 1 at this stage. I take it that the chamber agrees.

Education should be based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. That should be an underlying principle of education policy in Scotland. However, I ask members to consider that this is a D-day for fees in Scotland. Legislation matters, not policy statements or manifestos; as we know from the Labour Party's Westminster manifesto in 2001, those can be reneged on later. Legislation matters; what is agreed to in the Parliament today matters.

The bill is drawn far too widely. I ask members to read section 6, which will allow Scottish ministers by order to specify any courses for any class of student that they wish. We have a political contradiction. Down south, the Liberal Democrats are voting against variable top-up fees; in Scotland, a Lib Dem minister is legislating for variable top-up fees. They are all over the place on the issue.

What is the clear policy that is driving the bill? Let us listen to the ministers. Allan Wilson said during stage 2:

"I have responded generally to the points that Fiona Hyslop made, but on the question of there being a financial incentive, I totally refute the proposition that any revenue raised would be used to supplement loan revenues to students studying in England. There is no financial incentive involved."—[Official Report, Enterprise and Culture Committee, 22 February 2005; c 1654.]

The Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Jim Wallace, said:

"we intend to ensure that the first call on the extra revenue that is generated by increasing the fee levels for non-Scots who come here will be on meeting that extra cost."—[Official Report, 24 June 2004; c 9489.]

Jim Wallace says, "Hang on, it's about revenue raising. It's about trying to deal with the Westminster top-up fee legislation", but at stage 2 Allan Wilson says that it is not. The ministers, too, are all over the place. We have a catalogue of confusion and a catalogue of contradictions.

It is about revenue raising, resulting from the legacy of the Westminster Parliament's vote for top-up fees. The cost is cited as £6 million. Perhaps Murdo Fraser can tell us why his party's sole MP sat on his hands in a £6 million vote at Westminster.

We should consider which amendments in the group would help to defend the principle of free education in Scotland. Amendments 14 and 16 would do a variety of things: they would lock out variable top-up fees by course, so that they could not be extended to dentistry and engineering; and they would lock out variable fees by nationality. The minister is being anti-English. Why should not English students in Scotland be treated the same as any other student in the European Union? An independent Scotland would ensure that that happened. Most important, if members do not wish to see the introduction of English-style top-up fees by institution, they had better vote for amendment 15; if they do not, the Scottish National Party will ensure that their constituents know that they have refused to lock out English-style top-up fees in Scotland.

The measure is seen as a deterrent. The idea is that somehow, if we up the top-up fees for English medical students, they will stop coming here. Murdo Fraser asked an important question on 24 June last year, to which the minister, Jim Wallace, replied:

"I do not think that the situation will necessarily lead to English students not wanting to come to Scotland."—[Official Report, 24 June 2004; c 9492.]

If the Executive has no clear policy directive and no understanding of what it wants to do—it does not know whether it wants to raise revenues or affect cross-border flows—how on earth can members vote on the issue today? That is what is so worrying. Not only was there no clear policy direction when the bill was introduced, but there are now two consultations: one on medical students, which will not report until May, and another on other aspects of the bill, which will report after the bill has been passed.

The Executive is not only confused with regard to its policy direction; it is being premature in how it proposes to deal with various issues. It should lock out variable top-up fees by course, by nationality and by institution now. The Executive's reaction to the issue is knee-jerk, unresearched and unsubstantiated. If the Executive wants to recruit more doctors to the national health service in Scotland, it should ensure that students can study five highers at once. It should tackle the issue of recruitment by universities. It should tackle career prospects and the retention of doctors. Shona Robison has a raft of proposals. Let us ensure that we keep in Scotland doctors who have been trained in Scotland. If a golden handcuffs training bond opportunity from the Executive is good enough for dentists, it is good enough for doctors.

Amendment 17, in the name of Mike Pringle, is a white flag, which can be interpreted as an extra hoop. It is a panic measure. The Executive has realised, at this late stage, that there is a problem. The super-affirmative instrument that the amendment proposes has flown in from the stratosphere of statutory instruments; the procedure has never been used in the six years of the Parliament. If there is no problem with the bill, why was the amendment lodged? Amendment 17 is harmless; I do not think that it will do what people want it to do. If the amendment is necessary, does that not tell members that we should delete the sections about fees and ensure that, if the Executive wants to introduce variable top-up fees in the future, it will have to do so up front in a piece of primary legislation?

Chris Ballance's amendments are similar to an amendment that I lodged at stage 2—imitation is the best form of flattery. However, deleting sections 8(5) to 8(10) would leave the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 in place, which would allow ministers far more scope than I think we would want to give them. It would be absurd to pass such a wide-ranging bill with section 8 in its current form. Apart from section 8, the bill is fine and I ask members not to agree to section 8 unamended. We have positive, constructive ways of locking out variable top-up fees by institution, by nationality and by course. I urge members to grasp the opportunity today, because their constituents—parents and students—are watching.

Amendment 17 focuses on the very real concerns of the National Union of Students Scotland with regard to section 8. I have had a number of meetings with the students, as have other MSPs. In particular, Richard Baker, a previous students' union president in Scotland, has had several meetings with the students. I have met the students over a period of time and have taken on board, in amendment 17, the concerns that they have expressed.

We must do what we can to protect Scottish students who want to study in Scotland. The problem is most acute in the medical faculties.

Indeed, the Calman review called for medical education to be given special consideration in light of the finding that Scottish students are far more likely to stay in Scotland after they graduate than non-Scottish students are. In addition, the proportion of non-Scottish students on medical courses is twice that on any other university course. Two thirds of those who are entering medicine this year at the University of Edinburgh are from outwith Scotland and only one third is based in Scotland. That cannot be good for the national health service or for Scottish students.

Does Mike Pringle recognise that those figures are for the students who are applying to study medicine? Does he acknowledge that, although twice as many students from south of the border as from north of the border apply to study medicine at Edinburgh, the actual ratio of students from Scotland and outside Scotland is 50:50? Given that fact, students from Scotland are more likely to be accepted.

