Post-16 Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
I welcome members back. Today, we start our stage 2 consideration of the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Bill. I welcome to the committee Mike Russell, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, and his accompanying officials. Officials are, of course, not allowed to participate in the formal proceedings. I also welcome Marco Biagi, who has joined us because he has amendments that he wishes to speak to later on.
Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced, the first marshalled list of amendments, which was published on Friday, and the first groupings of amendments, which sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. We will not go beyond section 4 of the bill today.
There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. All other members with amendments in the group, including the cabinet secretary, if relevant, will then be asked to speak to them. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my eye or the clerks’ attention.
If he has not already spoken on the group, I will invite the cabinet secretary to contribute to the debate just before we move to the winding-up speech. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up.
Following debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press the amendment, I will put the question on it. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the committee’s agreement to do so. If any committee member objects, the committee will immediately move to a vote on the amendment.
If any member does not want to move their amendment when it is called, they should say, “Not moved.” Please note that any other MSP may move such an amendment, if they so desire. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list.
Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands in the air until the clerks have recorded the vote.
As the committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section of the bill, I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2—Higher education institutions: good governance
Amendment 12, in the name of Liz Smith, is grouped with amendments 7 and 23.
One of the central issues in the debate about the bill is that of ensuring that the universities are able to maintain what they have defined as responsible autonomy—namely, full accountability and transparency when it comes to the use of public money, but also the ability to decide for themselves, without Government interference, how best to maintain the academic structures that will continue to deliver the exceptionally high standards of higher education to which Scotland is accustomed, and which have ensured that Scottish universities have maintained their competitive edge when measured against universities in the rest of the world.
That academic freedom is one of the key principles that have underpinned the university system in Scotland for hundreds of years and is the one that the university sector has identified as being the reason for its success. When the committee heard from four university principals, they made it plain that that academic freedom was a core part of the flexibility that is required to lead the field in research, innovation and knowledge exchange, all of which are increasingly regarded as the key components against which universities are measured.
The point is rightly made, too, that the most successful higher education systems around the world are those in which Government is less rather than more involved. Therefore, it does not seem to make much sense for Scotland to move in the opposite direction, by extending considerably the control of ministers and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. In particular, the idea that ministers and/or the Scottish funding council could, in effect, be involved in university management was not agreeable to the sector, which is why I have lodged amendment 12, which seeks to remove the term “management”.
On amendment 7, similarly, given the sector’s comments, it would be inappropriate for ministers to be involved in imposing on universities conditions that would mean that part of the financial payments that they receive are fully tied to what the Scottish Government deems to be appropriate principles of governance and management. In effect, that would be a move to increase state control, which I do not think is acceptable to the sector.
On the issue of governance in general, I understand some of the concerns that have been raised, but I do not believe that there are significant problems that somehow have a detrimental effect on education in the university sector. Indeed, no witnesses could provide evidence to prove that the present governance structures were having a detrimental effect on the education that is delivered. For that reason, I and my party are very nervous about pursuing amendments that would restrict the democratic choices of staff and students when it comes to governance. If that approach were to be pursued, we would have to look at it extremely carefully, as I think that it would harm the university sector. That is what we have been told by those who are involved in the new code of governance.
I move amendment 12.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning (Michael Russell)
Amendment 7 would change proposed new section 9A of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 by transferring from ministers to the funding council the power to identify the principles of good governance with which institutions must comply. Ministers would retain the ability to impose on the council a condition of grant that requires institutions to comply with principles of good governance, but amendment 7 would mean that it was a matter for the council—rather than ministers—to determine what those principles were.
The amendment—there will be similar amendments during the stage 2 process—addresses the concern to which Liz Smith has just alluded. There has been no intention to interfere in the responsible autonomy of universities, although there will always be different definitions of the words “responsible” and “autonomy” and how those link together. Throughout the process, we have made it clear that the intention is for governance to be improved but not interfered with. I have listened carefully to the concerns that have been expressed by members of the committee and in wider evidence. Amendment 7 strikes the appropriate balance between respecting the sector’s autonomy from ministers and delivering an appropriate level of assurance on a significant level of public funding.
In that spirit, I am happy to support Liz Smith’s amendment 12, and to remove the word “management” from proposed new section 9A of the 2005 act. The university sector has expressed concerns about the word and that its inclusion would allow ministers to interfere in the day-to-day operation of institutions, but that was never the intention—clearly, that would be undesirable. The word was included historically, from the 2005 act, and with the intention of capturing the high-level strategic management issues that are more akin to governance than what is ordinarily understood by the word “management”. Again, I have listened carefully to the sector’s concerns and to the committee, and we accept that we should not take any risk. If there is a view that there could be interference, we should drop the word, and I am glad to do so.
I support the principle that underlies amendment 23. It is right and proper that the funding council should consult staff and students in exercising the functions under new section 9A of the 2005 act. Indeed, I have made that case throughout the extensive consultation process on the current code that the university chairs are developing, and I will lodge amendments to a range of provisions in the bill that will strengthen the position of consultation. The need for consultation is particularly clear should the committee vote in favour of amendment 7, which would transfer the power to identify what constitutes the principles of good governance from ministers to the council. The council would benefit from ensuring that it consults widely.
I have no problem with the objective, but amendment 23 is not necessary for its achievement. Consultation on the development of a revised code would be a critical part of any future development in the area, but as the provisions in the bill do not set out any parameters for developing such a code, I do not believe that a more explicit consultation duty is required or desirable in this instance.
I have said to the committee before, I have said in the chamber, and I confirm now that my clear expectation is that any governance code must be developed by sector leaders working closely with staff, students and all other interested parties. The level of consultation that is undertaken in developing a code would be one of many factors that the funding council would look at in determining whether any future code was accepted as good practice, and the existing powers in the 2005 act already enable the council to consult on such matters.
I invite the committee to support amendments 7 and 12 and urge Neil Findlay not to move amendment 23 on the ground that the matter is covered adequately elsewhere and is fully supported by the spirit of the bill.
I support amendments 12 and 7 for the reasons that Liz Smith and the cabinet secretary have set out.
Amendment 23 seeks to ensure that there is a duty on the funding council to consult when the principles of good governance are being developed. That would mean consultation with the stakeholders who make our higher education institutions the success that they are—namely, the relevant staff through their trade unions, students, the business community and other appropriate stakeholders. Throughout the process, we have heard about problems between those groups and a lack of or, indeed, problems with consultation in developing the current code. The amendment would go some way towards resolving those problems and ensuring that consultation takes place when the principles of good governance are being developed, amended or changed. By explicitly referring to that in the bill, we would make it clear that we are serious about those issues.
