Hansard

Anyone who heard what we said in the campaign knew that investment in education was our most important priority. I am proud that we have managed to secure £80 million of extra investment in education that will help to tackle student poverty in a number of ways: the £9 million three-year pilot scheme to encourage students from low-income families to stay on at school with a view to going on to higher education; the loan funding for mature part-time students who are on low incomes; and the increase in access funds to £14 million a year, which will relieve the hardships that are suffered by the most disadvantaged students.

We said that education was our main priority and we have helped to deliver more resources to education.

I welcome the amendment's supporters' recent conversion to the proposal of a committee of inquiry into student funding and student hardship. No doubt the representations that they have received from people who are genuinely concerned about the financial position of students have had an effect on them, albeit belatedly. They may be willing to recognise that the commitment to a committee of inquiry, which was expressed in the partnership agreement document, was a significant step forward.

The committee of inquiry that will examine the issues of tuition fees and student hardship will be very different from its Westminster counterparts. If this motion is carried, the committee will proceed with the approval and authority of this Parliament and it will report to this Parliament. The role and importance of the Parliament in progressing this issue is vital. It is also important when we look at the terms of the opposition amendment.

We must remember that this is not a debating society; it is a Parliament. Therefore, when the amendment in the name of Mr Swinney says that we must

"bring forward to the Parliament proposals for the abolition of tuition fees", we are entitled to note that motions and amendments must be clear and unambiguous.

Our position, as I have stated, is that we want all Scottish students to have their fees paid by the Government, without interfering with the funding of the universities.

The amendment gives the Executive a bald instruction to abolish tuition fees—not to restore the previous system, in which students were funded by the state. It would remove tens of millions of pounds from Scottish higher education at a stroke. Where would that leave efforts to improve quality and extend access?

The amendment would also mean that this Parliament should abolish tuition fees for all students who study in Scotland, including those from England and Wales. Scottish students studying in other parts of the United Kingdom would still have to pay tuition fees. That, expressly, was not part of the Liberal Democrat manifesto.

The Opposition amendment is deeply flawed. It bears the hallmark of a political tactic, rather than a substantial parliamentary motion addressing an important issue that we must get right. If I may use the language of Mr McLetchie, which so embellished our election campaign, it smacks more of Mr McLetchie snuggling up to Salmond on a sofa than to the serious politics that the issue requires.

In contrast, we have indicated that we want to work with the organisations that care most about higher and further education in Scotland on the issue of tuition fees and student support. We want to work with organisations such as the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals, the Association of Scottish Colleges, the Association of University Teachers and the National Union of Students in Scotland, all of which support the setting up of the independent inquiry. Indeed, the National Union of Students in Scotland also supports the abolition of tuition fees.

Unlike the Dearing inquiry, which focused on the purpose, shape and funding of higher education, the focus of this inquiry is the position of part-time and full-time students in both higher and further education. Many people in our universities and further education colleges believe that the Dearing and Garrick reports neglected that area. The entire system, including the payment of tuition fees, requires an overhaul.

Much of the system goes back to the 1960s, when social conditions and the number of people who went into universities were quite different from what they are today. We need to take account of the fact that patterns of study have changed since many of us were students. Today, about half of the people entering further and higher education are mature students, a fact that—with respect—the saltire awards proposed by the Conservative party do not reflect.

Mature students have different needs from school leavers. Many people choose to combine work with study. The support mechanism—in terms of help with fees, books and exam charges—has never been properly addressed in

relation to mature students. That is why I commend the committee of inquiry.

If the motion is passed, the Executive is anxious to consult the other parties fully, and as a matter of urgency, on the details of the committee. My view is that the committee should be asked to work intensively and to report by the end of the year. Clearly, we will need to find a suitably independent chair, without any party allegiance. We are keen that the membership of the committee should be wide enough to bring a wide range of experience to bear.

Parties will be asked for their views and suggestions and I hope that we will all agree that people should be chosen to serve on the committee on account of their expertise, rather than on account of partisan loyalty. The committee's terms of reference will also be a matter for discussion although, as the motion makes clear, it should encompass tuition fees and all student finance, for part-time and full-time students, in both further and higher education.

I also hope that we can reach agreement that the committee should take account of the fact that we need to maintain both quality and standards in our higher and further education institutions. We also need to recognise the fact that many students in Scotland, particularly in our universities, come from outside Scotland. Finally, we do not propose to constrain the committee, but the Parliament would expect to be made aware of the costs of the options and recommendations.

No person or party is being asked to make any concession on their position regarding tuition fees in agreeing to establish the committee. This proposal represents the most effective and immediate way of taking forward these crucial issues. Moreover, by consulting and by involving people with an interest, people with a knowledge, people with a commitment to students and people with a commitment to further and higher education, we will give real substance to what all the parties have proclaimed. The Parliament must consult and listen. As the former president of the AUT, Mr David Jago, said:

"Seeking a quick fix on this issue would be a betrayal of Scotland's aspirations for a new politics, in which everyone can have a say."

I hope that all parties will support the establishment of the committee of inquiry and state their case to it. That is what the Liberal Democrats will do. Although we intend the process to provide a sound basis for an agreed way forward, the partnership agreement expressly acknowledges that we are not bound in advance and, as Liberal Democrats, we are free to come to our own view on the committee's conclusions.

I may be wrong, but I rather suspect that some speeches in this debate may refer to the election manifesto.