Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 27 Jan 2000

27 Jan 2000 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

Further and Higher Education

Johnston, Nick Con Mid Scotland and Fife Watch on SPTV

I have listened to the Liberal Democrats this morning and I hope that Mr Rumbles will not think me offensive if I refuse to take interventions from him.

We are not debating student finance or even access to university; we are debating what is, as Henry McLeish admitted yesterday, a point of principle. The point is, however, that the Government has no principles. Right from the time before the 1997 election, when Tony Blair promised that there would be no tuition fees, the Government has abandoned any principles. That is the only reason why we have spent seven months and £750,000 on the Cubie inquiry only to see the major part of its recommendations shelved.

The Executive's shabby deal—I have resisted the temptation to call it the lapdog's breakfast— throws up many questions. I understand that a student from Birmingham, who is studying in Scotland, will be subject to tuition fees, whereas a student from Belgium, also studying in Scotland, will not. Will the student from Belgium be subject to the graduate tax, and how will it be collected and enforced? What does the Executive intend to do about students who drop out of university in their first, second or third years? Will the bursary— or maintenance grant, or enhanced help—that we are led to believe will be available be recovered from those students? Will they be liable to pay a proportional amount of graduate tax, or will they just take up a place that could have been used by someone else and then get away scot free?

Furthermore, I understand that HND students will be exempt from the graduate tax. Will the minister shed some light on the situation that pertains in some of our further education colleges, whereby the achievement of an HND can lead straight to the final year and an award of a bachelor's degree? Will the graduate in that case be subject to a graduate tax, or does the Executive hold to the view that only university graduates, and not graduates from further education colleges, will be subject to the tax?

As a member of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I support Mr McLeish fully in his desire to raise skills in the work force, but will he explain how the further education anomalies will be addressed? How will the new graduate tax drive forward the Executive's desire—which the Conservatives have supported whole-heartedly— to improve skills and continue the cause of lifelong education? I doubt that it will. Does Mr McLeish feel that one of the results of this package will be to drive students away from universities and into further education colleges, or other methods of study, to escape the fees?

Will Mr McLeish also address the concerns of the Association of Scottish Colleges about part- time students and the fact that significant improvements are still needed for many of the 350,000 part-time students who currently get no help with their fees, study expenses, travel and child care costs? Does the Executive not regret having narrowed the horizons for students? Does Mr McLeish not think that that is regressive, and contrary to all that was achieved under the Conservative Government from 1979?

Are not the public entitled to expect that, when politicians say that they will not impose tuition fees, they mean that they will not impose tuition fees? Are not the public entitled to expect that £750,000 will not be spent on an inquiry just to keep the shabby coalition in power?

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 27 Jan 2000

In the same item of business