Hansard

We have heard a lot recently about the Scottish Government’s determination to help students from lower-income households to succeed in higher education. Indeed, allegedly tuition fees were scrapped to encourage those students to access a university place. The rhetoric is all there; sadly, the reality gives the lie to that commitment.

Just this week, Professor Ferdinand von Prondzynski, who was hand-picked by Mike Russell to advise on changes in governance in our universities, said that the main beneficiaries of free tuition are middle-class parents who do not have to pay fees for children who would be more likely to go to university in any case. He pointed out that the current tuition fees policy does not support people from poorer backgrounds, who would not have had to make any contribution anyway, whatever the system.

Professor von Prondzynski is not alone in that analysis. Last week, Professor Sheila Riddell of the University of Edinburgh pointed out that the proportion of students from working-class backgrounds at Scotland’s ancient universities has fallen. She said that

“Overall, young people from poorer backgrounds are much less likely to go to university”,

compared with those from better-off families. She has also claimed that, to date, free undergraduate tuition has not markedly altered the pattern of recruitment to Scottish universities.

What other challenges might there be in addressing the problem? Clearly, student debt is a major issue. The Scottish National Party came to power in 2007 promising to write off student debt. Scottish Labour said that it could not be done—I remember at the time Allan Wilson being derided by Fiona Hyslop and Nicola Sturgeon, but the SNP persisted in saying that the debt would be written off. Lo and behold! The promise was broken and is now being conveniently forgotten. However, superficial opposition to student debt remains a feature of SNP rhetoric and it is one of the main arguments that the SNP uses for the abolition of tuition fees.

Unfortunately, opposition to increased debt does not seem to apply to Scottish students from the lowest-income families. We might think that the failure to bring more lower-income students to university and the much-trumpeted opposition to debt would mean that the SNP actually did something to reduce debt levels for students from lower-income families. Let us look at the SNP Government’s record.

SNP ministers have told us that the so-called minimum income guarantee is the best student support package in the United Kingdom. The most recent statistics on HE student support in Scotland show that, between 2010-11 and 2011-12, the amount of non-repayable awards, or grants, actually decreased by £24 million, which is a reduction of 19 per cent. At the same time, the amounts authorised in loans—loans that lead to debt—increased by £20.6 million. So much for writing off student debt.

That switch to loans is hitting the poorest students the hardest. Those who are living in households with an income below £25,000 will lose between £890 and £1,640 per year. It should be remembered that more than 40 per cent of full-time students who are supported by the Scottish Government come from households with incomes below £25,000, so they are the ones who are most directly affected. At the same time, students with a family income of £61,000 or more will now qualify for a cheap £4,500 loan. In other words, poorer students are being asked to subsidise better-off students. Debt is being piled on to poorer students, and somehow that is supposed to make it easier for them to go to university.

Since when did debt become part of our income? Those of us who have a mortgage know that that is a debt that has to be repaid. However, according to the SNP and the National Union of Students, for lower-income students, debt is now part of their income. The idea is bizarre and perverse. We should remember that this is from the same Scottish Government that said in 2008:

“We believe that it is wrong for students to be put into debt by the state.”

It is clear that it did not mean—or did not care about—students from lower-income families, whose debts are being increased and whose grants are being cut.

We should listen to Lucy Hunter, who is a former head of higher education in the Scottish Executive. She said:

“The grant reductions now planned will add considerably to the overall debt of students from lower income households without increasing the cash they have to spend.”

In other words, the amount that those students have to spend is being switched from grants to loans, which leads to more debt. Scottish graduates from poorer backgrounds will end up with higher Government debt and less disposable income later in life.

Comparisons are often made with students in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Are bursaries and grants being cut for poorer students in those jurisdictions? In England, students whose household income is of up to £25,000 can claim grants of up to £3,354. In Scotland, the same grant could be as low as £500; at most, it would be £1,750. Even the much-derided English system is prepared to give more help to poorer students. In Wales, grants of £5,161 are available to students whose household income is under £18,730. In Northern Ireland, maintenance grants of £3,475 are available to students whose household income is £19,203 or less. It seems that, in Scotland, the rocks will melt with the sun before any significant assistance is given to poorer students.

It is not just younger students who are being hit. As Lucy Hunter demonstrated in her excellent article, Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom in which mature students are given lower grants than young students receive. Apparently, we have a commitment to lifelong learning in this country, but grant support for mature students, who often have family and other financial commitments to meet, is being reduced to a flat rate of £750 for those with incomes of up to £17,000. Poor mature students are being given a grant of £750, which is the worst in the United Kingdom.

I know many teachers and lecturers in colleges and universities who went back to education after having been made redundant or having decided on a career switch. It seems that the Scottish Government is turning its back on such people, who often have a huge amount to contribute by drawing on a wealth of working and life experience. In SNP-led Scotland, mature students will receive lower grants and finish their studies with around 45 per cent more debt than all students from the most well-off backgrounds. Over four years, young Scots from lower-income homes will need to borrow £22,000 to obtain their full state support for living costs. So much for writing off student debt. Lucy Hunter pointed out in her excellent article,

“With much the lowest grants and universal free tuition”,

Scotland is the part of the United Kingdom that is moving

“closest to treating higher education support as a flat-rate benefit, while other jurisdictions choose instead to give more grant to those from lower-income homes ... As a result, the Scottish Government is the only one in the UK which expects graduates from poorer backgrounds to end up with a higher government debt and, therefore, a larger claim on their future earnings”

and less disposable income in later life

“than their peers from wealthier homes.”

The SNP quotes the NUS in its amendment—both parrot the “best support package” nonsense. Yes, Scotland stands out from the rest of the UK—we should be quite clear about that—but the reality is that Scotland stands alone in its diminishing use of student grants, in asking poorer students to subsidise the better off and in refusing to take the action needed to help more students from poorer backgrounds succeed at university. The new support package is penalising the poor to help the rich.

It is time to admit that the present system is perverse and unfair; time to move from paying lip service to social justice to making it a reality; time to ditch the present funding system, which hits poorer students the hardest; and time to bring in decent grants now.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the introduction of the minimum income guarantee for students; notes that grants for lower-income students are being cut; believes that lower-income students are being financially disadvantaged in Scotland compared to elsewhere in the UK; does not accept that lower-income students should be disadvantaged in order to provide support for those from better-off households, and believes that the cuts to grants for lower-income students should be reversed in order to address inequality in access to higher education in Scotland.

16:00