I will be moving amendment 23.
11:15
Amendment 12 looks relatively minor but is nonetheless an important improvement in providing reassurance about the limitations on the scope for interference in the running of our higher education institutions, and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s indication that he will support it.
In turn, I will support amendment 7. Colleagues and the cabinet secretary will be aware of my concerns from the outset about the extent to which the bill will increase the scope of ministers to meddle in too many aspects of how our universities and colleges function. In many respects, those concerns remain.
However, I welcome Mr Russell’s important self-denying ordinance, which improves section 2. It makes it clear that higher education institutions will be required to comply with standards of good governance as a condition of grant, as the cabinet secretary indicated, but in a way that better reflects the principle that universities should not be the subject of political direction, as Liz Smith said.
On amendment 23, last week we heard from Lord Smith and Simon Pepper, who defended the draft code of governance that has been produced and the process that gave rise to it. However, it was accepted that the draft code can and must be improved before it is finally agreed and that lessons must be learned about how revisions may be made to the code in future. Like the cabinet secretary, I expect those things to happen. Although I sympathise with the frustrations that we all share that have given rise to Neil Findlay’s amendment 23, I am not inclined to support it.
I, too, back Liz Smith’s amendment 12. After some of our discussions with and evidence from the university sector, it has become quite clear that in future there could be cabinet secretaries or ministers who want to tinker with day-to-day management. Knowing the current cabinet secretary, I know that that would be the furthest thing from his mind—he is a busy individual; however, I think that future proofing the bill is the best bet. I understand that the word “management” was used so that we could capture high-level strategic management in the process, but it is quite important that it is taken out at this stage, so that the bill is future proofed and so that we do not have any misunderstandings further down the line.
On amendment 23, although I share Liam McArthur’s concerns, Professor von Prondzynski was absolutely clear that we want a more inclusive system of operation. In his evidence, the cabinet secretary has stated that the amendment is unnecessary because the funding council will be required to collaborate with a wide range of bodies in exercising its functions. Indeed, the list of bodies is wider than that proposed in amendment 23. We should take that as a reason why amendment 23 is unnecessary at this stage.
As no other members wish to contribute, I will make a short contribution.
I very much agree with Liam McArthur’s comments on the three amendments in group 1. I support amendment 12 for the reasons that Liz Smith laid out eloquently when she moved the amendment. I support amendment 7, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Making the SFC responsible for identifying principles of good governance is a welcome move. As the cabinet secretary and Liam McArthur have said, we have learned a lot about the consultation process and the code, and I, too, agree that amendment 23 is unnecessary.
I call Liz Smith to wind up and press or withdraw her amendment.
Thank you, convener. I thank the cabinet secretary and members of the committee for their support for amendment 12. A very important balance must be struck, which is captured in the phrase “responsible autonomy” even if the definitions are slightly difficult.
Clearly, Scottish ministers must account for a large sum of public money. At the same time, to leave the word “management” in would be contentious, as “management” could involve interference in the day-to-day running. That would be totally unacceptable, not only to the sector but for lots of different reasons, given the social and economic changes in Scotland.
It is very clear to me, from the evidence that we have had over a long period, that the greatest success of Scottish universities is responsible autonomy, which, over time, has improved. I also believe that the strength of the university sector lies in its flexibility. We should be in no doubt that flexibility is an extremely important part of how Scottish universities are able to maintain their outstanding record, not just in the United Kingdom but across the international community. The change is very important and I am very pleased that the committee agrees with that.
I am happy to support amendment 7 on the basis that the temptation for ministers to interfere in some of the decisions will be removed—or, more accurately, reduced—which is welcome.
I turn to amendment 23. On the question of governance, I am nervous about writing too much on the face of the bill that could be restrictive and hinder some of the flexibilities within governance. There are issues about how students and staff would be able to act when it comes to the democratic decisions that are required, but those can be addressed in the new code. Therefore, I am not inclined to support amendment 23.
I press amendment 12.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendment 7 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
After section 2
Amendment 13, in the name of Jenny Marra, is in a group on its own. Jenny Marra is not present, but I understand that Neil Findlay will speak to and move the amendment.
Unfortunately, Jenny Marra is stuck in the Justice Committee at the moment.
Less than a year ago, Scottish Labour led a debate on the introduction of gender quotas for all public bodies because of the chronic underrepresentation of women on them. The debate mentioned von Prondzynski’s recommendation to improve the situation in university governing bodies, and we were supportive of that. At the time, the debate focused on the gender breakdown in university courts, and the situation has not improved greatly. At the moment, at the University of Aberdeen there are 20 men and five women on the court, and at Scotland’s Rural College there are 14 men and one woman on the court. The numbers are very low indeed. Only the Glasgow School of Art appears to have a majority of women on its court. Clearly, there is a problem.
In his evidence, Ferdinand von Prondzynski said:
“We made that recommendation because practice within the sector is pretty uneven. Some universities perform better than others on gender balance and diversity on governing bodies, and some universities could perform much better. I came to Aberdeen from Ireland where there was a statutory obligation to have a 40 per cent gender balance on governing bodies. That system worked well. As part of gaining the confidence of wider society, it is important for universities to show that the composition of their governing bodies reflects that of society. Clearly, we are not doing that if few women—and occasionally none—are on such governing bodies. I stand by the recommendation that we made.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 7 May 2013; c 2323.]
He referred to his work in Ireland, where that approach succeeded. The boards of governing bodies need to reflect the society that they serve. Professor von Prondzynski believes that that could be achieved, and we believe that as well.
I move amendment 13.
I find myself agreeing almost completely with Mr Findlay, which is quite an unusual situation for me to be in. However, we differ in one respect. Under the Scotland Act 1998, we do not have constitutional competence over equalities issues. Therefore, putting what is suggested into the bill would make it a problem for the bill to comply with the provisions of that act. Although I fully support Jenny Marra and the Labour Party in seeking to address the gender imbalance, I do not think that the amendment is the way to do it at this stage.
I have referred to the evidence that we received last week and it was acknowledged that our university governing bodies’ performance in respect of the diversity of their make-up needs to improve significantly.
Lord Smith was unequivocal in setting out his expectations about what needs to happen over the next few years and, likewise, Simon Pepper pointed to the compulsory nature of the code of governance and what he felt would be
“a major shift in the culture of governing bodies in Scotland.”