I cannot predict the final outcome of the students' applications. All I know is that, as of now, 66 per cent of the places in medicine at the University of Edinburgh have been offered to non-Scottish students. That is a fact and I was told it by the university; if Mr Ballard has different figures, somebody at the university is telling him something different. The fact is that two thirds of those who have applied for and been given places at the University of Edinburgh medical school are not from Scotland.

I have a constituent called John who goes to a school in my constituency. I am not sure how many highers the other students there got, but John gained five highers at A pass and one at B, all at one sitting. Many members might have youngsters who are going through school or have had youngsters who have gone through school, but how many have a son or daughter who got six highers—five As and one B—at one sitting? There will be precious few. From speaking to several schools, I understand that that is an unusual event, because most children are not allowed to take six highers at one sitting. However, John was desperate to go to university to study medicine, so he worked extra hard at school and got the qualifications that he thought would get him in. The University of Edinburgh's entrance requirement for medicine is four As and one B, so he did better than that.

John, who now did not want to stay in Edinburgh, decided to apply to other Scottish universities—the University of Glasgow and the University of St Andrew's—but he was unsuccessful. He did not even get an interview at either of them; he was not even asked to go and make his case. He also applied to the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, which gave him a 15-minute interview but no offer. How is it that such a boy cannot get into a medical school in Scotland?

I agree with Mike Pringle's point, as many of my constituents have been turned away from the University of Edinburgh with the required number of passes. However, there are other students who do not achieve four or five A passes but would make good doctors, and the policy of determining who will make the best doctors on the basis of straight A passes has been criticised this week. Does Mike Pringle agree that we need to consider other factors in making that determination?

I do not disagree with Pauline McNeill. I have said to the NUS that, after the bill has been passed, we will have to consider carefully the criteria that are used to determine how students get into medical schools in particular. It is not only about passing exams, but that is the basis of the system at the moment. The universities have a set figure of highers or A levels that a student must have to get into university, and the boy whom I described is more than qualified but cannot even get an interview.

Against that background, something had to be done. The introduction of top-up fees south of the border—a policy that the Liberal Democrats continue to oppose vigorously nationally—posed a real threat that our universities would become a cheap option. Doing nothing was not an option and I am pleased that the minister has addressed the problem in this bill. I hope that he will accept my amendment 17. I would also very much welcome any commitment that the Deputy First Minister might give today that the only course to which any increased fees might apply in this session is medicine. I hope that he will address that point.

The NUS wanted the whole of section 8 to be left out, because it feared the wholesale introduction of added fees. I am sure that it now realises that that was not the intention; we are fundamentally doing our best to protect Scotland-based students.

In her letter to me of 11 April, Melanie Ward, the president of NUS Scotland, asked for two specific things. First, she asked for:

"An amendment to ensure that the powers could never be used without a full debate and vote of the Scottish parliament, which would therefore remain the guardian of Scottish students' interests. This has, as you know, been referred to as 'the super-affirmative procedure'."

There is no doubt that amendment 17 does just that; indeed, it goes further by naming NUS

Scotland as a body to be consulted. Secondly, she asked for:

"An amendment to the Policy Memorandum accompanying the bill stating very clearly that the Executive will not attempt to use the powers for any course other than medicine for the lifetime of this Parliament. Failing this, a letter to us from the Deputy First Minister giving the same guarantee."

I hope that the Deputy First Minister can give the students that guarantee in the chamber, which would be more of a commitment than a letter would be. I hope that the students will acknowledge that we have listened to their concerns and have gone a long way to addressing them. As I have said, we must protect Scottish students and the supply of qualified doctors going into the national health service.

Some members might be concerned that, given that the super-affirmative procedure is used seldom, using it in this instance will set a precedent. Fiona Hyslop talked about that. The fact that this is the first time that the procedure has been used in the Scottish Parliament demonstrates the Executive's commitment. This is a one-off situation. I am most grateful that the minister has accepted my amendment and I urge all members to vote for it.

I will speak first as convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which, during its stage 1 consideration of the bill, was concerned by the width of the powers that subsections (6) and (7) of section 8 gave ministers. The committee welcomed the Executive's undertaking to lodge an amendment to make section 8(6) subject to the affirmative procedure. On section 8(7), the committee raised with the Executive the issue of greater consultation, given the wide powers in the section when taken together with those in section 8(6). The committee accepted the Executive's points that if section 8(6) were to be subject to the affirmative procedure and if a new consultation requirement were to be added, that would provide sufficient scrutiny.

However, yesterday, on considering the bill as amended at stage 2, the committee expressed the view that the consultation requirement did not go far enough in relation to the powers in subsections (6) and (7), on which ground the committee has reported to the Parliament. At stages 1 and 2, the committee considered that there should be a stronger undertaking in the bill that ministers will take full cognisance of responses to any Executive consultation. That is as far as the committee went.

I will now speak in a personal capacity, rather than on behalf of the committee. Mike Pringle's amendment 17 helps to address the issue that the committee raised, in that it stipulates that when an order is laid before Parliament—after consultation on the proposals—it must be accompanied by a statement that outlines how the Executive has had regard to representations that have been made to ministers.

I gather that amendment 7 adds NUS Scotland to section 8 as one of the main bodies to be consulted, but I take it that, although we are talking about an order-making power, if Mike Pringle's amendment 17 is agreed to, amendment 7 will not go through.

I rise to support amendments 14 to 16, in the name of Fiona Hyslop. We start from the principled position that we are opposed to the introduction of variable fees. I do not think that we will win that battle today, so we need to consider the conditions under which variable fees could and should be introduced under the terms that the Executive has set.

One of the problems with the bill as it stands is that it gives any future minister the power to introduce variable fees for any institution, for any course and for any student. That is far too wide a power for a minister to have. We have an assurance from the current Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Jim Wallace, that his intention is to deal only with the specific issue of medical students. I take his word that there will be no other application of the power for as long as he is the minister, which, no doubt, is a decision for Mr McConnell. However, Jim Wallace will not be the minister for ever. As Chris Ballance pointed out, there will be an election in 2007, and if we are elected, we will get rid of the power. If we are not elected and Murdo Fraser becomes the minister, he will be able to apply the power to any student, any course and any institution.

