 The next item of business is a debate on motion 16407, in the name of Ian Gray, on student support. Can I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons, and I call on Ian Gray to speak to and move the motion for up to seven minutes, please, Mr Gray. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move the motion in my name. Scotland students have been poorly served by 12 years of SNP government. It is true that successive SNP Governments have maintained free tuition in our universities, which, let's not forget, was introduced by the Labour-led administration back in 2001, which of course means we are very happy to support the Government amendment this evening. It's also true that the SNP Government abolished a graduate endowment, a one-off payment on graduation, only paid at all by the better off 50 per cent of graduates. However, the endowment did not of course pay for tuition, but rather for grants and bursaries for the next cohort of students from low-income families. Sure enough, having ended this payment from better off graduates, as night follows day in 2013, the SNP Government duly slashed grants and bursaries, which go to poorer students. £35 million was removed from students' pockets, their grants were cut by 33 per cent, as much as £900 less a year for some. That would be bad enough, but what makes it worse was the biggest trick played on students, the dirty, dishonest, dump-the-deck con of 2007. When elected, the SNP certainly didn't tell us that they would cut students grants. In fact, they actually promised to give all students all living support as grants. They'd abolish student loans and even pay off outstanding student debt. Here's what their manifesto said. An SNP Government will replace the expensive and discredited student loan system with means-tested student grants. We will remove the burden of debt repayments owed by Scottish domiciled and resident graduates. Instead, 12 years on, they have supersized that student loan system, now worth almost £5 billion, and graduates now come out with twice the debt they had when the SNP told that whopper. By the way, the poorest students, stripped of those grants, without family to lean on, are coming out with the biggest debts of all. They've even been let down on the smallest of promises, a higher threshold for repayments of loans. Not much help, but some. In England, the threshold is already £25,000. SNP ministers have been promising that for years now, but they just can't get it done. For FE students, it's worse. A postcode lottery of bursaries varying from college to college, while, year after year, colleges were left without their resources to pay those bursaries, having to plead for in-year budget adjustments just to keep their students afloat. Richard Lochhead I thank Ian Gray for giving way, and I can just interrupt his doom and gloom for quick intervention to say that he at least acknowledged that the SNP Government Scotland in this Parliament gives the best support package for students anywhere in the whole of the UK. Secondly, our graduates leave with less debt, by far, compared to the less debt that is inherited by the graduates from elsewhere in the UK. Ian Gray In terms of living support, that is simply not true, and I'll come to that in a moment. However, what I will acknowledge is that when the Government announced an independent review of student support, it really was time that it looked as if they were going to do something to make up for all of this. It was a serious review with a serious chair in Jain Angadia, and it made some serious recommendations. It promised a new social contract for students, accessed a guaranteed income based on the real living wage and parity for FE and HE students. We, on this bench, welcomed it. We wanted it to go further. It wasn't perfect. It didn't do nearly enough to rebalance grants and loans for our taste. It had nothing at all for part-time students, but it was a start towards a fairer student support system with, at its heart, equity for all. Above all, it recognised the thing that this Government has never really got their heads round. Pre-tuition might remove one of the barriers to university, but it is not in and of itself enough. For many, perhaps more young people, it is their worry about having enough to live on which holds them back. That is why ministers ludicrous 16-month delay in doing anything about the review that they commissioned is so inexcusable. It took seven months for the then minister to respond at all last June. She acted on bursaries for care experience students. Great. For everyone else, it was all so difficult. She was speaking to DWP about how FE support would work with benefits. She promised a review for part-time students by the end of last year. She was talking to the student loans agency about raising the repayment threshold. Here we are, another nine months on. Two new HEFE ministers since then, albeit one very briefly, and the living wage up twice. A whole new cohort of students is now close to finishing their first year of study, and none of those promises have materialised. This is the Government that said that it could create a new independent nation in 18 months, but it cannot even raise the repayment threshold for graduates in that time. The fact is that our students still have less to live on than students in England or Wales, albeit, of course, tuition is not paid for in those jurisdictions, which is why we cannot support the Conservative amendment this evening. Our motion only asks the Government to implement its own review, a modest demand indeed. However, let us be clear, it demands some urgency. If the motion is carried this evening, we want the minister back here with a plan for reform in the next few weeks, and we want students to benefit in the next academic year, starting in August and September, not some vague time far off in the future. Surely that is not too much. Mr Gray, I am not aware of you having actually moved your motion. Did you? I must have missed it. I was so intent on listening to you. I now call on Richard Lochhead to speak to and move amendment 16047.3 for up to five minutes please. I thank the Labour Party for bringing this motion to Parliament, which gives the Government a good opportunity to outline our support, our impressive support for Scotland's students. Our colleges and universities play a vital role in delivering the skills, the people, the innovation that is required to support our economy, and our students are central to that objective. Since 2007, the Government has sought to maintain our world-class reputation in tertiary education by investing £7 billion in colleges and in recent years over £1 billion per year in universities and introducing free tuition for our students, which has not been introduced across other parts of the UK. We have delivered significant lasting reform across the college sector to drive forward a regional approach to skills and education in local authorities. Of course, as we are debating today, we have begun implementation of a minimum income guarantee for our students, focusing initially on some of society's most vulnerable students by introducing a care experience bursary. We have made a firm commitment to those who want to study at college or university in Scotland that access must be based on the ability to learn and not the ability to pay. We restored free education for first-time undergraduates, which helped more than 120,000 students studying in Scotland each and every year. Those students could face debt of up to £27,000 in tuition fees if they were studying elsewhere in the UK, so we will not introduce up-front or back-door tuition fees in this Parliament or ever. Across both sectors, further and higher education, we are seeing record levels of student support, as we speak. More full-time higher education students than ever are receiving support, a total of 147,920 in 2017-18, up 3.1 per cent from the previous year. Meanwhile, the further education budget this academic year is at the record level of over £111 million in college bursaries, childcare and discretionary funds, a real-terms increase of 33 per cent since the Government took office. Iain Gray The figures are really quite clear. The young student's grant is currently £2,000. In 2012, it was £2,640. You have cut what students have got to live on. Richard Lochhead I am coming to the fact that the bursary offering that we have in our colleges and universities is the best that you can get anywhere in the UK. Rather than resting our laurels, we did commit to receiving a normally payable bursary up