Of course, both argued that once the new code is in place the process should be given time to happen, but there will be general scepticism that without more radical measures excuses can always be found to do the bare minimum if anything at all. That is why Jenny Marra’s amendment 13 is very helpful. I share some of the anxieties that have been expressed about the operation of such a quota system, not least with regard to how it would reflect multi-year appointments and the composition of existing bodies, but I am in no doubt that drift and dither cannot be allowed to happen in this area. Amendment 13 offers an opportunity for Parliament to make clear its expectations about what is required to achieve the diverse and representative reflection of the talents that we want to govern our higher education institutions.
As I have said, I have some concerns about how such a quota system might work and will listen carefully to what the cabinet secretary has to say. However, Jenny Marra’s lodging of this amendment at stage 2 has the benefit of giving us a little time to find out whether and how this kind of approach can be made to work. Even if Parliament does not agree to the amendment at this stage, it will send an unambiguous signal to the sector.
As Simon Pepper acknowledged last week,
“The proof of the pudding is in the eating”.—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 7 May 2013; c 2342.]
What is abundantly clear is that the ingredients in this pudding need to change significantly.
I, too, agree with the general tone of the comments and share the view that this important issue must be raised. It is quite clear that it is a significant issue in some although by no means all universities.
I have to say, however, that I am very nervous about having a 40 per cent target quota; I do not find that helpful for a variety of reasons. Universities Scotland itself has made it plain why such an approach could be restrictive and have certain unintended consequences. Like Liam McArthur, I think that the new code of governance will result in a culture shift and, given the importance of that, I will not support amendment 13.
I very much thank Jenny Marra for lodging amendment 13 and Mr Findlay for moving it. During its evidence sessions, the committee heard a number of valid concerns that I share entirely about the lack of diversity in university governing bodies. Indeed, I highlighted the issue at stage 1 and said that I would come forward with further thoughts on the matter.
The governing bodies of universities and colleges must properly reflect society and the institutions they govern. I stand to be corrected if members want to look at the full detail, but I think that only one college body—Kilmarnock College—has a majority of women; and Mr Findlay is also right to say that only Glasgow School of Art comes anywhere close to having any sort of balance. As I think the universities themselves are beginning to accept, some university courts are really disgraceful in this regard. Overall, representation in the sector is around 30 per cent, but we should and must do better.
In my discussions on the code of governance—and as I believe Lord Smith mentioned last week—I have made clear to the universities my hope that this area will be developed in a redrafted code, and I will reflect the matter in my guidance to colleges on future appointments.
Jenny Marra has lodged similar amendments to recent bills on police and fire reform and civil justice. Although they were rejected, we have considered the matter in considerable detail and, although I cannot support amendment 13 as it stands, I support bringing forward a provision that reflects the principle behind it. We have explored the feasibility of the kind of approach suggested by Jenny Marra and have found a number of serious legal issues that we must consider further. In particular, as Clare Adamson is right to point out, equal opportunities are, unfortunately, reserved. We think that setting absolute quotas for the membership of men and women of a governing body would not be within the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence and if the bill were to contain such a provision it would be ultra vires, which itself would create great difficulties.
That said, over the coming weeks I want to explore the issue further with the Minister for Commonwealth Games and Sport, who has responsibility for equality issues, and I encourage Jenny Marra and others to come forward to discuss the matter with ministers. There will be a willingness to have that discussion to ensure that we find for stage 3 an amendment that keeps us within devolved competence—alas—but which signals our very clear intention to make progress on improving diversity and equality in governance structures.
We have moved a considerable distance on this issue over the past few months. I urge Neil Findlay not to press amendment 13 but also urge him, Jenny Marra and other committee members to enter into that dialogue. There is a sincere intention to put something legal into the bill; unfortunately, this particular amendment would not be competent but we are desperate and desperately keen to find the right method of doing this. What we have at the moment is not good enough.
11:30
I wish to press amendment 13, although we will, of course, engage with the cabinet secretary should it not proceed.
When Professor von Prondzynski was asked about the issue by Joan McAlpine, he said:
“That would depend on how the particular provision was framed. For example, if legislation was introduced that indicated that gender-based decisions would have to be made in relation to particular positions on a governing body, that would be a problem and I suspect that it would not succeed. However, if a statutory obligation was placed on governing bodies to maintain an overall gender balance, not specific to any particular appointment to the governing body, my advice would be that that should be in line with the legal framework.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 7 May 2013; c 2324.]
Therefore, I will certainly press the amendment.
The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 13 disagreed to.
Section 3—Widening access to higher education
Amendment 1, in the name of Liam McArthur, is grouped with amendments 14, 15, 2, 3, 16, 4, 19, 5, 20, 8, 21, 60, 61 and 6. If amendment 1 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 14 and 15 because of pre-emption.
I will speak to amendment 1, but I will also touch on the other amendments in the group. I apologise in advance for taking a little time to do so, given the number of amendments in the group.
There were many disagreements at stage 1 about a range of issues. In the end, that resulted in the Government being unable to persuade any members but its own that the bill is able or in fact necessary to achieve the lofty ambitions that have been set for it. However, members will recall that the committee was united in supporting the general policy objectives, primary among which is the need to accelerate and extend the process of widening access to our higher education institutions. The cabinet secretary seemed to accept that consensus during the stage 1 debate, at least in his opening remarks.
I believe that there is a broad-based and genuine consensus on the issue, and with good reason. For example, few would dispute that, although some progress has been made on extending access, it has been painfully slow and started from a base that was hardly a beacon of progressiveness even in these islands, let alone internationally. Much more needs to be done, and some institutions are rightly under more pressure than others to up their game.
Of course, progress can be achieved only with the universities working closely in collaboration with colleges, schools and other partners. However, the onus will rightly be on universities to demonstrate that progress is being made. How do we help to achieve that? For my part, I still believe that the funding levers that are at the disposal of ministers through the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council provide the most persuasive and effective tool if used in conjunction with beefed-up access agreements. I struggle to see what more is achieved through the statutory powers that Mr Russell seeks. However, in recognition of the parliamentary arithmetic, I believe that it is important that we make the provisions as workable as possible to reflect the evidence that we heard at stage 1.
In that regard, amendments 1 to 5 would make a number of important changes that I hope colleagues will support, although I appreciate that Neil Findlay, Joan McAlpine and Mark Griffin have sought through different means to achieve similar outcomes in certain respects.