Will the member tell us what will happen if Brian Adam becomes the minister? In response to the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning's statement on 24 June 2004, he said:

"I welcome the fact that he is to address the difficulty with medical schools in Scotland. I look forward to hearing detail on the level of charge that will protect the national health service in Scotland."—[Official Report, 24 June 2004; c 9489.]

Mr Adam was asking for information; he was not giving a commitment on behalf of anyone. I think that he will confirm that point.

I turn to the position of the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. In 1999, he did not want any tuition fees. His colleagues south of the border are arguing for no tuition fees whatsoever, yet the minister's position has changed. In 1999, he was against them; in 2000, he was for them; in 2003, he was against variable fees; in 2005, he is in favour of them. That reminds me of the old music hall song:

"She wouldn't say yes,

She wouldn't say no,

She wouldn't say stop,

And she wouldn't say go."

That has been the minister's position on tuition fees during the past four or five years.

The fundamental point is that, unless Fiona Hyslop's amendments are accepted, we will hand any future minister a carte-blanche power to introduce variable fees at any institution for any student of any subject. We find that totally unacceptable and we shall vote accordingly this afternoon.

Section 8, which contains the right to impose top-up fees, is the most controversial part of the bill. The minister seeks the power to charge English students who come to Scottish universities. The example of medical students has been given but of course the door to top-up fees would also be open elsewhere.

As I said in the stage 1 debate, I have some sympathy with the minister's predicament. It is not the Executive that has caused the problem with top-up fees. It is the Labour constituency colleagues of many members on the Executive benches who have caused the problem by voting for the legislation for England. We all know about the potential danger of cross-border flows and the damage that might be done to the chances of Scotland-domiciled students who apply to study medicine at Scottish universities.

The power has been heavily lobbied against by NUS Scotland and by the Coalition of Higher Education Students in Scotland—CHESS—because of their concern that it opens the door to top-up fees here. The irony is that the Liberal Democrats are campaigning on a United Kingdom basis as the student's friend but we have a Liberal Democrat minister proposing to take for himself the power to charge top-up fees.

The Scottish Conservatives' position is clear, and I restate it for the benefit of Mr Neil: we oppose all top-up fees north and south of the border. A Conservative Government will remove top-up fees and any consequent damage to Scottish universities. We should be clear about who is to blame. Those to blame are Labour, for imposing top-up fees; the Liberal Democrats, who are complicit with Labour; and the SNP, which is impotent to deal with the issue because it is going backwards, not forwards. Only the Tories can stop top-up fees and their knock-on effect on Scotland.

Most of the amendments in the group would restrict ministerial powers to charge top-up fees. My problem with, and the best that I can say about, what the minister seeks to do is that his proposals are premature. They are premature because he is consulting on the issue and it is extraordinary to legislate while a consultation is being held. The Executive should decide what to do after considering the consultation responses, so the legislation is premature.

The proposals are also premature because, in 15 days' time, we will have a UK general election and we could well have a change of Government. We will have a Conservative Government, which will stop the legislation on top-up fees. We may even—I appreciate that the idea is in the bounds of fantasy land—have a Liberal Democrat Government, which would legislate against top-up fees. We may even have a minority Labour Government, which would mean that top-up fees did not proceed. The best that we can say about the powers is that they are premature and inappropriate.

For the reasons that I have given, we will support first, the amendments from Chris Ballance, secondly, those from Fiona Hyslop and, if all else fails, the amendment from Mike Pringle, because it would restrict ministerial powers.

Amendments 7 and 17 refer to NUS Scotland, which has lobbied against the minister's proposed measures, as has CHESS. The NUS is a coalition of affiliated student unions. I say as gently as I can to the NUS that it would have a little more credibility as an organisation if it were not closely aligned to the Labour Party. The Labour Party benches in Westminster are stuffed full of former NUS leading lights, who all, to a man, voted for top-up tuition fees when the matter was considered at Westminster. The immediate past president of NUS Scotland—Rami Okasha—has just cropped up in the general election campaign as the Labour Party candidate in Banff and Buchan. If he were elected, how would he vote on the issue?

I recognise the de facto position that the NUS represents the majority of student unions in Scotland.

Will the member comment on my amendment 18, which I did not have the opportunity to speak to? It proposes that more than one student body should be consulted, which would allow CHESS, which represents student bodies, as well as the NUS, to participate. It does not prescribe only one organisation to consult.

I thank Ms Hyslop for making that fair point. We will support that amendment.

I would be grateful if the minister assured me that he will not restrict consultation to the NUS and that he will consult CHESS and any other relevant student bodies. I do not seek to denigrate the NUS's work, but we must recognise that student unions such as that at the University of Dundee, with which I am associated, are not part of the NUS. On that basis, we would be happy to support amendment 7.

I expressed concerns in the stage 1 debate about the power that section 8 will give ministers to vary fees for a special purpose. I seek further clarification. I reiterate that the Parliament must be clear about the provision's purpose, how ministers intend to use it and what they have in mind. The Executive has said that one purpose would be to regulate the flow of medical students, and particularly the flow of those who are domiciled in England. I understand that the Executive's position concerns students who are domiciled in England and not nationality.

There are two ways to deal with the matter. The power could be removed completely or Parliament could have the final say in what the provision should be used for, as suggested by amendment 17, which is in the name of Mike Pringle, supported by Richard Baker. I will explore that.

If the Executive's intention is to use the provision, at least in the first instance, to regulate the flow of medical students, we all know that far more students from Scotland and England want to study medicine than the number of places allows. We welcome that interest. I should say that health policy as well as education policy is involved. I support the view of my colleague Mike Pringle that too many students who have the correct passes are turned away from university. However, I believe that there are students from poorer backgrounds who do not have all the straight A passes and who are turned away from medical schools but who would make good doctors. If members consider the figures, they will find that the number of students from state schools who are in medical schools is lacking. Therefore, we must have a more rounded view about the policy. It is important to consider that issue.

Will the member give way?