to £98.79 per week. That is the best level anywhere in the UK, including Labour-run Wales. Rather than resting our laurels, we committed an independent review of course of student support, as referred to by Iain Gray, to see what more could be done to build a fairer future for all. I want Scotland's student support system to be focused on the most vulnerable students, and to complement the Government's wider ambitions to reduce child poverty and widen access to university. We welcome the report's central premise of creating a student support system around the key values of fairness, parity and clarity. We also support the ambition to outline the review to achieve a minimum income for our students, and we will indeed be supporting the Labour motion today. It was, after all, this Government that first introduced the concept of a minimum income guarantee for higher education students back in 2013-14, meaning that, at that time, the student's most need could access a guaranteed income. The review did not have an ambition of a minimum income guarantee. It had a recommendation. Will it agree to implement it? Richard Lochhead Of course, it is our ambition to implement that guarantee, and that is the whole purpose of what we are saying here today. That is why we are supporting the Labour motion. You should be welcoming with that fact, not opposing the fact that we are supporting your motion. We have already begun to implement the review's income guarantee by investing over £5 million to increase the care experience bursary to £8,100 per year, and the further education care experience bursary increased from £4,185 to £8,100, and the higher education bursary increased from £7,625 to £8,100 per year. That is excellent progress. That was an important step in recognising the needs of this group of students and supporting them to enter either further education or higher education. As you know, we are committed to further £21 million per year towards the support that will be phased in. In order to support access to bursaries for students from low-income families, we will raise the higher education bursary income threshold from £19,000 to £21,000. We will also increase bursary support for low-income young students in higher education from £1,875 per year to £2,000. Combined with raising the higher education bursary threshold, we will benefit 13,500 students in Scotland. Further to that, we will increase bursary support for the most-needed independent students in higher education from £875 per year to £1,000, which will benefit nearly 18,000 students in Scotland. Those combined improvements will result in around 31,000 higher education students benefiting from an improved package of support. For further students in further education, just to come to conclusion, we will increase bursary support so that in 2019-20, students can receive a bursary of up to £4,500 per year, which will benefit over 7,000 students. That is a number of examples of how this Government is delivering unprecedented support to Scotland students, especially those in most need, those in their disadvantaged communities, and we should be proud of that record that this Parliament and this SNP Government has delivered. Minister, I am pretty sure that the amendment was not moved at this time. I am delighted to move the amendment to that, my name. I now call on Liz Smith to speak to you and move amendment 16407.1 for up to four minutes, please. Deputy Presiding Officer, may I move that to me? That is how to do it. Can I thank Labour very much for bringing this debate to Parliament for two reasons? Firstly, because the availability of student support is just as important a factor in students' decision about whether to attend college and university is any other factor, and although we do not agree entirely with the Labour position on some of this, I do think that Mr Gray has been asking very pertinent questions of the SNP Government about ambitions for the policy. The second reason that I am very pleased that we are having this debate is because of the very fast-changing nature of the context in which we should be debating further and higher education generally, whether that is the increasing number of students who wish to access further and higher education, the widening access agenda, the increase in articulation and overall funding structures, including student support, all of which are hugely important to the future's success and sustainability of both sectors. Of course, shortly we will be able to see the results of the international comparative studies that will set out the challenges that Scotland faces in this respect. Notwithstanding that, I think that we can all agree that many of the recommendations have set out in the independent review, including the principle of the minimum income level and the concept that there should be more parity involved across the board when it comes to different categories of students, whether they are at college or university, is very welcome. Part-time students and students with disabilities, for example, have often felt very left out of this debate, and that is a major concern if we are trying to take on some of the suggestions that we have had from those quarters. It is very important that we ensure that our workforce is much more flexible in order to adapt to the changing needs of the economy. That was strongly highlighted by Susan Stewart at the Open University and by Alistair Sim in University of Scotland, so those aspirations are extremely welcome. With that context in mind, however, I think that there is a bigger picture here, and we need to examine that. Professor Ian Diamond was very clear about when he called for reform in Wales when the central proposal was to look at the student package on an overall basis, not just about identifying the funding of living costs on an issue as on its own. I agree with that to a large extent. I think that Ian's approach to this and there are some very interesting examples around the world—New Zealand being one—where the policy is set in that similar context of overall support rather than the rigid policy divide of dealing with student support separation from the paying for tuition. It is very important to say that the Scottish Conservatives have always believed that the Scottish system must be distinct. That is not in any way appropriate for us to implant another system on top of Scotland just because we have seen some success elsewhere. However, I do think that we should be examining the policy proposals much more closely in other countries and the respective costs. Just because the issue is complex and there is not one system in the UK that has got things right, and I do think that some of the claims by the minister this afternoon are from a different planet when it comes to bursary support, I think that we have to look at the whole perspective here. Given the experience elsewhere, there is surely a very strong case for the reform of student loans, which was highlighted in the independent report and by several other reports into the funding of tertiary education. We would do well to pay a lot of concern to what Lucy Hunter-Blackburn has been saying about the balance, which I think that Ian Gray mentioned to grants, which are now so low that those from the lowest incomes will be taking on some of the highest debt. That is a major concern. Before I finish, Deputy Presiding Officer, can I just deal with the SNP amendment? Whatever they like to say, university education in Scotland is not wholly based on the ability to learn, rather than on the ability to pay. There are hundreds of very well-qualified Scottish domicile pupils who are in schools just now being squeezed out of the university system, and they will tell you exactly that. The SNP knows that jolly well that the current system is both discriminatory and financially unviable in the longer run. They also know that the up-front backdoor fee situation that is described in their amendment is not the position of the Scottish Conservatives. I am grateful to Ian Gray and the Labour Party for bringing that motion to the chamber. We seem to go through phases in debating education policy. In the last Parliament, further and higher education was very much the focus, but since 2016 that focus has moved to our schools and to early years, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Even at that, there has been remarkably little chamber time given to the important issues in education that we are talking about since the last election. It is to Labour's credit that they have put the issue of student support back