One concern that we heard at stage 1 is that the Government’s approach to widening access lays too much emphasis on the Scottish index of multiple deprivation. Although the index is critical, that approach seems to the committee to risk overlooking those from deprived backgrounds who live in more affluent areas as well as other underrepresented groups. That point was made forcibly in a letter to the Scottish Government last month from 12 charities representing a wide range of such groups.
My amendments would make the new power specific to widening access agreements and would clarify the respective roles of the minister, the funding council and individual institutions. The amendments would make the institution, rather than the funding council, the initiator in proposing the content of access agreements. That would reflect best practice and certainly would not diminish the potential for the council to agree only to those agreements that it believes are sufficiently rigorous and ambitious.
Finally in relation to the amendments in my name, and before turning to those of colleagues, I will say a little about amendment 61. I appreciate that the minister may feel that there is already an ample body of research and other evidence to inform widening access agreements and to determine what is or is not likely to work most effectively. Nevertheless, in the light of the glacially slow progress made in this area over the years, I think that an argument can be made that good practice either is not being shared as widely as it should be or is perhaps not as good as we might imagine. Either way, my amendment 61 seeks to address that apparent shortcoming.
I turn to my colleagues’ amendments in this group. I appreciate that Neil Findlay is motivated by very much the same concerns. He, too, seeks to protect the interests of underrepresented groups, albeit in a more explicit fashion. I can see some problems with such a prescriptive approach, but I will listen to what he and the minister have to say before making up my mind on those amendments. I recognise that my amendment 1 will pre-empt Mr Findlay’s amendment 14 and Mark Griffin’s amendment 15.
Joan McAlpine’s amendment 8 seems to have the same policy intention as some of the early changes that I have proposed, although it perhaps does not allow enough flexibility in ensuring that different access agreements reflect the needs and deficiencies of specific institutions.
Finally, although I have a great deal of sympathy with Marco Biagi’s amendment 60—not least in its acknowledgement of the need for collaboration between universities and colleges in achieving meaningful improvements in widening access—it appears to ignore, or at least downplay, the role of the school sector in, if nothing else, helping to raise the ambition and the expectations of those we wish to see going to university in greater numbers.
I apologise that I have spoken at length on this group of amendments. I will attempt to make up for that in future groupings. However, this is a crucial area of the bill and we are some way from getting it right.
I move amendment 1.
I call Neil Findlay to speak to amendment 14 and to other amendments in the group.
Although we see amendment 1 as an improvement on what is in the bill, amendment 14 seeks to widen access and add those with protected characteristics to the SIMD 20 group. Amendment 14 would enable, encourage or increase the participation of a range of people covered by the Equality Act 2010, which lists the following characteristics:
“age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation.”
Amendment 14 is supported by a range of disability groups that have been very active in the issue and by the National Union of Students and others. We know that disabled people in particular struggle to access higher education and that, when they do so, they have difficulty in completing their studies. Widening access should be about what it says on the tin. Including the groups mentioned with the SIMD 20 group would assist disabled people in particular to access and complete courses.
Amendments 16, 19, 20 and 21 seek to maintain consistency throughout the section. Amendment 21 clarifies the protected characteristics to which I have referred and refers to the relevant provision, namely section 4 of the 2010 act.
We need to ensure that access is widened in all our institutions and that the usual excuses for failure are not simply trotted out.
I call Mark Griffin to speak to amendment 15 and to other amendments in the group.
I agree with many of Liam McArthur’s points on amendment 1, and so I support that amendment. In the event that that amendment falls, I will move amendment 15 because, in relation to the section on widening access to higher education, I feel that an access agreement should be drafted by the institution and that the Scottish ministers should approve that draft rather than specify it themselves.
I call Joan McAlpine to speak to amendment 8 and to other amendments in the group.
I regard the provisions on widening access as a very important step on the road to making much-needed progress on the issue. However, as I listened to stage 1 evidence, it seemed clear that the provisions in section 3 were often interpreted as targeting only those captured by the SIMD measure. I whole-heartedly agree with those who thought that the provisions had to be wider than that in order to be successful.
The purpose of amendment 8 is to make it absolutely clear that the provisions allow ministers to identify any group of people sharing a social or economic characteristic that is underrepresented to be the focus of efforts to increase participation. I believe that providing that clarification will help to ease the minds of stakeholders who are concerned about the limitations of the SIMD measure.
On Mr Findlay’s amendments, I understand Mr Findlay’s proposed approach to extend the definitions to protect all characteristics. Although I support the principle behind it, I do not think that it is appropriate in this section of the bill.
I call Marco Biagi to speak to amendment 60 and other amendments in the group.
Thank you, convener. It is good to be back at the committee—however briefly.
Amendment 60 draws from the discussions that have been had about the need to provide support for best practice in widening access. Although there have been calls from certain stakeholder organisations to create a widening access unit, whether in statute or otherwise, I feel that an independent body along the lines of the English equivalent would be unnecessary in Scotland because that English equivalent was set up as a result of £9,000 per year tuition fees that we do not have here. However, there is value, as Liam McArthur has touched on, in having such a body of research and evidence so, rather than establishing an entirely new quango, I propose in amendment 60 that the Scottish funding council should take on board that duty.
The Scottish funding council is established, respected and independent. In the current Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 that defines its roles, three key aims are set out: teaching, research, and a coherent system of higher education.
Section 20 of the 2005 act, which amendment 60 seeks to amend, is entitled:
“Council to have regard to particular matters”.
The section includes a long list of issues that the council has to take into consideration in its activities, including
“skills needs in Scotland; ... issues affecting the economy of Scotland; ... social and cultural issues in Scotland ... sustainable development ... The ... United Kingdom context; and ... international context”
and
“educational and related needs”.
I therefore think that section 20 of the 2005 act, after subsection 1, would be an appropriate place to insert a reference to widening access.
Paragraph (b) of subsection 1A that amendment 60 seeks to insert into section 20 of the 2005 act draws on the language that has already been used in the National Library of Scotland Act 2012 in giving the National Library of Scotland a duty to promote collaboration and knowledge sharing within its sector.
Do any other members wish to contribute at this stage?
I once again put on record the Scottish Conservatives’ support for the principle of widening access, which we believe is important not just for intrinsic educational reasons but for social and economic reasons—our parliamentary record substantiates that claim.
