The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-13313, in the name of Liz Smith, on Scotland’s universities. We are extraordinarily tight for time today.
14:42
It does not really matter which academic, economic or social measurement is chosen—Scottish universities are held in high esteem throughout the world. That is because they have a long-standing and proud tradition of attracting the very best students and staff, of achieving academic excellence and of maintaining their international competitiveness. That, together with the fact that higher education is one of the key sectors of the Scottish economy, contributing £6.7 billion annually, makes them hugely significant institutions that both define and enhance the academic, social and cultural life of Scotland.
What are the features that have allowed them to do that? First, it is their diversity. We have 16 universities, including the Open University, and three specialist higher education institutions—Glasgow School of Art, the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland and Scotland’s Rural College. Their ages range from two to 601 and their foundations reflect our diverse educational history, way back to ancient papal bull and royal charters. Five were established by the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 and one by Privy Council consent, and four are companies limited by guarantee.
Most importantly, that diversity reflects each institution’s unique role when it comes to the pursuit of academic excellence and its contribution to world-class research and knowledge exchange. Time after time, those in the sector point to the crucial importance of maintaining that diversity if Scotland is to continue to lead the way—a point stressed by Louise Richardson in her recent speech to the Scottish Council of Independent Schools and by several other principals, who seem increasingly prepared to express in public their fears that increasing the amount of Government regulation is detrimental to the diversity of the university system. Their view is not just personal opinion; it is based on professional experience and the fact that Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development studies across the world have found a direct correlation between institutional autonomy and the quality of the education offered.
Just three weeks ago, Professor Peter Downes of Universities Scotland, who is the principal of the University of Dundee, said that the Scottish Government should
“reflect seriously on the wide range of evidence that says the proposals in the consultation paper”
on governance
“will damage universities’ contribution to Scotland’s success”.
He added that that was a comment not just from the sector but from many voices in civic Scotland. It is a strong comment from a sector that bends over backwards to be non-political and objective in its analysis.
Until now, university autonomy has never been in question, for the simple reason that that autonomy has allowed the institutions to employ their expertise and professional judgment when it comes to teaching and to investing in the future—something that, quite clearly, gives them the versatility that is so crucial if they are to respond effectively to the demands of the global context. We should be in no doubt about the speed with which that versatility must operate, as universities respond to the intense international pressures that are constantly on them.
A third factor is the fact that our universities have enjoyed good governance through structures that have continued to evolve over the years to ensure that there is effective, inclusive and transparent management of the universities as they seek to be fully accountable for both the public and the private funds that they receive.
I have looked carefully at the submissions to the consultation, and there have been criticisms from some quarters. Notably, the University and College Union and the National Union of Students say that the opposite is true—that there is very little transparency in the management of the universities and that they are somehow out of touch. I have read their submissions carefully and note their concerns about the levels of principals’ pay and references to freedom of information requests about senior management remunerations, which the UCU claims were not sufficiently transparent. Apart from those submissions, however, I am struggling to find any evidence whatsoever that supports the claim that the current form of university governance is a major issue.
That is a serious matter, because it seems that the Scottish Government is hell bent on meddling in that governance and exerting more control over the sector. To what end would it do that? Where is the evidence that the current governance structures are in any way having a detrimental effect on the educational experiences of our students, on academic standards or on the ability of institutions to attract the best staff?
One of the Scottish Government’s proposals is to ensure that there are elected chairs of court, who would be voted in by a much wider electorate than just the members of the courts. However, what would happen to the crucial working relationship between the chairman and the board if the successful candidate was not one in whom the board had any confidence or for whom it did not vote? Do boards not already include staff, students and alumni as well as a diverse range of independent members who bring expertise from a very wide range of backgrounds, whether in the public, private or third sectors?
In any case, why should the composition of senates or academic bodies be a matter for any Government? Would it actually be legal for the Scottish Parliament to require those institutions that are constituted as companies, such as the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, to change their articles of association? In the context of the charitable status that our universities enjoy, how would moves to amend the powers of boards sit with their regulation by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator?
Another worrying proposal by the Scottish Government is to legislate to include in the statutory requirement for academic freedom the “exploration of new ideas”. Why should we do that? Have the universities not proved over many generations that they are perfectly capable of fostering new ideas without any Government telling them what to do? The Scottish Government also says that it wants to force university governing bodies and courts to include representatives of particular interest groups—something that would not only be contrary to the Nolan committee principles of probity within public life but undermine the independence of the governing council. Yet again, the Scottish Government has not provided one shred of evidence as to why that should be necessary.