on the table today. The ethos that underpins Scotland's education system for centuries now is one of universalism. The education is and should be for everyone. We came to that conclusion long before many others. It has taken us a long time to even come close to making it a reality, and there is still some way to go. Whether someone decides to go to college or university in Scotland, they should do so in the knowledge that the financial support that they need will be there, but we know that that is not the reality for far too many. Free tuition, which enjoys broad support in this chamber, only goes so far, as has already been pointed out. To make Scottish education genuinely accessible, we need to get a grip on living costs for students and what is driving them up, not just on the support package that we can put in place, but on what is driving up those costs in the first place. Right now, there is a clear inequality in our further and higher education system. Students from wealthy backgrounds just do not need to take on paid work to cover their living costs, so obviously many do to supplement them. That means that they can devote greater time if they choose to their studies. They can put in the hours that they need to do well. Students who do not come from privileged backgrounds and who do not have the financial support of their family, for example, face a tougher time. For too many, part or even full time work is taken on not to supplement their income, but its necessity, without which they just cannot cover the costs of staying in education. That in turn squeezes out the time that they would otherwise commit to making the most of their course and of the wider experience of being at college or university. It is not just the time that is spent at work, but students are more likely to be doing bar work, working in shops and supermarkets or cycle couriers. That is hard and often deeply exploitative low-wage work. When you are exhausted at the end of a long bar shift or after hours of cycling across the city, going to the library for a few more hours of studying that you really need just does not realistic and loans for living costs are available. That may cover living costs at the time, although I know from friends right now that it is certainly not doing so for many and it does mean taking on debt, which takes years to pay off. The future earnings of those students, the future take-home pay, will be lower because of those loan repayments than someone who was lucky enough to have wealthy parents, for example, who could fund their education. That is just not fair and I think that we all agree on that. We might have different solutions but I think that we all agree on many of the principles here, although you would not notice that from some of the opening exchanges today. The burden of debt and the financial costs associated with higher education also acts a barrier for those from all income backgrounds. We may not have gone down the route in England where students are charged extortionate fees of over £9,000 and where maintenance grants have been axed, but we cannot be complacent. The disparity between student support at university and at college is in acute inequality, acknowledged by the student support review. The review could not even use a clear and concise figure for student support at colleges because no national set entitlement exists, but your cost of living is not cheaper if you are at college rather than at university. Here in Scotland, where colleges play a greater role in delivering higher education, we really need to ensure that students are entitled to similar levels of support. Ensuring that students have proper maintenance grants that afford them a decent standard of living is an important goal, but it is only one part of the solution. We need to get to grips with the cost of living for everyone. Increases in private rent and the cost of public transport in particular are putting intense pressure on students. We need public ownership of housing and transportation to ensure that those are available as a public good. Making public transport fair-free—a green policy that is partially addressed by Labour's other motion today—would remove a major barrier to education for some students. A minimum student income and tuition-free university alongside policies like that are what we need to deliver in close to college and university education. The Greens are more than happy to support the Labour motion and the Government amendment today. I think that we all agree on much more of that than we have been letting on so far. I call Tavish Scott for up to four minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank Ian Gray and the Labour Party for bringing forward this motion today, which we will support and also the Government amendment. I had two observations on the minister's remarks in opening. He talked about student support. It would be important when ministers are talking in this area about support, that they mention loans and the balance between loans and bursaries, because that is the argument that will be rehearsed undoubtedly in this debate this afternoon, but the balance between that has undoubtedly changed and become more difficult for students of all backgrounds, but particularly, as Mr Gray rightly said in his opening remarks, from the most deprived backgrounds. That is of some significant concern. I am sure that it is of concern to the Government, but I think that we need to recognise that in how they address this debate today. The second point is that Richard Lockard very helpfully clarified that the Government would support this motion from the Labour Party, which means that it will win today. That means that, as Ian Gray rightly said, I think that the Government has an honour when they are winding up this debate today to say when that will indeed now happen. If they cannot give a timetable today, then I suspect that Parliament and most of the point's student bodies would be very grateful if they could set that out at some stage in the coming weeks so that student bodies and more students and parents could understand whether a new arrangement will be in place for the start of the new academic year in August and September. I have a number of observations to make about the balance between bursaries and loans that others have already highlighted. For me, that is at the core of this issue. The poorest students continue to take on the highest loans in Scotland at £5,780 per year for the lowest household income bracket compared to £4,940 for the highest. For a student on a four-year standard Scottish degree, that is £23,120 of debt. Bursary spending in 2008-09 was £105 million. Today, it is now £76.3 million, a decrease of 27 per cent. The consequences for that are very clear. The value of loans was £187 million in 2008-09. Now, it is £528 million, an increase of 183 per cent. For the average student who took out £2,420 in 2008-09, it is now £5,290. It is reasonable to ask the Government to reflect, as the purpose of the review set out, why that balance has changed. When the word support is used, it would be more accurate to say that loans or rather debt have greatly increased for Scottish students over the last 12 years on the Government's own figures. Those are not figures that any of us have come up with, they simply reflect the Government's own figures. The review itself is an important contribution, not least of which, for the point that Ian Gray and Liz Smith have rightly made about the distinction between higher education and other vocational education and training and seeking to find a better way to deal with that. We have talked for many a year about parity of esteem, while here is a review that provides some concrete examples of how to deal with that. What it absolutely is about the Government finding a way to tackle that increase in student borrowing, to do it in a constructive manner and to recognise also that recommendation 19 of the commission on widening access, at the part that said that there was a need to look at the balance between loan and bursary impacts upon access, retention and choice of institution, has not yet been addressed. The review has not tied that. I hope that those matters will be taken forward and the Government has a chance in winding up this short debate this afternoon to tackle all those issues and set out exactly when that is going to happen. It is a matter of regret that I think that students in further and higher education have been let down by the SNP with the lack of financial support provided whilst at college or university. Free