I will do so if the member has something to say on that point.

I agree with what Pauline McNeill has said so far. Universities' admission policies and wider access policies could ensure that more Scottish students study medicine at Scottish universities, which would help to improve the national health service. Does she agree that we need to increase the number of medical places in order to encourage such wider access?

I understand that the number of medical places has increased, and I am not against increasing the number of places further. However, the problem is that there are too many people for the number of places that exist, and the balance of who is admitted must be changed so that it is a wee bit fairer. Reviewing matters is right. The Executive has suggested a mechanism for considering the issue. Considering how the level of fee is pegged is a way of trying to keep the balance correct.

I would like ministers to address two further issues. I would like assurances that students in Scotland who may be studying a second course will not be unfairly caught up by the provision. Furthermore, the aim of amendment 15 is to ensure that there cannot be regulation of a fee for one institution so that it is different to that for another institution. I am certainly opposed to such an approach and want ministers to address that matter. I do not want differential fees.

I conclude with two points. Since the stage 1 report was published, I have said that I want to be clear about what the Executive intends to use the provision for. How will fees be set? What are the Executive's intentions? Is the intention to set fees at the same level as those in England and Wales so that there is a level playing field? Does the Executive intend to set higher fees for another reason?

On who should be consulted, I welcome the suggestion in Mike Pringle's amendment 17 that the NUS is the most representative student body, although I do not expect the Conservatives to agree with that. They have opposed that body throughout its entire existence and it is dishonest of Murdo Fraser to suggest that a reason not to support the NUS is some accusation that it is run by the Labour Party. Consulting the NUS would be a good starting point. I am not against consulting other student bodies as long as it can be demonstrated that they are genuinely representative of students. Such consultation has never happened before, which has always been an issue for me. I support involving students in our policy making, which is good.

Section 8 of the bill should never have seen the light of day in the Scottish Parliament. It should never have been presented to the committee or to the full Parliament because it is based on the politics of exclusion. It is deliberately designed to exclude a certain section of students from certain courses at universities—ministers want powers to do so. On what basis do ministers intend to exclude those students? Do they intend to exclude them on the basis of academic ability, geography or the ability to pay? If someone has the money, they can do the course, which is an absolute disgrace. It reinforces the idea that higher education is only for those who can afford to pay. We should face the fact that, with the power in question in place, students from England who are applying to do medical courses in Scotland will still find the money to pay. Those who do not have money and cannot afford to pay will therefore be excluded.

Let us not kid ourselves: the issue of medical courses is a smokescreen. I say that to Mike Pringle, in response to his amendment 17. As Alex Neil said, the bill allows ministers to exercise the power over any course at any university and for any section of students. It is not restricted to students who come from England or who study medical courses. Today, medicine; tomorrow, engineering, physics and literature. It is a disgrace that the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive is introducing that power. It is excluding by class.

Two thirds of those who get on to medical courses have parents with managerial and professional backgrounds. Only 8 per cent come from working-class backgrounds, yet the Executive thinks that the bill will help—that it will give access to university to working-class young people. We do not trust the Executive and we do not trust how it is going to use the powers. It always said that it was opposed to top-up fees, but now they are being brought before the Parliament. Executive members should hang their heads in shame. They also have a brass neck, as most of them did not pay a penny for their university education—they got it for nothing, yet they are forcing the present generation of students to pay.

I support Chris Ballance's and Fiona Hyslop's amendments. The Executive should withdraw section 8 and stand up for those whom it professes to want to include in society. All that it is interested in is excluding them on the basis of the amount of money in their pockets.

What Frances Curran says is nonsense. I support inclusive policies and remain opposed to top-up fees. I speak in support of Mike Pringle's amendment 17 and against the amendments from Fiona Hyslop and Chris Ballance.

The proposals to allow ministers to set a different fee for medicine are necessary to address issues of cross-border flow and ensure that students in Scotland are not disadvantaged their ability to study here. The proposals are also necessary to safeguard the recruitment of graduates of medicine to our NHS. Those are the goals, and it is important to state them, as there has been misinformation about them from the Opposition.

Scottish students are not being asked to pay more to study under the proposed mechanism; its purpose is simply to make the cost of studying in Scotland to students from south of the border comparable to what they have been paying in England. It means that there will not be a financial incentive for English students to study here, which could threaten the ability of Scottish students to take up places at universities here as well as their ability to access our system of bursaries, which was recently made more generous because of the Executive's policy on the inclusion of students from certain parts of the country. It would be unfair for those students not to have that opportunity for want of our asking English students to contribute here just as they would in England anyway.

To have such a specific mechanism described as the introduction of top-up fees by the back door is nothing short of ludicrous, and it would be dishonest for any member to accuse members of the Executive parties of supporting top-up fees on that basis. That would be dishonest, and our constituents would know about that dishonesty. Top-up fees are a measure to allow universities, not central Government, to set fees. Indeed, the proposed power to enable ministers to set fees is nothing new in Scotland. Universities Scotland made it clear to the Enterprise and Culture Committee that its interpretation of the bill is that it does not permit the introduction of variable top-up fees in Scotland, but that it permits the reintroduction of banded, fixed-level fees, which were used only a few years ago.

I am interested to hear Mr Baker's comments on dishonesty. Was it not dishonest of Mr Blair to say, in advance of the previous general election, that he would not introduce top-up fees, only for him to bring them in?

That commitment was held to by the Labour Party in its manifesto, as Murdo Fraser can see. I understand why he wants to remove the debate from here to another place—it is because the Conservatives are losing the debate here on this issue.

We have talked about other ways of addressing cross-border flow and recruitment in medicine. Of course, those could still be considered; however, the Executive's proposal is the only mechanism that we can be sure will be effective. Fiona Hyslop talked about Shona Robison's raft of proposals, but they equate to a series of unworkable ideas. Because of that, and because we are promoting a fair and practical procedure, I cannot support the amendments from Fiona Hyslop and Chris Ballance, which would remove this important option and not replace it with anything practical. There are real issues to address, as we have seen from recent statistics that show an increase in the number of applications from students from England.

