Scottish Grand Committee
Wednesday 20 May 1998
[Mr. John Maxton in the Chair]
Further and Higher Education in Scotland
4.30 pm
The Chairman: The debate is scheduled to finish at 7 o'clock, and I appeal to hon. Members, including Front Benchers, to make brief contributions. That will enable me to call as many speakers as possible.
Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland): I beg to move, That the Committee do now adjourn.
I am pleased to introduce our debate on higher and further education provision in Scotland. It will be useful to have a debate at this time. In the last year of the previous Parliament, I introduced an Adjournment debate on higher education, and the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) introduced a lively Wednesday morning Adjournment debate on further education. Since then, we have witnessed the important publication of the Dearing and Garrick reports, and the Government's response to them. The Teaching and Higher Education Bill has also gone through the House of Lords and has been considered in Committee in the House of Commons.
Unfortunately, there has been no opportunity until now for Scottish Members of the House of Commons to debate such issues. It is a matter of some regret that there were no Scottish Members on the Committee that considered the Teaching and Higher Education Bill, although no one should cast blame. That was a lost opportunity. Those who have read today's Order Paper will have seen that my hon. Friends and I have tabled a motion before Report stage, asking that the Bill be recommitted to a Scottish Standing Committee so that Scottish Members can examine the clauses that deal with Scotland.
Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus): I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman was surprised that there was no Scottish representation during the Standing Committee's important consideration of the Bill, because the Liberal representative on the Select Committee on Selection chose not to put a Scottish representative on that Committee.
Mr. Wallace: I rather hope that the tone of our debate will be more dignified than that cheap comment. Perhaps we should have had a referendum about who served on the Committee. At least our party has taken the initiative. I hope that the Scottish National party, and, indeed, the Government, will support our request that the Bill be recommitted to a Scottish Standing Committee.
I am sure that the Committee will agree that this is an important issue not least because of the role that our universities and further education colleges play in the individual development of thousands of young and not-so-young Scots, as well as that of many students from outwith Scotland. It is also important because we shall need those institutions to develop and teach the skills and to build the knowledge and research base that will ensure that Scotland remains competitive well into the next century.
This is a useful debate because it provides an opportunity to acknowledge the remarkable achievements of those who have been engaged in teaching and learning in Scotland's higher and further education establishments in recent years years of considerable financial difficulty.
As the Government's publication "Serving Scotland's Needs" shows, the number of full-time equivalent students in FE colleges increased from 78,000 in 1993-94 to 92,600 in 1997-98. In higher education institutions, the number of full-time equivalent students undergraduates and postgraduates increased from 117,000 in 1993-94 to 124,000 in 1996-97. The Garrick report confirms that participation in higher education continues to run at about 10 per cent. above the United Kingdom average.
The figures also take account of the fact that 12,700 students from other parts of the United Kingdom crossed into Scotland to study at higher education institutions. That matter will be important when the Committee discusses the impact of tuition fees, especially in relation to students in the fourth year of an honours degree, who will not benefit from having their fees paid. The increase in numbers has been no small achievement, against a background of financial stringency.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the contribution that Scottish higher education makes to the Scottish economy. I am sure that many Committee members are familiar with the report published two years ago by the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals, which dealt with figures calculated by Professor McNicoll. They showed that in 1993-4, the total Scottish sectoral goods output generated by the higher education sector was £2.47 billion. Of that output, £1.2 billion came from higher education institutions, and £1.27 billion was dependent on higher education but generated by other sectors. Some 68,217 jobs were involved that is a remarkable figure. I hope that the Committee will remember those figures when it considers the impact of the financial squeeze on further and higher education.
At the heart of the Dearing and Garrick reports is the concept of a compact between higher education institutions, students, employers, society and the state. That compact not only restores rights; it requires responsibilities and duties. The Government's immediate response to the reports has been to focus attention on the contribution that students will make.
It would be irresponsible for any politician to think that students in further and higher education could be funded on the basis on which student funding operated 20 years ago, when I was at university just about. Nobody believes that that is possible now. Even before the Dearing report was published, Liberal Democrats were committed to a fair income-contingent loan scheme as a replacement for maintenance grants. We also believe that it is necessary to increase the loan to tackle student poverty. We are still only too aware that[Mr. Wallace]
many students are in poverty, and that they have to divert time from their studies in order to earn extra income and make ends meet.
Liberal Democrats oppose undergraduate fees, and we have done so during the passage of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill. I know that the Minister will repeat what he has said many times. I do not think that anybody has challenged the figure that he cites. He says that 40 per cent. of undergraduates will not pay. The other side of that coin is that 60 per cent. of students will pay up to £1,000. People on the very lowest incomes will almost certainly know that they fall into that 40 per cent., but some people at the margins will not know whether they will have to contribute to fees, which could be a disincentive. Families who are not especially well off are especially anxious about that. Such families will not know whether they will be liable to pay fees until the potential student has applied and gone through means-testing. Many people will never quite get round to doing that, or will feel that they cannot bring themselves to put in a student application, because of the potential costs. I hope that a study can be undertaken to identify the extent to which that may happen, because it might never be known. The Minister is nodding perhaps he will say more later.
On Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) and I visited a further education institution in Edinburgh. We met a number of principals and vice-principals, who said that institutions were considering all sorts of ways of raising funds because of the current financial squeeze. They are considering marking up the charges for replacing a matriculation card, charging for photocopying, and charging for paper on which students print out information downloaded from the internet. Such charges are not means-tested. They will clearly fall on students who pay no fees as much as on those who pay and they will not help to improve the relationship that should exist between a college and its students.
Fees also incur the additional problem of administration costs. We were told that, as £1,000 was a fairly worthwhile debt, proper collection machinery would be necessary. But not all debts will be so large; some will be only £400, and broken up into instalments. Collection of such fees will require considerable administration. Glasgow university has estimated that once the system is established, administration will cost £171,000, and Edinburgh university has put the figure at nearer £180,000. So, at a time when our institutions face financial pressure, additional administrative burdens are being placed on them.
I want to make one additional, parenthetical observation about tuition fees, and give credit where credit is due. The Minister's recent announcement about the cover that is to be given to part-time students in higher education is an especially welcome step forward. However, will he say what consideration is being given to extending that cover, which does not include the further education sector?
Additional to the question of fees is the matter of the contribution to be made by students. I hope that the Government will keep their side of the compact, as there is a clear problem about higher education in the short term. In real terms, in England there will be a rise in funding per student in the coming academic year of 0.1 per cent. from the 1997-98 level. In contrast, funding in Scotland will be reduced by 2.7 per cent. In spite of Dearing, in spite of Garrick, in spite of the anticipated income from contributory fees and of the serious financial difficulties already faced by the Scottish higher education sector, the problem the crisis in funding will continue.
The Dearing report asserted that the maximum tolerable efficiency gain was 1 per cent., beyond which quality would decline. Some universities are worried that they will be unable to meet agreed salary increases because of the squeeze on finances. That would put Scottish higher education institutions at a disadvantage compared with their equivalents in England and Wales. The Government's refusal to accept the 1 per cent. maximum on efficiency gains identified by Dearing must inevitably lead to damaging pressures on Scotland's higher education sector.
To what extent will the savings arising from the change from maintenance grants to loans and the additional revenue from student contributions to fees be recycled and reinvested in the higher education sector? A letter to the Association of University Teachers (Scotland) from the Secretary of State, quoted in the submission to the comprehensive spending review by the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals, gave a hint as to the answer. It stated that the new arrangements
"in the longer term .. will produce around £140 million extra in Scotland",
and added that
"this will resolve concerns about underfunding of our mass higher education systems and mean that we can achieve our objectives for higher and further education."
However, the letter does not appear to state that all the money will be reinvested. It would be reassuring if the Minister could give a clear and categorical commitment that the savings made and the revenue raised will be reinvested in our higher education sector.
I shall deal briefly with the Government's decision to make no concession on fees to students from other parts of the United Kingdom who wish to study for a fourth year a matter that has been discussed at some length already in an Adjournment debate introduced by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh). I shall not dwell on it, but I believe that the four-year course has always reflected the breadth of the traditional Scottish educational system.
In the past, the Minister has hinted that the assumption is that English and Welsh students, having completed A levels, will want to enter at year 2. Yet experience suggests that that applies to only 10 or 15 per cent. of such students, and in a limited number of subjects mainly in maths. Even with regard to Scottish-based students who receive funding, anxiety has been expressed to me by the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals that the new advanced higher might increasingly take on the characteristics of a Scottish A-level. That is a matter for concern, because only 8 to 10 per cent. of pupils are in a position to progress with their advanced highers and not all schools are able to offer a comprehensive range of subjects. Previous signals from the Scottish Office indicated that advanced highers would cover a broad range of subjects. Students are now expected to deal with a narrow range of subjects, and that is more akin to the A-level than to the broad-based Scottish education system with which we are familiar.
Many people in England are currently looking to the broad-based Scottish education system to assess how the A-level system can be improved. Information from employers shows that they are increasingly attracted by graduates with a broad range of experience, and universities are responding to that by revitalising general three-year degrees. It would therefore be detrimental to the Scottish system to change it at such a time. The advanced higher should not be used as the stalking horse for a Scottish A-level. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the advanced higher will continue to be part of the broad-based Scottish education system, and will not become the precursor to a Scottish A-level?
Research is key to the issue of funding and higher education. The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council has a ratio of teaching to research that is loaded far more towards teaching than is the case south of the border, despite the fact that 15 per cent. of the United Kingdom's university research is carried out in Scotland, which has only 11 per cent. of the UK's university population. That ratio, which has widened over the past year, puts pressure on research budgets. Many higher education institutions have made considerable efforts, with some success, to attract commercial funding. They have also experienced pressure possibly greater pressure than that experienced by institutions that are engaged in basic research.
The maintenance of a high-quality research base in Scotland is of great importance to the Scottish economy. The Minister will not need a reminder of that. During Question Time yesterday he mentioned the example of Cadence, which all hon. Members should welcome as being typical of the kind of investment that can occur as a result of the high quality of Scotland's research base. That type of development is under pressure due to lack of funds.
|