tuition is one part of the equation, but living costs are very much the other. Despite pledges by the SNP to scrap student debt completely in 2007, the debt is skyrocketing. Student debt is up by 169 per cent. Their day-to-day cost of living and the lack of financial support from the Government is seeing the poorest students being forced to take on multiple low-wage part-time jobs, which have a negative impact on their grades and their wellbeing. Let me acknowledge that free tuition opened doors to students who had previously thought that they could not afford to attend university, but, for many, loans instead of bursaries are simply unsustainable and storing up huge debt for the future. The reduction of the young students' bursary in 2013 meant that the SNP's claim of supporting the poorest students in Scotland did not just sound rather hollow—it was downright dishonest. Although I appreciate that it may be raised for 2019, it is well short of the 2013 level. You cannot expect to be congratulated for putting a little back after the lot that you took away in the first place. However, let me try and be fair and acknowledge the helpful steps taken by the Scottish Government. First, commissioning an independent review of student support was the right thing to do. Secondly, committing to increasing the bursary for care experience for young people was the right thing to do. Thirdly, raising the threshold at which repayment of loan starts is the right thing to do. Although I confess, Presiding Officer, I find it hard to believe that the UK Government is moving quicker than the Scottish Government on that. However, what is so disappointing is that there has been little progress on the other recommendations, like the real living wage for students, parity between further and higher education and no real understanding in the minister's response about the need to do something pretty urgently. We need practical implementation, not some kind of vague ambition that simply kicks the can down the road. A minimum student income, based on the recommendations of the independent review, would help over 170,000 students in further and higher education to be in a much better financial situation than the one that they are in currently. Getting decent financial help will undeniably have a positive knock-on effect on their wellbeing and their attainment. Not all students have the bank of mum and dad to fall back on at the end of each month. Students are as diverse as the subjects that they study. Some are carers, some are parents, some have disabilities, some are even mature students. All of them need a minimum student income. Without it, many students would not start further or higher education in the first place, and too many of them end up dropping out because they cannot afford to remain. Finally, I want to raise briefly a constituency issue. The young people of our armed forces families living in Scotland are experiencing very real struggles due to the complex nature of their parents' careers. Let me give you a very specific example. It is, Presiding Officer. A young person from Helensburg has been told that she is unable to receive a tuition fee waiver for a college course, because her parents have not bought a home here yet. Her father is a navy officer, transferring to Her Majesty's naval base client. She is living locally, but he is currently in a submarine. Submerged underwater will be for the next six months without any contact at all with his family. Communication in these circumstances is impossible, and there is no flexibility or help given to this young person. I would ask either the minister or the cabinet secretary to intervene. Let me finish by saying that I regard education as a key driver for our economic success, but we need to provide sufficient support for students to live to enable that economic success to happen. It is time that the Scottish Government stepped up to the plate for Scotland's students. I am sorry, but we really have tight time in these short debates. That is how it is set out by the bureau and by the parties, leading the debate. It is tough, but it is the way it is. Clare Adamson is followed by Murdo Fraser. I have been looking forward to the debate this afternoon, which I thought would be an interesting and informative one. I am somewhat disappointed by the tone of the opening from the Labour Party with Scotland's students being poorly served. We have 120,000 students a year studying in Scotland and benefiting from free education. We have more students attending in our colleges and universities and, to say that we are letting them down, I feel that it is just painting the worst possible picture here. I have listened to the pleas from the Labour Party about what they want the Government to do and what they say the Government should do. I have sympathy with a lot of what they are saying, so why did they not bring this forward at the budget? It was only a few weeks ago. They could have made this there. I will take that intervention. Ian Gray. We have repeatedly, in previous budget proposals, included improvements to student support to no avail. Perhaps we should blame the Greens for not putting in their budget debate, their budget deal or—here is a good idea—let us blame the Government who is in charge of the budget. Clare Adamson I cannot believe that we are arguing and making comments about manifestos from 2007, as if the financial crisis had never happened and this from the party of backdoor tuition fees. I welcome the contributions from some of the other colleagues around the chamber today who have approached this in a positive way and looked to it. What I was wanting to talk about today was the party of esteem. I looked back at some of the work that was done around the contract of student summary recommendations. At the time, the Government had commissioned the IPPR to do some research on support for students. It involved seven international comparisons and was a study that went into great detail about it. It said that there are some more general discussions on the relationship between financial aid and student participation and retention experiences. One of the things that the report highlighted was that there was a very different approach in the UK in particular towards higher education and the vocational post-education training, or VET areas. The data draws out some commonalities, but most countries do not separate that in the way that we seem to have done in the UK, leading to the disparity of esteem that we talk about so much. I spent last week at Motherwell College speaking to some of the CITB joinery apprenticeships there and seeing some of the great work that they were doing in the college there. I remembered that very fondly because I used to watch my father and my brother go out to university together, both on student grants at that time, and I understood absolutely what it means for people from poorer backgrounds to be able to access higher and further education. However, it is a complex situation, and one of the things that the IPPR also pointed out is that the complexity is around the fact that we do not have control over housing, we do not have control over social security and the full level of benefits that could be done, and that makes it a more complex situation in trying to do the right thing by our students. The member is definitely going to take one already. Sorry, but I think that it is really important that we recognise that this had more powers here to deal with those issues, such as social security, then we would be in a better position to support some of our students in a less complex, more simple case, which is also what the IPPR and the recommendations are looking for. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As Ian Gray pointed out at the start of the debate, it is not really possible to have a discussion in this Parliament on the issue of student support without thinking back to the 2007 Scottish Parliament election. That was the election when famously the SNP stood on a platform to dump the debt. It promised every student and every graduate in Scotland that their student debt would be written off. That never happened. In fact, after 12 years of the SNP and Government, far from student debt having been dumped, it has in fact doubled in that time. We have to take anything that the SNP says on the issue with a serious pinch of salt. In her comments earlier, Liz Smith drew comparisons with the situation in Scotland and that south of the border. Although I think that we in this Parliament need not always be looking at what happens down south, nevertheless there are sometimes useful comparisons to be drawn. Despite all the rhetoric that we hear about free education in Scotland, it is simply not the case that the fee regime that exists in England and Wales—not one that we support, but the fee regime that exists there—is no evidence that it has deterred those from less well-off backgrounds from accessing higher education. Indeed, the admission rate for those from disadvantaged backgrounds to universities in England has for a long time been substantially higher than it is in Scotland. The reason for that is very simple, Presiding Officer, because those from the poorest backgrounds do not pay tuition fees either up front or deferent. Moreover, they have in the past been able to access much more generous bursary support, which is funded from free income to the higher education sector. Therefore, we need to end, once and for all, the nonsense claims that having fees or a graduate contribution will in itself deter those from poorer backgrounds from going to university, because the evidence will tell us something different. I will give way, but I hope that the minister would accept that point. There is no evidence of that central claim. Thank you for giving way to Murdo Fraser. I take it from his comments that his policy remains scrapping free higher education and reintroducing tuition fees. Mr Fraser. I know that the minister did not admit that basic point. He should look at the evidence. He will know perfectly well. In the past, we have set out plans for a modest graduate contribution. We will set out in manifestos for coming elections exactly what our policy is at that particular time. However, he needs to accept the reality that having a graduate contribution does not deter people from the poorest backgrounds from going to university, because that is precisely what the evidence tells us. We have the backing for that from the Scottish Government former civil servant Lucy Hunter Blackburn, who confirmed that free tuition, alongside a cut in grants delivered by the SNP, has helped middle-class families and students while poorer students are worse off as a result. That is what she said, and it is a direct quote. Free tuition in Scotland is the perfect middle-class feel-good policy. It is superficially universal but, in fact, it benefits the better of most and is funded by pushing the poorest students further and further into debt. That is a damning verdict on the SNP's government as record in this area. Of course, what we are now seeing are growing concerns from middle-class parents across Scotland about access to university here. The cap on places for Scottish students, again a direct result of the so-called free education policy, means that there are many talented pupils who are not able to get into the university of their choice in Scotland. We see that as, for example, the consequence of that in our health service, where we are turning away far too many talented young Scots who want to study medicine here and cannot get a place when our NHS desperately needs their skills. Liz Smith has set out the principles that should apply to student support, endorsing the recommendations and the recent independent review, including the principle of a minimum income level. I agree with that approach and we need to be informed by the work that is on-going. I am pleased to support the amendment in her name. I have a long-standing interest in the topic of student support, so I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate this afternoon. My first job was as a welfare adviser in a students association, and I remember vividly dealing with hugely distressed students trying to prove their independence status. One in particular who has had a really negative experience of coming out had been disowned by their parents and could not prove that they were now self-funding and battling with the students awards agency at the time to make sure that they could get the bursary support that they needed. We also operated the university's crisis fund, its discretionary grant scheme, on behalf of the university. We are daily making decisions between applications for crisis funds, between people who needed support to pay for childcare versus people who were on the verge of being evicted from their flats. It is really desperate stuff, and I think that student poverty is still very prevalent, if not even worse today. I left that job in 2006 to go and work for the national union of students. Alongside student officers, I helped draft the NUS Scotland manifesto for the 2007 election. It is with that background that I come to the chamber today to say, I really welcome the idea of a minimum student income guarantee put forward by the independent review, but it is not a new idea. It was in fact proposed by NUS Scotland back in 2006. I went through my old emails today and I found this document. I have a habit of keeping copious notes which should worry quite a few people, but I found a grid of the 2007 party political manifestos. It notes what each political party said in response to NUS Scotland's call for a guaranteed minimum income. Interestingly enough, there is a reference in almost every single political party's manifesto to the idea of a guaranteed minimum income. It was on page 28 of the Tories. The Greens were the only party to fully endorse it. That was on page 9. 34 of Labour, 28 of the Liberal Democrats, the one political party that had no reference to it was, of course, the SNP, because they were going to promise to abolish student loan debt altogether. What an embarrassing situation we find ourselves in today. The idea behind a minimum income guarantee was that it would take on the costs of rent, the costs of food and avoid a situation where poorer students have to take on part-time jobs in order to get by. Back in 2006, we were arguing for it to be £7,000. It has not increased to a huge amount over that period of time. What I would say to Clare Adamson is that she bemoaned the idea that she didn't have particular powers over the welfare system to do the things that she would like to do. The SNP had full power and control over student support for 12 years. If she wanted there to be parity between FE and HE, she would have done something in the past 12 years to guarantee an income for FE students. Separately, for Richard Lochhead to come here and say that he has the best package of student support in the UK, when we look at a Tory Government that is the most right-wing dysfunctional Government that I have seen in my lifetime, it is hardly a badge of pride that he should carry. Before we get denunciations of what is happening in Labour Wales, can I say to the Government that the poorest students in Wales get £6,000 worth of bursary? That is three times what the SNP offered the poorest students here in Scotland, and it is high time that they did something about that. I am fed up with hearing calls from SNP members about parity of steam between FE and HE. They have done little, if anything, to address that, and there are far more imaginative ideas that they could turn their minds to, such as how to help people who want to get off benefits into college transition. It is almost impossible to move from housing benefit into FE because you have to forego six weeks of benefits and then wait for your student support. They have the power to introduce new benefits now, which could help people to move off of benefits and make a lives for themselves and their families. Their heads are down, they know that they can do better than that, they know that their record is tatters, it is high time that they admitted it. There is a never greater recognition that we need to offer a broader range of choices and pathways if either higher or further education are genuinely to provide opportunities to all of Scotland's young people in future. We have a lot of work to do before we get to that position of equality, but it is important that we recognise what is being done now in our colleges and universities already. As other speakers have already indicated, not only are more Scots than ever winning a place at university, but it is also important to say that more Scots than ever from our most deprived communities are going there, too. Clearly, there is more than one factor at play in overcoming educational inequalities. The need for more contextual admission policies is certainly one, but many of the factors determining those inequalities in further and higher education are, of course, the same factors that impact on inequality and poverty more generally, the UK Government's