Is it because the Scottish Government believes university governance perpetrates inequalities? I do not think so, because the current system of governance has the full support of the Equality Challenge Unit, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. Is it because there is a gender equality issue, with too few women in governance positions? No, because no fewer than five out of the last six appointments to chairs of court have been women and 42 per cent of all the recent appointments to governing bodies have been women—and they are there on merit. Is it because the university governing bodies are not seen to be sufficiently accountable? I do not think that it is that either, because recent research has shown that universities are involved in no fewer than 550 lines of reporting to Government and external agencies and that not one of those has made a complaint about reporting procedures.
I ask again: where is the evidence that there is any sense of failure among the current structures of governance that is undermining the performance of our universities? Would it not be better for the Scottish Government, instead of trying to tackle a problem that does not exist, to concentrate on the problems that do exist and on the real educational priorities such as raising literacy and numeracy levels, closing the attainment gap and providing better bursary support for poorer students?
All the Scottish National Party’s boasting about free higher education hides the truth that students from poorer backgrounds are proportionately worse off now compared with when the SNP came to power. That has prompted Lucy Hunter Blackburn, who was the Scottish Government’s higher education officer between 2000 and 2004, to say recently:
“Scotland is unique in having a system which assigns the highest student debt to those from the lowest income homes”.
Indeed, in Scotland, non-repayable grants form a significantly lower percentage of total student support than is the case in other jurisdictions. Student support is a serious issue, and the facts do not sit well with the Scottish Government’s claims that social justice is at the very centre of its policy focus.
Of course, all that raises the much wider issue about what is a more sustainable and equitable method of university funding. The SNP has made plain many times that it is committed to free higher education. That is its choice, but in making that choice it must explain how it will fund it. Will it cut college budgets again or will it cut other areas of public expenditure? Will it raise taxes? How will it close the funding gap, which is undoubtedly growing between Scotland and the other parts of the UK? Will it continue with its highly discriminatory policy whereby domiciled Scots and EU students pay no fees while their counterparts from the rest of UK and non-EU foreign students do? How will it raise sufficient bursary funds to support poorer students?
Those are the issues that the Scottish public wants answered before the Scottish election next year rather than some vindictive, bureaucratic and completely unnecessary attack on university governance, which shows no sign whatsoever of having any problems. How will the Scottish Government explain to the people of Scotland that that is its priority rather than all the other pressing issues in education?
As we await the Scottish Government’s legislative response to the consultation, I ask that it takes stock carefully and considers what is in our universities’ best interests. Is that an autonomous and free-thinking sector, or is it one that is increasingly in thrall to Government and its restrictive practices?
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the outstanding contribution that Scottish universities make to the academic, economic, social and cultural life of Scotland and to the enhancement of Scotland’s international reputation; believes that their ability to achieve excellence is dependent on their longstanding ability to attract both students and staff of the highest quality, their international competitiveness, their ability to act with versatility to take advantage of opportunities for the institution and the fact that they are autonomous institutions; recognises that current mechanisms of higher education governance are inclusive of staff and students, including them as members of the governing body, and are a central part of what is an open and transparent process for recruiting a university’s principal and chair for the annual appraisal of those roles, and is concerned that the current funding arrangements for higher education and the principles that underpin the Scottish Government’s proposals to reform university governance threaten to undermine the ability of Scottish universities to remain world class institutions and diminish the autonomy that has been the main driver of their success.
14:51
I am pleased that the Conservatives have chosen to discuss higher education, because that gives me the opportunity to celebrate Scotland’s universities and the achievements of their staff and students.
I want to highlight this Government’s commitment to invest in our universities to benefit all learners, to grow our economy, and to enhance the international reputation for teaching and research that is enjoyed by our institutions. It is clear that universities make a pivotal contribution to Scotland by enabling a better educated workforce, fostering inclusive economic growth, and supporting links and collaboration with our neighbours in the UK, the EU and other nations across the world.
Rankings from October 2014 show that Scotland has four universities in the top 200 in the world, which is more per head of population than any other country apart from Switzerland. Scottish higher education is thriving. In 2014, Eurostat figures highlighted that Scotland had the highest percentage of the population with tertiary education attainment of all European countries listed: at 46.5 per cent, that is 6 percentage points higher than the UK figure of 40.5 per cent.
I absolutely agree with those statistics, but what are the grounds on which universities have achieved such outstanding success?
The £1 billion annual funding to which this Government is committed has made some contribution. Of course, many others should be congratulated, not least of which are the staff, the students and the institutions.
I will move on to some of Liz Smith’s substantive points. I make it clear that this Government values universities’ autonomous nature. That is, in part, why we have had the confidence to invest more than £4 billion in the higher education sector since 2011, and why funding worth more than £1 billion is planned for the next academic year.