The outline of the procedure that is proposed by the Executive has been improved since it was considered by the committee, as other members have said. First, orders made under the power will be subject to the affirmative procedure; secondly, there will be a requirement for consultation with student organisations. I am pleased that the NUS has been specified as one of those organisations. The bill does not exclude student organisations, unlike the Tories, who excluded the NUS—on the basis of a misconception of the organisation—from consultation on issues such as the Dearing and Garrick committees. That is important.

I support amendment 17, in the name of Mike Pringle, which will secure an additional round of consultation on any order that is made under subsection (6) or (7) of section 8. Whether or not we call such a procedure super-affirmative, the fact is that the amendment will add another important round of consultation with the key stakeholders, ensure that those stakeholders are part of the process and help to allay their concerns. Amendment 17 is sensible, as it will ensure that the process of addressing cross-border flows involves consultation with all the key stakeholders before matters proceed. It will also ensure that as many Scottish students as possible continue to benefit from the excellent education and support that the Executive has secured for them.

I support Chris Ballance in his assertion that legislation should be expressed in the clearest and simplest terms if it is to achieve its intended aim. Unfortunately, his amendments would not achieve their intended aim, so, in the circumstances, they do not represent the clearest and simplest wording and I will not support them.

I will not support Fiona Hyslop's amendments either, especially given her assertion that the ground on which they should be supported is that the consultation on medical students' fees will not be concluded for some time. That is not a tenable argument. As for her assertion that the super-affirmative procedure has been flown in from the stratosphere, it is the first time that I have heard the Subordinate Legislation Committee referred to as the stratosphere of parliamentary committee work. I look forward to Ms Hyslop's application for the next SNP vacancy on our committee. We will welcome her.

Will the member give way.

I must make progress, but I will give way in a moment.

On Murdo Fraser's claim that the Conservatives will abolish tuition fees if they are elected at Westminster, I think that he would have considerably more credibility if the sole Scottish Conservative MP had voted against tuition fees or even turned up for the debate.

On a point of procedure rather than of stratospheres—although any Subordinate Legislation Committee vacancy will interest me when it arises—the fact that the consultation on medical students' fees will not conclude until after the bill has been passed is a serious issue. Does the member agree that her Government and party have a serious problem with making decisions on health issues before they are put out to consultation, since such consultations never inform the decisions that are taken? That is happening not only in connection with the bill but on many other issues throughout Scotland.

No. The legislative process does not work in that way.

I must also disagree with Murdo Fraser's claim that the bill will provide ministers with powers prematurely. Ministers already have powers to vary fees. That point was made during committee debates and in the stage 1 debate in the chamber. Amendment 17, which is in the name of Mike Pringle and is supported by Richard Baker, will curb the power of ministers. That is what we want.

As always, the SSP members have behaved like penalty-kick politicians, who are here to score the goals but are not interested in playing the game or supporting the team to achieve what we need for Scotland. I simply point out, as I am sure Alex Neil would do if he were arguing on this side of the chamber, that those who have a brass neck cannot hang their head in shame—that would not work because there is no flexibility.

I support amendment 17.

I have listened closely to the points that have been made on section 8 not only today, in this useful debate in the chamber, but over recent months. However, I continue to be concerned by the misinformation—or, dare I say it, disinformation—that Opposition members have spread about the aim of the section. I hope that, in dealing with the amendments in group 2, I can clear up those misconceptions.

Despite Alex Neil's suggestion, which Frances Curran echoed, that section 8 is in some way inconsistent with the policy on tuition fees that the Executive has pursued since 1999, our policy remains that all eligible students who are ordinarily resident in Scotland will have their fees paid by the Executive through the Student Awards Agency for Scotland. That gives the lie to all the stuff that Frances Curran came out with. Christine May said that the Scottish socialists were the penalty takers of Scottish politics. However, even when they are presented with a penalty, they kick the ball far over the net. The scenarios that Frances Curran conjured up, about Scots from poorer backgrounds being denied opportunity, stack up not one iota. As I said, all eligible students who are ordinarily resident in Scotland will continue to have their fees paid by the Scottish Executive.

Will the minister give way?

No.

We have gone further than that, because we introduced bursaries in 2000 and 2001. In January this year, I announced a significant increase in the maximum bursary and raised significantly the parental income threshold at which people can qualify for the whole bursary. Those are the actions of an Administration that wants to encourage access to higher education.

Is it not the case that, if a medical student pays a higher fee as a result of the introduction of variable fees, that will be reflected in a higher repayment of the graduate endowment?

No. The higher fee will be met by the Scottish Executive. It bears no relation to the graduate endowment in the sense that Alex Neil suggests. Perhaps he is less well informed than I usually give him credit for.

Fiona Hyslop takes the biscuit for misinformation and disinformation. This week, she said:

"As they stand, Jim Wallace's ... proposals would allow for the introduction of English-style top-up fees in Scotland".

Frankly, that suggestion is ludicrous. More important, it is irresponsible and potentially damaging for students who need to make informed choices about the options if they are going on to further study. Under our proposals, there is no ability to vary fees by institution. The bill will not raise additional revenue for individual institutions, as has been suggested. Given that Fiona Hyslop clearly has not understood that simple fact, I am happy to point it out again.

The powers will allow ministers to set a general fee level or, in exceptional circumstances, a different fee level for specific subjects. Alex Neil gives the false impression that ministers can do that willy-nilly. It will be done only after full consultation and with the express approval of the Parliament. I have continually stated that the use of the powers should be limited. Today, I will again make the commitment that Mike Pringle seeks. We have no plans to use the powers to differentiate for any subject other than for medicine, on which we are consulting.

Murdo Fraser asked an important question: why are we consulting now? We are under no statutory obligation to do so. However, given that the bill is likely to be passed, we decided that it was proper for us to consult. Students who will make a decision about where they will start to study in 2006 should have some clarity about what the position will be. We said that we wanted to consult so that we could make an announcement before students are likely to make important decisions about where they want to study in 2006.