benefits reforms being but one that comes to mind. However, the independent review of student support recognised the problems among students both in further and in higher education. The Scottish Government has responded by improving support for both groups in the course of the past year. Indeed, the Scottish Government paid out more in grants and bursaries last year, which was up by 8.9 per cent in the year before. Nobody in Scotland is shying away from the reality of student poverty. Neither does the independent review, referring as it does to examples of some students who felt compelled to live off credit cards or payday loans at some times of the year. I have said something about what the Scottish Government is doing in response to difficulties like that, but I also want to say that some of the things that the Scottish Government is not doing represent an equally important contribution to solving the problem. I know and we have heard it here today that some members do not like hearing about how Scottish policy differs from that in the rest of the UK, sometimes perhaps because they find the very idea of difference offensive or sometimes because it is just information that they do not want to hear. However, Scotland's decision not to follow the UK's precedent in some areas of higher and further education policy has been a very conscious one, with its own financial implications, but I believe with its own benefits too. I make no apology for referring to one of the biggest policy differences of any kind now between Scotland and the rest of the UK, and that is, of course, university tuition. It is free in Scotland as opposed to a £9,000 a year fee or up to a £9,000 a year fee in many universities now in England. There is a reason why the average student loan debt in Scotland is significantly lower than it is in any other part of the United Kingdom. In England, the average debt is £32,000 in Scotland, and it is £11,700. We have also made it clear, and it is important to mention that, too, that in Scotland we have no intention of following another UK Government decision, and that is the decision to abolish maintenance grants for new students. The Scottish Government has also sent out a very important signal by confirming that eligible students from other EU countries on courses beginning in the year 2019-20 in Scotland will continue to be supported for the duration of their courses. Further evidence that despite the endless uncertainty of where the UK is headed this week or next on Brexit, Scotland is determined to show that we understand the huge benefit to our country that students from around Europe represent. As this report makes clear, we have much to do, but much is being done in Scotland for students in both further and higher education, and the mistaken UK education policies that we are not following in Scotland is something that we should never let slip from our minds. Thank you very much. Jamie Halcro Johnston, followed by Rona McLean. Mr Halcro Johnston, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I echo the points made by many previous speakers that students supported a vital area for discussion? I welcome today's debate being brought forward. Far too often, the issue of student support has been drowned out in the noise-created discussing tuition costs. While tuition costs matter, as others have mentioned, they have not always been represented in the most accurate way. However, there are real and genuine concerns over student support and the cost of living at university and college. For many students in my region of the Highlands and Islands, particularly going to university means moving away from home, often by a long distance. The independent review is a good start to tackling those problems, and the principle of a minimum income level is a welcome suggestion that could provide additional clarity and certainty to prospective students. In terms of the proposals around parity between further and higher education, those mirror the issues around parity of esteem between differing destinations. If we are to support the parity of esteem, then there must also be greater fairness in our approach. Those students who choose a different route should not find their choices narrowed or their conditions reduced. There was broad support for those principles in the independent review consultation, and it is important that the Scottish Government responds effectively to those findings. Going to university in Scotland remains a costly business, but the average debt level is not the only element. Today, young people from low-income backgrounds are the most likely recipients of larger student loans. We should be mindful of that and its future impact on social mobility. The issue of repayment is one that arises within the review, but it seems to have received little attention in the chamber. The annual repayment threshold for a student loan in Scotland is inched above £18,000 for the first time this year. For the plan 2 student loans, available to students south of the border, that repayment threshold is already £25,000. While an announcement was made last year to match that level by 2021-22, the obvious point is that low-earning graduates with student loans continue to find themselves paying more in Scotland, or even paying back when students from other parts of the UK would not have to. That was recognised as an issue in the SNP's 2016 manifesto, which had previously pledged a threshold increase to £22,000, which is still some distance away. In the meantime, are we supposed to believe that this position can somehow be seen as fairer to students and graduates in Scotland? Significant disparities between the two student loan types have been long-standing, and at least Scottish graduates with a considerably worse deal are often at the very start of their careers. Just as, importantly, leave low-earning graduates more out of pocket. Deputy Presiding Officer, those examples are emblematic of the lack of attention that has been paid to student support. For too many years, a real focus on student funding in the round has been sacrificed for a narrow glance at tuition costs. The independent review has been a credible attempt to address those issues, but has resulted in the same lack of clarity and the same delays from the Scottish Government that have burdened discussions around student support in the past. While I welcome the warled words from the SNP in regard to its recommendations, I cannot forget the cynical promises made by their party whenever, 12 years ago, they narrowly won an election on the back of a pledge to wipe out student debt in its entirety. Instead, we saw not only a doubling of average debt, but Scottish graduates left worse off through the repayment system. Again and again, that burden has fallen on those that are least able to pay. Lest SNP rhetoric and more reform is essential, reform that must be brought forward at pace. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is an important debate that Labour has brought to the chamber today. At the outset, I say that there is nothing in the Labour motion that, in principle, I disagree with. Students must have sufficient income to live on. The fact is, however, that the Scottish Government has already committed to more investment in student support than the review immediately called for—21 million, which goes further than the 16 million that was recommended in the review. Student funding is at the core of our higher education system, and the SNP Government remains committed to providing all students, especially those in our most deprived communities, the financial support that they need to succeed. Our commitment not to charge university tuition fees is one of the most precious policies that the Government has introduced, and I am extremely proud of that. It is not just one thing, it is a huge factor in widening access to education. This year and next, we are investing 16 million to expand access to further higher education bursaries for students from the lowest-income families, and we will raise the higher education bursary income threshold from 19 to 21,000. In addition, bursary support will be lifted from £1,875 per year to £2,000. Bursary provision rose by £8.9 to £76.3 million last year. Currently, a full-time 19-year-old further education student in Scotland can receive a bursary of up to £4,247 per year, the best level anywhere in the UK. In comparison, a full-time 19-year-old further education student in England can receive up to £1,200 per year, up to £1,500 in Wales and up to £2,092 in Northern Ireland. Crucially, at