However, with many areas of Government expenditure under pressure, it is not easy to maintain that heavyweight financial commitment. As part of the return for the investment, we expect institutions to adhere to the highest governance standards.
Building on the work that has been done since the publication of the “Report of the Review of Higher Education Governance in Scotland” in 2012, we plan to introduce a bill to Parliament in the very near future. The new legislation will enhance governance arrangements in our universities.
As a Government, we want to work with universities to ensure that their governance arrangements are always evolving, modern, transparent and inclusive. Our legislative plans are designed to complement work that our institutions are already doing. The autonomous nature of our universities has many benefits, but in return for its substantial investment the Scottish Government wants to help ensure that all parts of the university community have their voices heard in a more consistent way.
Why does the cabinet secretary think that Professor Downes said that the Scottish Government should
“reflect seriously on the wide range of evidence that says the proposals in the consultation paper will damage universities’ contribution to Scotland’s success”?
We are indeed considering the wide range of evidence that is available in Scotland and across the developed world. In addition, as an open and transparent Government, we have published the consultation that was conducted earlier on this year; we have been very open about that. I appreciate and understand the views of people such as Professor Downes. On the other side, I have received representations from organisations such as the University and College Union Scotland, which delivered 1,400 postcards—one of which I have here; the rest are sitting in my office—that call for improvements in higher education governance.
It is important to stress that the existing governance structures, which have been informed by the code of good governance, have served institutions well, but I believe that higher education is capable of further improvements. Greater inclusivity and more transparent governance can only help our universities to develop and adapt to the challenges that they will face in the future.
The Government is rightly proud of its defence and maintenance of free tuition. Elsewhere in these islands, students are expected to accumulate loan debt of up to £27,000 to pay for their period of study, and it is possible that the UK Government might allow that figure to increase.
We recognise the positive contribution that our universities make to Scotland’s economy and society, and the benefits that they and Scotland derive from levering in additional funding from Europe and welcoming international students. The Government will continue to push for the reintroduction of the post-study work visa.
Scotland’s higher education progress and achievements are all the more impressive in that they have been achieved against a backdrop of a UK Government that is focused on austerity, on restricting access to study in the UK for international students and on fostering instability by taking forward plans for an in/out referendum on membership of the EU.
You are in your final 30 seconds.
I want to briefly share a couple of facts on what universities and the Government have achieved by working together. We know that the number of Scotland-domiciled first degree university entrants has risen and that 57 per cent of those students are female. In the time available, it is difficult to tell the whole story of the collective success of our universities, but it is clear that Scottish universities have a world-class reputation for research, because 77 per cent of their research was assessed as “world-leading” or “internationally excellent” in the 2014 research excellence framework.
I look forward to the rest of the debate.
I move amendment S4M-13313.2, to leave out from “dependent on” to end and insert:
“linked strongly to their longstanding ability to attract both students and staff of the highest quality, their international competitiveness, their ability to act with versatility to take advantage of opportunities for the institution and the fact that they are autonomous institutions; further believes that autonomy should not, in the words of Professor Ferdinand von Prondzynski, the Principal of Robert Gordon University and author of the Report of the Review of Higher Education Governance in Scotland, which was published in 2012, ‘shield them from legitimate expectations that they engage with staff, students and external partners, or from the need to behave in an accountable manner’; agrees that access to university should be based on the ability to learn not the ability to pay; recognises the commitment that the Scottish Government has made to higher education, investing over £4 billion in the sector in the last four years, enabling universities to lever in money from other sources and helping Scotland maintain its reputation as a leading nation in higher education; calls for the restoration of the post-study work visa and continued membership of the European Union to ensure that universities continue to flourish, and looks forward to ongoing collaboration with Scotland’s world-renowned universities to support their continued success.”
14:59
The amendment in my name seeks to leave intact the first half or so of the Conservative motion, for the simple reason that there can be no disagreement with the statement that our universities make an outstanding contribution
“to the academic, economic, social and cultural life of Scotland and to the enhancement of Scotland’s international reputation”.
When it comes to our universities, we punch well above our weight. As has been pointed out even this early in the debate, we have four of the top 200 universities, which is the highest concentration of world-class universities per head of population anywhere in the world. Ms Smith highlighted the sector’s economic impact, which is estimated at more than £6.5 billion, and the sector also generates £1.3 billion of export earnings. The cabinet secretary mentioned post-work visas and overseas students, and I note that some 30,000 students from 180 countries come to Scotland to study.
However, we know—and Ms Smith pointed out—that competitors in the rest of the developed world and in fast-growing economies are making rapid progress in competing with our higher education institutions. The truth is that, if we stand still, we will find ourselves going backwards. The Scottish Government has invested in the sector—certainly in comparison with further education, where 140,000 students have been lost to our colleges, or with schools, which have more than 4,000 fewer teachers than when the SNP came to power—but there are still worrying signs.