I want to respond to some of the points that Pauline McNeill made, not least with regard to health. Andy Kerr, who heard her comments, is considering a number of wider approaches to addressing the difficulties that students resident in Scotland face when seeking admission to Scottish institutions to study medicine. Our proposals will stop even more Scots missing out on the opportunity to study medicine in Scotland simply because our world-class medical schools might otherwise be seen as a cheaper option for people from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. They follow on from the report by Sir Kenneth Calman, our response to which we will announce shortly. I confirm that the Executive supports Sir Kenneth's comments on diversity and recognises the potential benefits of increasing the proportion of Scotland-domiciled students who enter our medical schools.

What we propose is necessary to ensure that students ordinarily resident in Scotland continue to have fair access to opportunities to study at Scottish universities. I make no apology for that being our prime consideration.

rose—

I was coming on to the issues raised by Fiona Hyslop, so I am happy to give way to her.

What is the prime driver of the bill? Is it revenue raising, to pay for the costs of Scottish students going down south, which will increase because of Westminster top-up fees, or is it stopping cross-border flows? If it is the latter, why in June last year did the minister say that making it more expensive for English medical students to come to Scotland would not be a deterrent? He is completely inconsistent.

I do not follow the last part of the question. I have just argued that one reason for setting a differential fee for medicine might be to ensure that studying in Scotland does not become a cheap option. I have made it clear that our prime concern is that students ordinarily resident in Scotland should continue to have fair access to opportunities to study at Scottish universities. We have also said—this is not contradictory—that the additional resource that that generates would be used first and foremost to help Scottish students who wish to study south of the border. Fiona Hyslop tried to suggest that Allan Wilson said that we were embarking on a revenue-raising exercise. That is not the point of the proposals. I have made clear what the point is.

Fiona Hyslop says that the plans are unresearched and unsubstantiated and that they are a knee-jerk response. That is an unbelievable accusation. It was Fiona Hyslop and the Scottish nationalists who throughout January and February last year were saying that the Government must react and do something. Now, when we do something, they say that it is a knee-jerk response.

To be fair to Fiona Hyslop, when we pointed out that we had already set up a higher education review to look into the matter, she claimed that she had not heard of it. She went on to say in a debate on tuition fees in January 2004 that the review group was "private and secret". The group spent a year considering four key issues facing higher education in Scotland, one of which was student flows in light of variable fees in England. The secret and private sub-group that examined student flows was in fact chaired by the then president of the NUS and contained representatives from the NUS, the Coalition of Higher Education Students in Scotland, the Educational Institute of Scotland, the AUT, the Association of Scottish Colleges, Universities Scotland and the funding councils—a highly secretive and private group. The group made a number of recommendations for future action.

What did it recommend?

I will recap some of the recommendations. One read:

"While cross-border flows are not to be discouraged, arrangements should be reviewed to ensure that Scottish students are not disadvantaged as a result of pressure points due to changes to the fee regime in England."

The group further recommended that we should

"closely monitor the demand for medical and related subjects within Scottish HEIs and if, over time, there is a distortion of current student flows, ensure that Scottish students, particularly from lower social class backgrounds, are not discouraged from entering such professional areas."

Those are precisely the recommendations to which we are responding.

The Enterprise and Culture Committee also considered those matters in its inquiry on Scottish solutions, on which it reported in 2003. Although awaiting the phase 3 report, the committee endorsed our approach, describing it as "wholly appropriate" and "open and inclusive", as opposed to private and secretive. The committee recommended that the Executive should monitor cross-border flows carefully over the years to see whether there were significant changes. We have been monitoring the flows. The most recent figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service show that the applications from England-domiciled students to Scottish universities increased by 18 per cent on last year. That compares to an increase of 3 per cent for Scotland-domiciled students and builds on a 4 per cent increase in acceptances of English students to Scotland last year. Such trends have been predicted since the plans for variable fees in England were announced.

The consensus from the report on phase 3 of the higher education review was that something had to be done to ensure that Scottish students were not disadvantaged. If the trends continue, they would lead to a clear squeeze on places for Scottish students at Scottish institutions.

We have a duty to ensure that Scottish students are not disadvantaged. Before the minister closes, I want him to address two points. First, section 8(6) refers to the fees paid to the fundable body

"by such class of persons as the Scottish Ministers may by order specify".

That means that the fees cannot be varied between institutions. Secondly, if Mike Pringle's amendment is agreed to and the minister brings before a committee of the Parliament a fee for English students, how would he set the fee? What is his thinking on that?

On the point on institutions, subsection (11) already makes the point that we cannot discriminate between institutions, as Fiona Hyslop's amendment 15 suggests.

With regard to his amendments 1 to 5 and 20, Chris Ballance would have me remove all the controls that we would attach to setting fee levels. One wonders what that would achieve. In light of the trends shown by the student application figures, how would it ensure that students domiciled in Scotland had a fair opportunity to study in Scottish universities? As Allan Wilson pointed out at stage 2, the amendments would give us untrammelled powers to set any fee we wished, without consultation with or consideration by the Parliament. That is not what the Parliament or, to be fair, Chris Ballance intend.

With amendment 16, Fiona Hyslop is trying to remove our ability to react to protect places for Scottish students. The amendment seems to cut across the powers that are provided in section 8(6). The amendment would create not clear and simple legislation, but unclear and potentially unworkable legislation, with ambiguous provisions that would be open to interpretation. However, on any interpretation, amendment 16 would limit the flexibility needed to adapt to changes in the higher education sector. It would tie the hands of ministers to react to the genuine pressures that the introduction of fees in England is creating.

Amendments 14 and 15 highlight the fact that Fiona Hyslop has not understood what has been said for months. Our proposals do not discriminate against English students, or any other students, and they are not about differentiating fees between institutions. Neither of the amendments is necessary or desirable. Indeed, amendment 14 might well be outwith the Parliament's competence.

Fiona Hyslop's amendment 18 is also unnecessary. The wording of section 8(12A)(b), which was accepted at stage 2, gives a duty to consult students. The Executive's amendment 7—or, if accepted, Mike Pringle's amendment 17—would strengthen that by making a specific reference to the NUS as the main representative student body.