a time when we want to encourage more young people to study in Scotland, the Scottish Government has confirmed that it will support eligible EU students commencing courses in academic year 2019 to 2020. The number of students is half of what the independent review said they should have access to. The minister explained that we are working towards building on that. It is part of the review that we are looking at. I do not think that you can discount the fact that we do not pay tuition fees and that it is still the best level in the UK. Crucially, at a time when we want to encourage more people, the Government has confirmed that it will support eligible EU students commencing courses in academic year. The number of Scotland-centric universities is at a record high, as is the number of students attending university from the most deprived areas. We have no intention of following the UK Government who abolished maintenance grants for new students in England from academic year 2016 to 2017. It is also worth emphasising that the average student loan debt in Scotland is significantly lower than it is in part of the United Kingdom. In England, the average student debt is 32 to 20. In Scotland, it is 11,740, which is a huge difference. However, we cannot be complacent and there is still work to do. Jane Ann Gaddiw, who led the independent review called a new social contract for students' fairness, parity and clarity, said in the review's report. The Scottish Government's focus on funding tuition fees for social and economic prosperity is to be commended. To build on that report, we established the commission on widening access and are leading an evidence-based programme for implementation. We are determined that young people of all backgrounds should have access to higher and further education. In conclusion, the Scottish Government regard education and student well-being as a top priority, and I believe that our record in supporting students demonstrates that beyond doubt. I am pleased to close today's debate for the Scottish Conservatives. I would like to start by thanking the Labour Party for bringing forward this debate to Parliament. I would once again impress upon the Government the importance of making some time to debate education issues in this chamber. I also think that Ian Gray is right to highlight the fact that students here in Scotland have been poorly served overall by the SNP. This is once again an issue where the Government's rhetoric does not match up with the reality of people living the length and breadth of this country. We saw that from the decision by various SNP backbenchers to dodge once again some of the difficult questions. I wonder how Dr Allan can recognise student poverty, but I do not recognise the fact that it has taken his party and this Government 12 years and an independent review to get to the point of having an ambition to do something about it. I think that that is disappointing and I do not think that it serves any of us well. I do however think that the debate has brought these issues out into the open and ensured that we start considering the report's recommendations in the round. It is also very important that we agree that the availability of student support is just as an important factor for students about their decision to attend college or university as any other factor. If people do not have enough money to meet their immediate living costs, the idea that they are going to go to university is just unrealistic. It is also imperative that we make sure that support is there for people going to college as well, not just university. I know as someone representing a rural area that people have to travel quite far afield sometimes to access the college courses that they want. I think that Ross Greer is right here that there is much more that we agree on in principle than that separates, in fact, at least in ambition terms all of the parties. We must also acknowledge, as a starting point, that the current system is far from adequate and in many respects is failing some of the students who depend on it the most. What we need is new thinking and an honest debate about higher education funding policies. Rather than simply pretending that all is going well. Tavish Scott is right to highlight the balance between loans and bursaries. That is an important distinction for people, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Some of the decisions that need to be taken are complicated, but we also have to recognise the fact that some of the other recommendations outlined by the independent review are much simpler and quicker to fix, including improving clarity for students and ensuring that they and their parents fully understand the financial support that is available and getting some of those messages out there of the improvements to support in certain areas that we have seen since the review came in. More importantly, we should all be concerned by the comments from Lucy Hunter, Blackburn, Edinburgh University researcher and former Scottish Government civil servant. The idea that, as she stated, the review is heavier on presentation and analysis and ducks issues of part-time maintenance support and, to quote again, feels like a review whose impact on higher education at least was always intended to be strictly limited should give us cause for concern, because by failing to properly consider all of the options and pushing difficult issues to one side does not help students and does not support the sustainability of the university sector. It is yet another example of the Scottish National Party Government's pick-and-mix approach to policy development, not just in this area but right across Government. I very much welcome the debate and value the contributions that are made from all parties across the chamber. I should start by saying that we should not underestimate the challenges facing Scotland's students in today's Scotland. I have regular meetings with NUS Scotland, as well as students in all our campuses across the country. I am very well aware, as I am sure that we all are, of the day-to-day pressures that they face with their finances and their living standards. NUS Scotland is working with the Scottish Government, and its initiatives are looking at the costs of the student day and all the issues around their living costs. We have agreed to work with NUS Scotland to take forward some of the issues in due course once the surveys and research has been carried out. There are very real issues facing Scotland's students and young people today. Issues facing all Scotland's families, given that we have had 10 years of Conservative Party austerity, we have faced the impact of Brexit on our economy. We should not fool ourselves that those issues are going to impact on Scotland's further and higher education sectors and, of course, on the living standards of students, as well. There are very important issues that have been raised in the chamber today briefly. Neil Findlay, a fact in clarification before he moves on, can he confirm that, for the lowest income students, the Scottish Government does not offer the best support package in the UK? I am going to come on to support again, which I mentioned in my own remarks, that we give for Scotland students, which I do believe is the best package in the whole of the UK. I will address that in a couple of seconds. However, we have heard quite a lot of hyperbole, particularly from the Labour Party benches and misleading comments and right-wing measures from the Conservative Party, as we would expect. For instance, Murdo Fraser and Liz Smith seem to suggest that free higher education Scotland chases away Scottish students from Scottish institutions. The most recent UCAS figures show that the number of Scots winning a place at university is at a record high. Second point. Scottish domiciled full-time first-degree university entrance has risen 16 per cent from just over 25,000 in 2006-2007, and this Government came to power, the SNP Government, to just under 30,000 in 2007-2018. Is 16 per cent under the SNP Government briefly? I thank the minister for that. There is some truth in exactly what he said, but the most important aspect that is just now is that, as a result of so-called free higher education, far too many domiciled Scots are not getting access to the place. We are at a record high, and I will come back to that point in a second or two if time allows because I have taken two interventions. In terms of the hyperbole and the outrageous claims that we have had from some of the members and some of the benches, it has been