Chamber
Plenary, 26 Jan 2000
26 Jan 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Further and Higher Education
I will ignore that political comment and address the first point. There seems to be a fundamental confusion in the mind of Brian Monteith. We are establishing a graduate endowment. Fifty per cent of students will not pay that endowment. The Conservatives ask why we do not make that figure 100 per cent. However, Brian missed the serious point—we are abolishing tuition fees. That is the only objective of the Conservative party. He must realise that we are abolishing tuition fees. Surely praise is deserved for that.
On the second issue, it is not the custom or practice of the Government at Westminster or the Executive in Scotland to publish legal advice. We are presenting to the chamber the information that we have on our proposals, and it is based on the best legal advice that is available. However, Opposition parties must realise the important issue. Of course, like other parties, we wanted the new package to extend to students who attend any university in the UK and who are domiciled in Scotland, but that has not been possible. It would have been dishonest and would have raised false expectations if we had come to the chamber with anything other than an unequivocal statement on how we will proceed.
The third question was about whether a particular group would be £500 worse off. Again, I have no idea how Brian concocted the figures. If the comments that were made overnight are anything to go by, I would rather see the figures before I comment on them.
I will finish with one point about the law. The
question that was asked about the law had as its premise the fact that the questioner saw a problem with what we are proposing. Interestingly, the Conservative contribution to Mr Cubie's inquiry stated:
"The operation of two different schemes within the UK is perfectly feasible as is the operation of two different types of tuition fee . . . schemes as proposed by the majority of respondents . . . If the rest of the UK were not to follow our lead then it would be relatively simple for the Student Loans Company".
Are the Conservatives concerned that there will be two systems; do they remain committed to one system? Make up your mind, Brian.
On the second issue, it is not the custom or practice of the Government at Westminster or the Executive in Scotland to publish legal advice. We are presenting to the chamber the information that we have on our proposals, and it is based on the best legal advice that is available. However, Opposition parties must realise the important issue. Of course, like other parties, we wanted the new package to extend to students who attend any university in the UK and who are domiciled in Scotland, but that has not been possible. It would have been dishonest and would have raised false expectations if we had come to the chamber with anything other than an unequivocal statement on how we will proceed.
The third question was about whether a particular group would be £500 worse off. Again, I have no idea how Brian concocted the figures. If the comments that were made overnight are anything to go by, I would rather see the figures before I comment on them.
I will finish with one point about the law. The
question that was asked about the law had as its premise the fact that the questioner saw a problem with what we are proposing. Interestingly, the Conservative contribution to Mr Cubie's inquiry stated:
"The operation of two different schemes within the UK is perfectly feasible as is the operation of two different types of tuition fee . . . schemes as proposed by the majority of respondents . . . If the rest of the UK were not to follow our lead then it would be relatively simple for the Student Loans Company".
Are the Conservatives concerned that there will be two systems; do they remain committed to one system? Make up your mind, Brian.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel):
NPA
Our next item of business is a statement by the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning—
Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP):
SNP
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In my letter to you yesterday, I expressed concern about the volume of announcements in relation to the statement by ...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
As I indicated in my letter, I am constantly concerned if information from the Executive that should come to the Parliament is made public instead through th...
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I heard your reply to Mr Swinney's point of order. Yesterday, in the maelstrom of information on this matter, a journ...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
As you know, it is normal practice for the media to be given a statement in advance so that they can edit it. However, they are not given it—or should not be...
The Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning (Henry McLeish):
Lab
With your permission, Presiding Officer, I will make a statement on the partnership response to the Cubie committee proposals on student funding. In our "Par...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
I repeat that we can debate this matter tomorrow—we require short, sharp questions today.
Mr Swinney:
SNP
I thank the minister for his statement and for his usual courtesy of making it available in advance. First, will the minister comment on a constituency case ...
Henry McLeish:
Lab
With the greatest courtesy that I can muster towards John Swinney—who is also a very courteous man—I am not convinced that he listened to my statement. We ar...
Mr Swinney:
SNP
Answer my questions.
Henry McLeish:
Lab
This is an important point, and no amount of guffawing from Opposition members will shift me from giving an exposition of the true picture. Some of the Oppos...
Mr Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
SNP
What about the other questions?
Henry McLeish:
Lab
Alex Salmond can add up. I think that Mr Swinney asked three questions—
Mr Salmond:
SNP
What about his constituent?
Henry McLeish:
Lab
Mr Salmond is getting very upset and excited. If he will calm down, I will take him through the three questions. In John Swinney's first question, he made a ...
Mr Monteith:
Con
I, too, thank the minister for making his statement available prior to our opportunity to ask questions, although I cannot say that the statement shed a grea...
Henry McLeish:
Lab
I will ignore that political comment and address the first point. There seems to be a fundamental confusion in the mind of Brian Monteith. We are establishin...
David McLetchie (Lothians) (Con):
Con
We want a system that is fair to all Scottish students.
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Order. Sixteen members wish to ask questions, so if we can have short exchanges, I will extend the time a little to allow in as many members as possible.
George Lyon (Argyll and Bute) (LD):
LD
On behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I welcome the minister's statement. I wish to raise two points with him. The first concerns the funding of stude...
Henry McLeish:
Lab
I point out to George Lyon that, in the first instance, we wanted a UK-based scheme for Scotland-domiciled students. That is still the case, but there is out...
Dr Richard Simpson (Ochil) (Lab):
Lab
Will the minister tell us whether Scottish students studying in England whose family incomes would make them eligible for the new access bursaries, were they...
Henry McLeish:
Lab
We have received initial comments from a number of organisations, including the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals, and students. We want to t...
Ms Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
I realise that it is not my job to provide answers, but George Lyon asked for a legal settlement to Henry McLeish's dilemma. I have the answer—it is called i...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Order. May we have a question, please? Interruption.
Ms MacDonald:
SNP
Please tell those bad boys to be quiet. They are terrible.
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Let us have a question, Margo.
Ms MacDonald:
SNP
Can the minister explain which factors guided the Executive's decision to abandon Cubie's relatively fair idea that graduates should start paying back their ...
Henry McLeish:
Lab
I am quite happy to discuss the implications of independence for our students, but the first consequence of such a settlement would be that 20,000 English st...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
I call Malcolm Chisholm.