Will the minister assure us that the specific reference to the NUS in the bill does not mean that Scottish ministers will consult that body of students exclusively? Will they continue to consult universities that are not affiliated to the NUS, such as St Andrews University in my constituency, and bodies such as CHESS?

Minister, you must wind up now.

The fact that the NUS is specified in the bill does not exclude consultation with other bodies.

We are willing to lend our support to amendment 17, which proposes to make the order-making powers in relation to fees subject to a more inclusive and extensive consultation procedure. I know that terms such as "super-affirmative" have been used. However, the proposed procedure is not so much super-affirmative as it is an exceptional consultation. There is little precedent for the use of such a procedure in legislation because, in all but very exceptional cases, it would be unduly restrictive and prescriptive and therefore quite inappropriate. As a result, it is vital that the implications are considered fully before there is any agreement to enhance the consultation procedure.

Nonetheless, a compelling case has been made for accepting amendment 17. I have made it clear throughout the debate that the fee-setting powers are intended to be used sparingly and only when there is real evidence that not acting could disadvantage Scottish students. That must remain the case and accepting amendment 17 will strengthen the caveats around those powers in the bill. I have been open about my intentions with regard to medicine. I am glad that the amendment appears to meet some of Sylvia Jackson's concerns and that it was also supported by Christine May and Richard Baker. Finally, the amendment also fulfils Allan Wilson's commitment to make a specific reference to the NUS in the legislation. As a result, if it is agreed to, I will not move amendment 7.

The Executive has been clear in its opposition to top-up fees. The bill, and our consultation on the principles of implementing any change to fees, will allow us to maintain broad parity between the cost of studying in Scotland and that in England. That will ensure that students can make choices based on academic merit, not on price.

I ask members not to support amendments 1 to 5 and 20, in the name of Chris Ballance, or amendments 14 to 18, in the name of Fiona Hyslop. Instead, they should support amendment 17, in the name of Mike Pringle.

The bill—section 8, in particular—is premature and wrong. As Murdo Fraser pointed out, it is premature for the provisions in section 8 to be passed while the consultation is still going on. Such an approach is against the Parliament's basic principle of having pre-legislative scrutiny; agreeing to the provisions today will mean that there must be post-legislative scrutiny.

The Executive's proposed solution is wrong. Indeed, the Enterprise and Culture Committee accepted as much and recommended that the minister should consider amending the bill at stage 2 to provide information on the criteria that ministers will use. However, the minister has not done so. As Sylvia Jackson told us, the Subordinate Legislation Committee also felt that the proposed solution was wrong. Moreover, Frances Curran pointed out the impact that section 8 will have on poorer students.

I say to the minister that his commitments and plans are irrelevant to this debate, which is about the wording in the bill. That is what we are voting on and passing today. It is extraordinary that such a controversial power, which has the potential to introduce a market into Scottish education, should simply be deferred to a negative or affirmative statutory instrument or to the kind of super-double-affirmative procedure that has been suggested by Mike Pringle and Richard Baker. The provision represents an attempt to deal with NHS recruitment problems by introducing deterrent measures at the point of training people for medical practice. Such an approach takes things the wrong way round; as I said, it is the wrong solution.

Three alternative amendments have been lodged. First, the amendment in my name proposes to remove the provision. Secondly, there are the SNP amendments, which I suggest go round the houses and use a complicated method to arrive at the same point. My information from the drafting clerks, both of the Enterprise and Culture Committee and of the Parliament, is that the amendment to delete is entirely adequate in relation to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992. However, I will support Fiona Hyslop's amendments because I believe that they essentially do the same thing as my amendment would. I trust that the SNP will support the Green amendments.

If we oppose top-up fees, there is no satisfactory alternative to our amendments in order to remove from the bill the power to introduce variable fees. Mike Pringle's amendment 17 is a fudge and a compromise. It provides an extra hurdle and ensures an extra vote, but as the Executive did not listen to the debate and the consultation at stage 1, how on earth do we know that it will listen to the debate and the consultation if the super-affirmative procedure goes ahead? However, if our amendments fail, we will support amendment 17, because, frankly, it is better than what the Executive has produced in the bill. Nonetheless, the Greens remain opposed to top-up fees. We believe that the principle of top-up fees should not be introduced into Scottish legislation. I therefore move the amendments in my name.

No, you have moved only the lead amendment at this stage, as the Presiding Officer pointed out previously.

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

Members:

No.

There will be a division. As this is the first division in the grouping, it will last for two minutes.

Division number 1

For: Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Curran, Frances, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Swinburne, John, Turner, Dr Jean
Against: Adam, Brian, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McFee, Mr Bruce, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stone, Mr Jamie, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

The result of the division is: For 26, Against 77, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

Amendment 2 moved—[Chris Ballance].

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

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 2

For: Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Curran, Frances, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Swinburne, John, Turner, Dr Jean
Against: Adam, Brian, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Fabiani, Linda, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McFee, Mr Bruce, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stone, Mr Jamie, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

The result of the division is: For 26, Against 78, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 disagreed to.

Amendment 14 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].

The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 3

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gibson, Rob, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, McFee, Mr Bruce, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Neil, Alex, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Turner, Dr Jean
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

The result of the division is: For 42, Against 62, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 14 disagreed to.

Amendment 15 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].

The question is, that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 4

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gibson, Rob, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, McFee, Mr Bruce, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Neil, Alex, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Turner, Dr Jean
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

The result of the division is: For 42, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 15 disagreed to.

Amendment 16 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].

The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 5

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gibson, Rob, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, McFee, Mr Bruce, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Neil, Alex, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Turner, Dr Jean
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

The result of the division is: For 42, Against 62, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 16 disagreed to.

Amendments 3 and 20 not moved.

Amendment 17 moved—[Mike Pringle].

Amendment 17A moved—[Fiona Hyslop].

The question is, that amendment 17A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 6

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gibson, Rob, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, McFee, Mr Bruce, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Neil, Alex, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Turner, Dr Jean
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

The result of the division is: For 42, Against 62, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 17A disagreed to.

Amendment 17 agreed to.