overall a good debate with valuable points made. I have to pick up on Jackie Baillie, who said that free higher education is a small part of the equation. I would argue that, in terms of support for Scotland's students and knocking down the barriers to higher education and widening access to education, it is a pretty monumental part of the equation, and we should not lose sight of that. In terms of the debt that students inherit when they leave university, yes, we would love to do more. We would like to do more, and if the budgets were more affluent, we would be able to do a lot more. We would not have a £2 billion real terms cut from the UK Government. I am sure that there is much more that we could do for Scotland's students, but let us look at the facts, as many members have mentioned in terms of debt inherited by graduates in Scotland. In England, the figure is £34,800. In Wales, it is £21,520. In Northern Ireland, it is £22,440. In Scotland, it is £13,230. So, you leave with a lot less debt if you attend a Scottish institution than any other part of the UK. We have also heard claims that somehow free higher education and the student support package in Scotland is deterring people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Of course, we have a lot more to do to attract students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Ross Greer is quite right to say this is a major issue that we have to address. Minister, sit down a minute. It is too noisy. I want to hear what you are saying if you want to say something, do an intervention or summing up. I am sure that Scotland's students really want to hear what we are saying as well, given the importance of the issue to them. In terms of widening access to higher education, it is now the situation where 15.6 per cent of Scottish full-time degree entrance to Scottish universities were from the 20 per cent most deprived areas in 2017-18. We are making very significant progress. That is a very highly significant statistic. It is about people having the opportunity to go to university who may otherwise not have done before. I want to commend our colleges, who are involved in a lot of higher education these days and, of course, our university sector for everything that they are doing to widening access. Indeed, the commissioner for fair access said that the latest figures vindicate the Scottish policy of free higher education. Those are very important issues. I want to conclude by saying that, in Scotland, you have some of the most generous bursaries in the whole of the United Kingdom. You have free higher education. You have the best terms and conditions for breathing our loans in Scotland. Therefore, you have the best package for Scotland's students. There is a lot more to do, but the SNP Government is certainly delivering for Scotland's students. Mr Finlay, the minister took two interventions that I commented on. I gave him his time back on that for it. Do not you say anything about how long he is getting to me? I am in charge of the debate. I am sorry. This is not a discussion. No, no, no, no. I do not want to hear from you. Unless it is a point of order. Unless it is a point of order. Let me hear your point of order. Presiding Officer, I was not directing my comments at you with respect. Well, thank you. I take that as an apology for me mishearing it. Oh, no, I do not expect an apology from you, Mr... I beg your pardon. It was looking at me when you said it. I am not going to have that to the chair conducting the debate. When a member takes interventions, whoever it is, I try to compensate. Now, that is wasted even more time. Ms Fee, would you sum up please for Labour? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Student financial support is in need of urgent reform. No one in this chamber can disagree with that statement. Many speakers across the chamber this afternoon have expressed concern at the lack of progress on this issue. Scottish Labour welcomed independent review of student support. Our motion today highlighted the need for a minimum student income tied to the Scottish Government's living wage, as recommended by the independent review. What we need now is the Scottish Government to urgently bring forward plans to implement this. After all, this proposal comes from its own initiated review. As Iain Gray pointed out in his opening remarks, this was a review that, on those benches, we welcomed in 2017 and we continue to support it today. Our motion has moved by Iain Gray's demands urgency. If the motion is carried this evening, we want the ministers back here with a plan for reform in the next few weeks. We want students to benefit in the next academic year, not some vague time in the future. By supporting Labour's motion tonight, we are sending a clear message that we take seriously that commitment. The Government, despite indicating support for our motion and being given every opportunity today to give a timescale to come back to this chamber with a plan, is going to tell me a timescale. I am happy to take the intervention. Thank you for taking the intervention. I just want to reassure the member that, as I said before, the Government is supporting Labour's motion today, and I undertake his minister to keep Parliament informed in the early course of our journey towards the minimum income guarantee. With respect, early course is not good enough. We require urgency, and we require a plan for this to be done. Balancing education in debt is not a situation that we want our young people to face. Instead of dumping the debt for students, as promised in 2007, the SNP and Government have delivered devastating cuts to student support, which has seen debt soar by 169 per cent. Scottish Labour would reform student support, beginning by implementing a new social contract for students that includes a minimum student income that is recommended once again in the student support review. It was Scottish Labour who asked tuition fees in Scotland. That supported thousands to study on their ability to learn, not on their ability to pay. Our new social contract would benefit over 170,000 students. The social contract would include a minimum student income linked to the real living wage, giving students a guaranteed income to study. Instead of delivering their promise to dump the debt, the Scottish Government has driven student debt up by forcing more young people to rely on loans by cutting the young student bursary. The bursary that is available to students today remains lower than it was before the SNP cut it by almost £900 in 2013. The new proposal on the student bursary would indeed raise it. However, it would still be less than the pre-2013 figure, and that disproportionately affects our poorest students. It was the Government who commissioned the independent review of student support, and it was the SNP who has ignored its recommendations and has watered down its support for the review. We welcome the Government's commitment to raising the repayment threshold, but what we need to do now is build consensus to deliver. We must develop equity and parity between the higher education and the further education sector. For too long, students have had a raw deal, and it is only right that we take steps now to remedy that. We know the situation south of the border that has resulted in students facing a £9,000 debt for each year of university. We do not support a return of tuition fees in Scotland, especially for the poorest. A new social contract tied to the real living wage provides what students need. While many will continue to work, a real living wage in the workplace of £10 an hour, as pledged by Labour, will continue to support students throughout their time studying. The NAUS briefing for today's debate highlighted the reservations of the introduction of loans in the further education sector, and it reiterated the view that improvements to student support should be delivered through increased bursaries rather than through loans. There should be less focus on promotion of loans and more focus on tackling student debt. Cuts to bursaries have caused higher debt, and that is not sustainable. No one in the chamber wants to see our young people saddled with debt dropping out of university and education settings. We need real, tangible support for our young people to allow them to achieve their potential, and that is why I urge everyone in the chamber to support their motion. That concludes the debate on student support. It is time to move on to the next item of business. I will give a few moments for the front bench to change places.