The Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee has recommended that the general principles of the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill should not be agreed to, in a report published today.
The Bill aims to repeal the legislation which came into effect in 2001 that requires Scottish domiciled and European students, who started their first full-time degree course at a Scottish institution in or after August that year, to pay a sum, currently fixed at £2,289, following the completion of their course.
The Committee, on the casting vote of the convenor, does not agree that abolishing the Graduate Endowment (GE) is the most effective way of removing barriers to access to higher education. Stage 1 scrutiny has highlighted a number of significant criticisms of the bill and a lack of alternative approaches to widening access to higher education.
The Committee suggests that there may be variable factors which discourage prospective students from deprived backgrounds undertaking higher education and highlights that under endowment arrangements there has been no significant reduction in the numbers of students from such areas. It therefore concludes that there is insufficient evidence to prove that that the abolition of the endowment alone will contribute significantly to widening access to further education.
Committee Convener Karen Whitefield MSP said: “The Committee was evenly split on the matter and I used my casting vote to not recommend the general principles.
“The Committee believes that the funding required to be foregone so that the GE can be abolished would be better invested in other methods. This would help to retain a competitive edge in the delivery of high quality higher education and to widen access, including for example more funding directly for universities and in the current system of bursaries.
“The Committee remains unconvinced that the removal of GE goes far enough in removing barriers to access to higher education. In the Scottish Government's second piece of legislation it has missed the opportunity to address the wider issue of student debt and alternative approaches to widening access to further education.”
The Committee notes the view of some witnesses that some witnesses felt that the abolition of the GE is not the most important measure that could have been taken. The Scottish Government could have used the legislative opportunity to introduce a more wide-ranging Bill to address the wider issue of student debt and financing of higher education and student support.
The committee voted four for the Bill (Rob Gibson, Aileen Campbell, Christina McKelvie and Jeremy Purvis)and four against (Karen Whitefield, Richard Baker, Mary Mulligan and Elizabeth Smith), with Whitefield using her casting vote to reject the Bill.
Aileen Campbell, Rob Gibson and Christina McKelvie dissented and the Committee agreed that their dissent be recorded as follows: “The SNP committee members note the potential reduction of overall levels of student debt likely to be brought about by the abolition of the GE, should the Bill be passed. The SNP committee members also note the Scottish Government's stated intention that this Bill would be the first in a number of measures aimed at extinguishing all student debt. Furthermore, the SNP committee members support the principles of the bill based on the overwhelming evidence heard in the committee in favour of the Bill.”
Jeremy Purvis dissented and the Committee agreed that his dissent be recorded as follows: “Jeremy Purvis supported the overall reductions in student debt to be achieved by abolition of the GE and thus supported the general principles. However, the Committee's scrutiny at Stage 1 highlighted significant criticisms of the Bill, including repealing the statutory duty of government to provide student support and that a wider student and higher education funding measure should have been brought forward.”
Reacting to the committee's decision, a Scottish Government source said: “Almost all the respondees to the committee were in favour of the Bill to restore free education and abolish the £2,000 tax on graduates. Even Andrew Cubie, who was the architect of the original Graduate Endowment scheme, has welcomed its passing, as recently quoted in the Scotsman, 22 November 2007. Even more tellingly, the President of NUS Scotland is in favour. And the fact remains that there is a clear parliamentary majority for the Bill.”
The Stage 1 debate on the Bill will take place in Parliament on the morning of Thursday 20 December.
Readers have left 2 comments. 1. Education committee rejects Graduate Endowment Abolition Bill
Anonymous, Unregistered I would urge the people voting on this issue to reconsider, as a student with mounting debt I am having to consider
whether I can continue with my course and the student endowment may be the final nail 2. Education committee rejects Graduate Endowment Abolition Bill
D S Leighton, Unregistered I condsider it disgraceful hypocricy for the Labour and Conservative parties not to support the abolition of this penal charge.
All but the very rich have to make financial sacrifices in order to support siblings throughout their university lives.
This support in the form of allowances or rent support etc, etc come from net income after taxation has been paid, yet despite this support most students are forced into the student loan system and inevitably graduate with significant debt.
The days when students were expected to live like hermits and /or take low paying part time work to the detriment of their work are long gone and good riddance too.
By abolishing this penal charge the Scottish Government would at least assert itself as having given some consideration, for once, for the over taxed lower and middle classes of our country.
Related news items:
|
Holyrood news 