Our views differ considerably from the views of others on how the widening access agenda is best achieved. The last thing that we consider desirable or indeed necessary is greater stipulation about which groups should be offered places. In particular, we fail to see why there has to be a legislative underpinning when it is clear that the university sector believes that the outcome agreements can work just as well—indeed, I think that they are already doing so.
We have sympathy for amendments 1 to 5 that have been moved by Liam McArthur, but I have slight reservations about amendment 61. I also have some sympathy with some of the concerns that have been expressed about narrowing the measures. The SIMD 20 and 40 measures are far too narrow and we have taken on board a lot of what has been said on that. However, some of the other amendments are unduly overprescriptive policies that would have unintended consequences. I believe that they could be detrimental to universities’ flexibility and could lead to considerable bureaucratic legislation in the future. On that basis, I will not support the other amendments.
The provisions on widening access are one of the most important parts of the bill, and I do not think that anyone around the committee table would disagree on the social and economic imperatives that drive that. A lot of the amendments in this group are perhaps driven by commendable intention. However, I have concerns that some of them would dilute or water down the effective implementation of widening access and that, in some cases, they would constrain choices.
11:45
The effect of amendment 1 is to remove the ability of ministers to set any widening access agenda by identifying underrepresented socioeconomic groups on which the efforts to widen access could be focused. The question would be one of how to target people. The amendment puts too many constraints on the Government.
Amendment 15 reduces the role of ministers in determining what an access agreement would look like, as ministers must approve a description of any such agreement. It is not clear at what stage ministers would do so. There is vagueness about that.
Amendment 2 goes a bit further than simply clarifying that agreements are negotiated. It puts the institutions concerned into the driving seat and allows them to submit proposals to the SFC on what actions it should take. The role of the SFC would be somewhat diminished to reaching agreement on proposals, rather than taking a proactive role in specifying to institutions what should be achieved.
Amendments 3 to 5 appear to be an attempt to deal with concerns over focusing on postcode areas. The amendments might prevent that from happening, but the provisions would then not be focused on any particular group. The difficulty with that approach is that it makes it difficult explicitly to target specific underrepresented groups.
I support amendment 8 from Joan McAlpine.
There seems to be some concern as to whether amendments 14, 16 and 19 to 21 are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, as equal opportunities are reserved. They introduce the concept of
“persons having any protected characteristic”,
which seems to dilute the widening access provisions that the bill is trying to introduce. As things stand, section 3 is targeted at increasing participation among the people who are most underrepresented, which includes those from deprived socioeconomic backgrounds. Given the questions about whether those five amendments are within the Parliament’s legislative competence and the question of diluting widening access itself, I do not support them.
Amendment 6 seems to be a technical amendment, and I am not clear why it is necessary. I do not think that that has been clearly explained.
I support amendment 60 from Marco Biagi. Amendment 61 appears to be much narrower in scope than amendment 60, in that it provides only for certain work to be undertaken, presumably by a specific person or group, rather than outlining the important broader principle of encouraging general collaboration across the tertiary education sector, as amendment 60 does. I do not think that amendment 61 works, and I would not support it.
I back a lot of what my colleague Colin Beattie has said. I have concerns that Neil Findlay’s amendments might dilute the primary focus on people from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is a sheer emotional thing for me. I have the constituency containing the council ward with the area at the bottom of the list for multiple deprivation. Young people in that area should have the opportunity to be everything that they can be in life. Education can be the pathway out of poverty for many of them.
For me, that is the most important part of the bill. We could argue all day about the type of Scotland that we want in future, but we all want what is best for our constituents and for young people in Scotland. We must not dilute the idea of giving people from areas such as Ferguslie Park in Paisley the opportunity to access higher education.
In reflecting on the comments that have been made, I think that the intentions of the members who have lodged amendments are clear. I will support Joan McAlpine’s amendment 8, because it clearly gives the minister flexibility in driving the widening access agenda. I will give a specific example from my experience on the Equal Opportunities Committee. Being a Gypsy Traveller is not a protected characteristic and Gypsy Travellers would not fall into any of the areas, but they are underrepresented. Amendment 8 gives the cabinet secretary an opportunity to look at such areas. Flexibility is key.
Widening access is a very important area, and it is right that it is debated at some length. All the amendments in the group seek to bring new thinking to the debate, but at the end of the day there has to be a decision about how we widen access against the backdrop of a failure to make the progress that I believe society in Scotland has wanted to make for many years. We have to have absolute clarity about what we are going to achieve.
I will go through the amendments as briefly as I can. The cumulative effect of amendment 1 would actually be to restrict the roles and powers of ministers relating to wider access. It would only allow ministers to impose a condition on the council to require institutions to comply. All the other powers would be negated. The amendment would remove ministers’ ability to identify particular groups in respect of which efforts to increase participation should be focused.
In a similar vein, amendments 15 and 2 would diminish the role of ministers in determining what a widening access agreement should look like. Indeed, amendment 2, by removing the funding council’s power to specify the actions that institutions need to take, would put institutions in the driving seat when it comes to developing widening access agreements.
I regard amendments 1, 15 and 2 as undesirable as I believe that they would substantially diminish the effectiveness of the new section. Members might want to reflect that the lack of progress in widening access over the past decade means that it is essential that someone drives the agenda faster than the institutions have driven it themselves, and it is right that ministers should be the ones to do that. The status quo has not delivered any significant improvements to access in the past 10 years, so a new approach with a greater level of challenge is essential to drive progress. What Liam McArthur proposes with amendment 2 appears to be some form of self-regulation whereby institutions decide for themselves what should be done and simply require the SFC to sign off those proposals. That is not good enough.
Amendments 3 to 5 appear to be targeted at focusing section 3 on individuals rather than groups. I accept that there is some merit in that idea. It is important that the provisions are flexible enough not to exclude individuals whom we would wish the provisions to help but who do not readily fit into typical socioeconomic groups. However, the difficulty with amendments 3 to 5 is that they go too far the other way. The focus would be only on individuals, meaning that widening access agreements could not identify and target priority groups in which participation is low.
Joan McAlpine’s amendment 8 achieves similar aims but without those difficulties. It provides a helpful clarification that the widening access provisions are not intended to focus solely on people who are captured by the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, important as that measure undoubtedly is. The amendment makes it explicit that ministers can require the council to focus on any group of people who share a social or economic characteristic and who are underrepresented in higher education. Clare Adamson made that point well. The amendment makes it clear that the scope of the provisions may extend beyond groups geographically defined by SIMD to capture, for example, people with low incomes even if they reside in more affluent areas, and other groups. I am happy to support amendment 8.