Amendment 18 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].

The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 7

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gibson, Rob, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, McFee, Mr Bruce, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Neil, Alex, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Turner, Dr Jean
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

The result of the division is: For 42, Against 61, Abstentions 0. The amendment is disagreed to.

I am most obliged to members. Amendment 18 had been pre-empted and I should not have called it.

Amendment 7 not moved.

The third group of amendments is on tuition fees and their impact on self-funding students. Members who are watching the clock will appreciate that we are already out of time for this group. However, thanks to the wisdom of the Parliament, I now have power under rule 9.8.4A(a) to allow the debate to continue beyond the agreed timetable in order to allow members who have the right—under rule 9.10.13—to speak to an amendment to do so. The members with that right are the mover of the amendment and the minister who is responding to the debate. This is the first time that we have used the new powers.

Amendment 19, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, is in a group on its own.

I am struck by the way in which we are adopting many innovative procedures. I am sure that the part-time and second-degree students who would be affected by amendment 19 will appreciate the Parliament and the Presiding Officer exercising the new right.

I hope that amendment 19 will bring some light after the heat of the discussions so far. It relates to part-time students and students pursuing second degrees. Pauline McNeill raised the issue earlier and, in its stage 1 report, the committee was concerned about such students.

The minister has already announced that he might want to increase the level of funding in order to tackle the situation with top-up fees down south and the across-the-board increases that we expect will follow. However, the proposals will hit part-time students and students pursuing second degrees disproportionately. I recollect that the minister has indicated that he will look sympathetically on the position of such students, but we have yet to hear any details. It would be useful if the bill contained a commitment that the minister and the Executive would address the consequences for those students.

Why is that important? The days of self-funding students or part-time students studying for pleasure have, perhaps, long since gone. I see that the Minister for Children and Education, who has responsibility for Gaelic issues, is sitting at the back of the chamber. He has been trying to encourage more Gaelic teachers through part-time arrangements with the University of Aberdeen. For such teachers, part-time courses are absolutely essential.

Some people want to change their vocation and become teachers or social workers and there have been campaigns to encourage people with families or with previous experience in other jobs to switch to the caring professions. Because of the fees, those people find it very expensive to pursue a second degree. We should support people who are trying to pursue careers in social work and teaching.

Amendment 19 is simple. It does not commit the minister to any particular solution. It acknowledges the importance of the issue and asks the minister to come back and report to the Parliament in relation to section 8 of the bill. That would be a useful mechanism to include in the bill. Members who are interested in housing matters will recollect that, when we were considering the bill that became the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, the Parliament requested that the minister should come back with a review of the right to buy. That was a recommendation in a report and it went into the legislation. We acknowledge that the review of the right to buy is an important development in housing legislation, provision and policy and we should consider having a similar mechanism to address the issue of part-time and second-degree students.

The issue has not received as much attention as the more contentious matter of variable top-up fees. However, we have a responsibility towards people who may be concerned about the impact on part-time and second-degree students. I understand that there are about 5,000 such students in Scotland, although the minister may wish to correct me on that. Amendment 19 is a simple provision, which I hope will attract the Parliament's agreement. That would send a strong signal about our support for those students and our willingness to address their concerns.

I move amendment 19.

Members will recall that, during the stage 1 debate, I made it clear that, on fees, our purpose is to ensure that students who are ordinarily resident in Scotland will continue to have fair access to opportunities to study in Scottish universities. As I said then, all eligible students who are ordinarily resident in Scotland will still have their fees paid by the Executive through the Student Awards Agency for Scotland.

As Fiona Hyslop rightly highlighted, some students are not eligible to have their fees paid. I am acutely conscious of the students who fall into that category. That is why, when I announced my intentions to the Parliament in June last year, I said that I would ask the implementation advisory group to consider the impact of my proposals on those students and what might be done to assist them. During the stage 1 debate, I stated that I was sympathetic to their position. That remains the case. I am seeking further views on their position as part of the current consultation.

My difficulty with amendment 19 is that, in legislative terms, it is unnecessary and undesirable in that its purpose would be short lived. Fiona Hyslop will remember that, during the stage 1 debate, I committed to consult again on the fees issue and to inform the Parliament of the outcome of our considerations before the summer recess. I confirm that the Parliament will receive a report on the outcome of that consultation. The requirement that amendment 19 seeks to insert to report back

"within one year of the coming into force" of the section would mean that what happens to students who enter into the new arrangements that will apply in the academic year that starts in the autumn of 2006 would not be taken into account.

The consultation closes on 30 May. I will consider all the responses, take on board any further comments from the implementation advisory group and report back to the Parliament. It would be wrong to try to second-guess the consultation's outcome, but I intend to make a clear statement on the position of self-funded students at that time. Once that announcement has been made, the advisory group will continue to consider the implementation of the fine detail of any plans and, over time, my officials will continue to monitor the effect on all groups of students of any actions that are taken. I would be happy to make a commitment on their behalf to keep the Enterprise and Culture Committee apprised of any impact on particular groups, if that would be appropriate.

Although I suggest that amendment 19 is unnecessary and encourage colleagues to vote against it, we are conscious of the issues that Fiona Hyslop has raised, which there will be opportunities to address in my statement in response to the consultation and through the advisory group's on-going monitoring. As I have said, I am happy to give an undertaking to keep the Enterprise and Culture Committee informed of that monitoring, if that would be desirable.

I invite Fiona Hyslop to press or to withdraw amendment 19. If you feel that you have to say something, I can allow you half a minute to do so.

I press amendment 19.

The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 8

For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Baird, Shiona, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Frances, Davidson, Mr David, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Fox, Colin, Fraser, Murdo, Gibson, Rob, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Kane, Rosie, Leckie, Carolyn, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, McFee, Mr Bruce, McLetchie, David, Milne, Mrs Nanette, Mitchell, Margaret, Neil, Alex, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, Turner, Dr Jean
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gorrie, Donald, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McMahon, Michael, McNeill, Pauline, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

The result of the division is: For 42, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 19 disagreed to.

Amendment 4 not moved.