I thank Neil Findlay for lodging amendments 14, 16 and 19 to 21 as it has allowed us to have this important and wide discussion. I strongly support the principle that those with protected characteristics should be adequately represented in our higher education sector, and I believe that the bill will ensure that they are. However, there are certain difficulties with the amendments. Equal opportunities are a reserved matter. We have just discussed the issue in relation to gender equalities. As such, I suspect that there will be real issues with the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate in this area.
There are also policy reasons for not supporting the amendments. New section 9B of the 2005 act, which is inserted by the bill, has a sharp focus on the people who most need our help to access higher education—people from deprived socioeconomic backgrounds. All the evidence that we have clearly demonstrates that that is the area in which Scotland’s problems with access primarily lie. It is therefore right that the bill’s emphasis is on those people who most need our help. There is a risk that significantly extending the groups to be captured by the provision would dilute the effectiveness of our primary policy objective to get people from deprived backgrounds into higher education. Amendment 8 does not do that.
Amendment 6 seeks to remove an amendment to the 2005 act that makes it clear that ministers cannot impose terms and conditions on the funding council relating to the admission of students, except with regard to the widening access provisions. However, the effect of the amendment would be to prevent ministers from exercising their powers in relation to widening access under the new section 9B(1) and 9B(2). That is consistent with the overall approach in Liam McArthur’s amendments, but it is inconsistent with the approach that we not only are committed to but need to take.
Amendments 60 and 61 appear to be similar, but there are fundamental differences between them. The principles underlying amendment 60 are consistent with the prominence that we are seeking to place on widening access and the significant progress that we need to see on that. Establishing widening access is a key matter that the funding council must have regard to in the exercise of its functions, and that will help us to achieve that progress.
Widening access would sit rather neatly with the key matters that are set out in section 20 of the 2005 act to which the council must give regard: skills needs, issues affecting the economy and social and cultural issues in Scotland, as well as the education and related needs of students. However, there are technical issues with amendment 60 that require to be ironed out. It does not make it clear whether it is ministers or the council who are to identify the particular socioeconomic groups to which the duty is related. In addition, if the amendment is to relate to further education, it should probably also capture collaboration with or between regional strategic bodies. Furthermore, there are some consistency issues with the general duty to encourage collaboration placed on the council by section 22(8) of the 2005 act that require to be considered.
I do not necessarily object to the principle of Liam McArthur’s amendment 61 but, in practice, it is narrower in scope than amendment 60. Amendment 61 simply provides for the funding council to ensure that the work is done to develop widening access. I assume that that work would be done by a specific person or group rather than through the application of the broader principle of the council promoting collaboration, but that is not clear. Amendment 61 could also be interpreted as something broadly similar to the function discharged by the Office for Fair Access in England, which exists to mitigate the difficulties caused by the introduction of tuition fees. That is not a problem that exists in Scotland.
I invite the committee to reject amendments 1, 15, 2, 14, 16, 19 to 21, 23 to 26 and 61 and to support amendment 8. I ask Marco Biagi to withdraw amendment 60 on the understanding that I will return with a similar amendment at stage 3. I am happy to discuss the matter with him as we develop that amendment.
I am conscious that I have had more opportunity to speak on this group of amendments than I get in some debates in the chamber. I will be as brief as I can.
As I have indicated, I appreciate what Neil Findlay is looking to achieve through his amendments. He is absolutely right about the range of underrepresented groups whose interests must be uppermost in our minds as we progress the provisions in this part of the bill. However, I share same of the concerns about the prescriptive nature of his amendments as drafted.
I thank Mark Griffin for his support for my amendment; I will return the compliment by supporting his amendment—although I think it unlikely that either of our amendments will be passed. I suspect that, if that were to happen, I suspect that we would be in uncharted territory.
Joan McAlpine was right in saying that the evidence that we heard at stage 1 was that the bill failed to capture the broader range of underrepresented groups that need to be addressed as part of the widening access agenda. I am happy to support her amendment 8.
It is certainly good to have Marco Biagi back. During the earlier part of this year, when flight delays were affecting my constituency, his attendance record at this committee was better than my own. However, although I have sympathy for his amendment 60—as I have said—I have concerns about the extent to which it glosses over the role that the school sector has in promoting the widening access agenda. That is perhaps something that can also be picked up on as the amendment is developed ahead of stage 3.
I thank Liz Smith for her comments. I share her concerns about the legislative underpinning that is felt to be necessary to the provisions. However, at this stage, there is scant evidence that the access agreements are having the effect that we would all wish to see. The funding levels remain critical in ensuring progress is made.
12:00
Colin Beattie talked in disparaging terms about putting universities in the driving seat on access agreements. I have no objection to universities being in the driving seat, albeit with the funding council having oversight and only agreeing to access agreements that are robust, rigorous and ambitious enough to meet our objectives.
George Adam is absolutely right that we should not lose sight of the desire to widen the scope of the widening access provisions and the socioeconomic factors.
In his remarks, the cabinet secretary seemed to have an issue with the diminishing of the role of ministers, and it would appear that the self-denying ordinance in amendment 7 will be the exception rather than the rule. He also talked about putting institutions in the driving seat: obviously he was operating from Colin Beattie’s script. He has the funding levers to achieve much of what we wish to achieve. I appreciate his concerns about amendment 61 so I am inclined to not move that and throw my support behind the approach taken by Marco Biagi.
I think that covers all the points that have been raised. I will press amendment 1.
I remind members that, if amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 14 and 15 will be pre-empted.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Amendment 14 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 14 disagreed to.
Amendment 15 moved—[Mark Griffin].
The question is, that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 15 disagreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
Amendment 3 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
Amendment 16 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16 disagreed to.
Amendment 17, in the name of Marco Biagi, is grouped with amendment 18. I call Marco Biagi to move amendment 17 and to speak to the other amendment in the group.
Amendment 17 focuses on the process of developing the widening access agreements, which will be important for taking forward our desired direction of travel on widening access. Given the importance of considering higher education institutions as broad learning communities, the process of developing the agreements should involve input from all sectors of those communities, including the staff and students as well as the institution’s governing body. In that way, we will be able to ensure that the widening access agreements are not only better designed but the subject of wider ownership within the institution. Amendment 17 would also rescue some of the sense of Liam McArthur’s amendment 2, in that the amendment will ensure that there is consultation with the institution.
Although amendments 17 and 18 attempt to do broadly the same thing, I draw a distinction between them in two areas. First, amendment 17 places the duty to consult on the SFC rather than on the individual higher education institution, which should already have established consultative procedures for the involvement of staff and students. Secondly, amendment 17 focuses on those trade unions that are recognised by the council rather than those that are recognised by the individual institution. Given the status of industrial relations, it would probably be better for the long term if the council approached unions that were generally representative of the staff body rather than only those that were formally recognised by the institution.
I move amendment 17.
Amendment 18 seeks to work towards the same principles as amendment 17, so I agree with most of what Mr Biagi said. However, where amendment 18 differs is that, in drafting the widening access agreement, the focus would be on the individual institution rather than with the council. Therefore, the institution would be under an obligation to consult representative trade unions and its students association. That is why I will move amendment 18.
On amendments 17 and 18, I am happy to support the principle that an element of consultation with the staff and students of institutions should be injected into the process of widening access agreements.
Although I support that underlying principle, I have difficulty with amendment 18 because it would place the duty to consult on the institutions as opposed to the funding council in formulating a widening access agreement. Although in practice the widening access agreements will be the result of negotiation between the council and institutions, new section 9B—as we know from our previous debate—makes it clear that it is ultimately for the funding council to specify what actions an institution must take based on those negotiations. Therefore, it is more appropriate that the duty to consult is placed on the council, given that the council has the authority to specify what actions an agreement should contain.
Amendment 17, in the name of Marco Biagi, navigates a course through those difficulties. Therefore, I invite the committee to support amendment 17 and to reject amendment 18.
I call Marco Biagi to wind up and to indicate whether he will press amendment 17.
I am content to press amendment 17.
The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Against
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Abstentions
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 17 agreed to.
Amendment 18 moved—[Mark Griffin].
The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 18 disagreed to.
Amendment 4 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 4 disagreed to.
Amendment 19 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 19 disagreed to.
Amendment 5 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.
Amendment 20 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 20 disagreed to.
Amendment 8 moved—[Joan McAlpine].
The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Against
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Abstentions
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 1, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendment 21 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 21 disagreed to.
Amendment 22, in the name of Marco Biagi, is in a group on its own.
12:15
Amendment 22 aims to ensure that there is a regular review of widening access. The first review would occur up to three years after the bill receives royal assent, and reviews would subsequently take place at three-year intervals.
The principle of having regular reviews is common in legislation. The Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Act 2008 includes a commitment to review the act’s effect on widening access. In other areas, where large-scale changes or major policy initiatives have been undertaken, such reviews are—broadly speaking—commonplace.
The stage 1 debate focused on whether widening access agreements will work. Based on that concern, I think that there is a space for a requirement to produce an analysis at regular intervals that will allow MSPs, stakeholder bodies and all others to take stock of progress.
I recognise that there may be technical issues, not least because the amendments that have already been agreed have affected key terms in my amendment, but I will proceed.
I move amendment 22.
I welcome amendment 22. There is no doubt that successive Governments have struggled to make the sort of progress on widening access that we wish for. As Marco Biagi says, it is sensible to keep under review any legislative changes that we make in that area.
Universities Scotland has raised concerns about such a statutory provision and whether it would duplicate what happens already or what is set to happen. As with amendment 17, I have some concerns that amendment 22 does not necessarily reflect the wider role and responsibility of other aspects of the education sector in delivering on our widening access objectives. Nevertheless, I support the policy intention behind the amendment, and I am happy to vote for it subject to further refinement.
Although the policy intention is fine, amendment 22 is unnecessary because review already takes place in the context of the outcome agreements. The amendment could be restrictive, as anything to do with widening access in schools, which is perhaps one of the most important policy areas that we have to deal with, would be outwith its jurisdiction. For that reason, I will not support the amendment.
Amendment 22 raises important issues and has clear value, and I thank Marco Biagi for lodging it. The purpose of section 3 is to empower ministers in providing funding to the funding council to impose conditions relating to widening access to higher education for underrepresented socioeconomic groups in order to stimulate what we need, which is substantial progress. It makes sense that we should periodically review whether that progress is in fact being made. Indeed, the importance of rigorously evaluating progress is such that the question arises of whether we ought to review the position with regard to widening access for all underrepresented groups more expansively.
Given the way in which the amendment has been drafted, it would not require a comprehensive overall review of widening access. Instead, it would place a duty on the funding council to review and report at least every three years only on the impact of new section 9B of the 2005 act. That is important, but it should not be the end of the story. A broader review of access could fulfil that function while assessing the overall national picture. For example, we should ask whether there are groups for which participation is falling, whether there are emerging priorities and where we can best focus our efforts and resources in future. Those are the sorts of issues that a more general review could tackle, which the review that is proposed in amendment 22 would not address.
Having given the matter a great deal of consideration, I intend to lodge an amendment at stage 3 that would place a duty on the funding council to review access in a more expansive and significant way. I ask Marco Biagi to withdraw the amendment—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Am I allowed to take an intervention? I am willing to take one.
I am breaking with tradition. Liz Smith and I made the point about the wider responsibility of the education sector as a whole in delivering on widening access objectives, and you have picked up that theme in a number of debates on the issue. What will you put in the amendment that you will seek to lodge at stage 3 to capture that wider responsibility?
I am happy to take that away as an issue to consider—whether we can capture that, whether the funding council’s role can be seen as being wider than simply dealing with the bodies that it funds and whether it could draw in that issue.
If we agreed to amendment 22, we would end up with a narrow review. Liz Smith is quite right to argue that the origins of many of the issues of wider access lie elsewhere. I have spoken about the issues at the school gate that we need to address. I am happy to include those points and to return, if I can, with a more comprehensive stage 3 amendment. I am also happy to have conversations about the matter.
Based on that assurance from the cabinet secretary, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 22, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
After section 3
Amendment 23 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 23 disagreed to.
Section 4—Fee cap: students liable for higher education fees
Amendment 9, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 25 to 28.
Amendment 9 is straightforward in its terms, and I hope that its effect will be uncontroversial. It clarifies that the order-making power to be conferred on ministers is a power to set a cap on fees chargeable per academic year of a course, rather than to set a cap on the total fees that are chargeable for a course as a whole. I am moving the amendment to make it absolutely clear that the fee cap is to relate to a particular academic year at a Scottish institution. That is essential to ensure that there is no confusion among students or institutions as to what section 4 does.
In response to amendments 25 to 28, I have made it clear on many occasions that I view the fee arrangements for rest-of-UK students as a necessary evil, which I would dearly like to see the back of. The Government does not support tuition fees, and we have been consistent in our opposition to them in any shape or form.
As the committee is well aware, this is the first year when the new fee arrangements for rest-of-UK students have been in place, and they are having the desired effect of providing opportunities for Scotland-domiciled learners to access places at Scottish universities.
The provision in section 4 seeks to provide a basis for formalising the voluntary agreement that we have with the sector, and amendments 25 and 27 would detract from that. The aim of removing references to academic years seems to be that ministers should be prevented from setting the cap at more than the maximum total cost of the standard three-year degree course elsewhere in the UK. That fails to take account of the fact that some degrees elsewhere in the UK are longer than three years. Some are longer than four years.
The amendments would therefore not achieve their stated aim. All that they would do would be to constrain ministers’ power under proposed new section 9C of the 2005 act to set the cap in such a way that fees for any course at a Scottish institution did not exceed the highest fees that would be payable by the person if they attended any course elsewhere in the UK. That could include courses longer than four years. The amendments would actually weaken the protection for rest-of-UK students that we have built into the bill’s provisions. I am sure that that was not Mr Findlay’s intention, but that would be the effect of his proposals.
I am aware of the concerns that Universities Scotland has raised in relation to the aspect of the bill that amendments 26 and 28, in the name of Liz Smith, seek to address, and I have looked again at the detail of the drafting in the light of those concerns. I am satisfied that the bill as drafted does not allow for the ambiguity that is claimed.
I would consider stage 3 amendments that helped with the matter in any sense, but the proposed changes under Liz Smith’s amendments would introduce ambiguity to an already clear provision. I therefore cannot accept them—I would have accepted any such suggestion if it really clarified matters, but the bill is clear enough, and the amendments leave, and indeed increase, ambiguity.
I ask the committee to reject amendments 25 and 27, in the name of Neil Findlay, and amendments 26 and 28, in the name of Liz Smith.
I move amendment 9.
Rest-of-UK students in Scotland have some of the highest fees in the whole of the UK, and we appear to have legislated for a market in education through the introduction of variable fees. There are no minimum standards, protections or safeguards for RUK students, and there is no provision to address fears around fair access or the lack of it for the poorest RUK students.
The provision in the bill is to set the maximum amount chargeable by Scottish institutions to RUK students, linked to the maximum amount that they would be liable to pay in any given academic year elsewhere in the UK. That means that, due to the four-year degree structure in Scotland, we now have potentially some of the most expensive higher education fees in UK countries.
The amendment would, as a bare minimum, reduce the fee cap to ensure that the cost is faced across the entire degree and is equalised between Scotland and the rest of the UK, not just across academic years. Amendment 27 simply follows on from that.
Generally speaking, I am content with the policy intentions of the section. However, I remain slightly concerned that the wording in this section does not avoid a possible interpretation that the fees charged by Scottish universities to Wales-domiciled students would have to be at the maximum of the Welsh university rate. Amendments 26 and 28 are designed to ensure absolute clarity on that. I am not convinced that that clarity exists just now.
The debate on this issue rests on the fact that fees exist in the rest of the UK—although that debate is not for today. As the cabinet secretary suggested, these arrangements are a necessary evil at this stage. I cannot accept amendments 25 and 27, because they would undermine the arrangements that are in place already to protect our UK students. The cabinet secretary also said that there does not appear to be an average degree in the UK, given that degrees vary between three and five years. On the whole, amendments 25 and 27 could make matters even more difficult.
I want to repeat two points that I made earlier. First, Liz Smith’s amendments introduce additional ambiguity. I remain open to any suggestion that might come from the sector, Liz Smith or elsewhere for an amendment that would decrease ambiguity. We should not be adding ambiguity to the bill at this stage. Secondly, I ask Mr Findlay not to press his amendments. They are not sensible, as they would make the situation worse for students from the rest of the UK.
I press amendment 9.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Amendment 24, in the name of Neil Findlay, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 24 would require institutions to provide bursaries to students from low-income families from the rest of the UK so that they could afford the fees and increased living costs of coming to study in Scotland. We do not want low-income and working-class students from the rest of the UK to be put off from applying to universities such as St Andrews and Edinburgh because they have higher fees. Amendment 24 would ensure that students choose the institution and course that is right for them, rather than choose the price that is right for them.
I move amendment 24.
If the provisions that are set out in amendment 24 are not in place, they certainly should be. I share the view of NUS Scotland that the absence of an equivalent in Scotland of the Office for Fair Access is an unfortunate weakness in the arrangements north of the border. Indeed, in the light of Universities Scotland’s claims about the relative spending on bursaries north and south of the border, it is interesting to note that the level of participation at university among those from more deprived backgrounds appears to be better—and certainly is improving faster—down south than it is in Scotland. I will listen with interest to what the cabinet secretary has to say, but I think that the amendment is well made.
12:30
I agree with some—if not all—members of the committee that the monetarisation of higher education has produced wrong and damaging consequences and should be rejected, and amendment 24 indicates the same. I am aware of the issue that Mr Findlay seeks to address. I have spoken to NUS Scotland a number of times about its concerns in that area, and we have developed and implemented proposals.
I believe that the proposed change is unnecessary, for two reasons. First, the proposals to improve access that we have set out elsewhere in the bill will create a framework in which universities will create opportunities for all learners who wish to pursue higher education in Scotland. In particular, the evidence that we have seen suggests that our universities are already delivering extremely competitive and helpful bursary packages for rest-of-UK students, and the amendment would therefore add additional complexity and bureaucracy where it is not necessary.
Secondly, the offers from our institutions compare favourably with those of their competitors, which has helped them to achieve significant increases in applications from students of all backgrounds from elsewhere in the UK. The Office for Fair Access that exists south of the border was established to mitigate a policy that I believe was wrong, and which we do not have in Scotland.
I will press amendment 24.
The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 24 disagreed to.
Amendment 25 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 25 disagreed to.
Amendment 26 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 26 disagreed to.
Amendment 27 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 27 disagreed to.
Amendment 28 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 28 disagreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
That ends today’s consideration of the bill at stage 2. At next week’s meeting, we will consider amendments to the remainder of the bill. The deadline for lodging amendments is this Thursday at noon.
12:34
Meeting suspended.
12:37
On resuming—