For example, this year’s budget, which the Parliament approved just recently, allocated to higher education a flat cash settlement of just over £1 billion. Days later, however, university funding was cut by £21 million, resulting in the abolition of the global excellence fund, which had been launched only two years previously, as well as cuts to research funding in all our major universities. Moreover, that budget cut capital funding to a historic low.
Commentators have questioned transfers of HE resource to the Student Awards Agency for Scotland to support student funding, which have created funding pressures elsewhere. The transfer now amounts to £14 million per year and, combined with the clawback, the reality is that the universities settlement this year is down by around 2.5 per cent. Those pressures are having an impact, with job cuts threatened in Aberdeen, in Dundee and at the Scottish marine institute in Oban. That shows exactly how a standstill budget can quickly turn into decline if the warning signals are ignored.
Nonetheless, our universities are the recipients of very large sums of public funding. They are autonomous, and that autonomy should be properly guarded, particularly over what they teach, what research they carry out and what academic challenges they might mount to whomsoever they choose. However, they also properly have an obligation to face a degree of accountability, transparency and consistency in their governance and administration. That was the conclusion of the Prondzynski review into higher education governance.
The lack of accountability has been symbolised, above all, by the high levels of principals’ pay, with significant increases and bonuses paid in many cases, throughout a period of public sector pay restraint. All that happened while the sector was one of the worst offenders, at least in the public sector, on low pay and the use of zero-hours contracts. I am happy to acknowledge recent progress on the living wage, zero-hours contracts and governance in the sector, although one has to wonder about the degree to which the imminence of the potential legislation that is part of today’s debate pushed the sector in that direction.
Moreover, progress has been slow and sporadic, which is why we cannot agree with the main thrust of the Tory motion. We do not believe that the Government's proposed legislation compromises our universities’ academic autonomy or that the voluntary introduction of a governance review will provide the required transparency and consistency. We support the election of chairs, although much work has still to be done on the detail; greater diversity on ruling bodies; and direct representation for trade unions on governing bodies.
We say yes to autonomy, but responsible autonomy, and we say yes to ancient institutions, but ancient institutions that are redesigned for the modern world, as they must be to maintain their crucial and pivotal role at the centre of our nation.
I move amendment S4M-13313.1, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert:
“welcomes their continued successes in attracting high-quality students and staff from all over the world and in producing research of global renown; notes that they do so against a backdrop of budget pressures, including the loss of £21 million from the Scottish Government in research funding and a planned €2.2 billion cut to EU Horizon 2020 funding, and through the efforts of hard-working staff and researchers, some of whom are on zero-hours contracts and many facing significant pressure to win funding grants and publish papers; further notes the 150 planned job losses at the University of Aberdeen, as well as recent industrial action at the University of Dundee following the announcement of 170 job losses; supports the University and College Union’s call for the Scottish Government to step in and save vital jobs at the Scottish Association for Marine Science, which is planning to make redundant 15 members of staff at the remote marine research centre near Oban, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that the higher education sector in Scotland remains internationally competitive.”
15:04
I agree that our university sector makes an outstanding contribution to Scotland academically, socially and culturally. That is why the Scottish Government is maintaining university budgets while the UK Government cuts its funding for English universities.
The major point for me is that Scotland is a leading nation in higher education, as the cabinet secretary said. It has been mentioned that four of its universities are in the world top 200, and our higher education institutions undertake research that is of world-leading quality.
It is an important fact that education is free of fees in Scotland. Compared with the cost of studying in England, free tuition saves more than 120,000 undergraduate students up to £27,000.
The final point that I will develop further is that the public have the right to expect universities to be accountable. That is why we must look at the governance of our higher education.
The Scottish Government is maintaining university budgets while the UK Government is cutting its funding. The investment in Scotland’s universities supports their world-class and high-impact research and helps them to build links around the world. Many of my colleagues have mentioned how successful that has been. The Scottish Government is providing more than £1 billion a year for the higher education sector in 2014-15 and 2015-16.
Scotland’s reputation in the university sector is well known throughout the world. That reputation is proven internationally by the fact that Scotland is a leading nation in higher education. The editor of the Times Higher Education rankings, Phil Baty, has said that Scotland is
“really standing out as one of the strongest higher education countries in the world”.
That alone tells us what other people think of the higher education sector in Scotland.
My colleagues have mentioned that the public have a right to expect universities to be accountable. That is why we rightly expect higher education institutions to adhere to the highest standards of governance. The aim of the proposed higher education governance bill is to modernise and strengthen governance and embed the principles of democracy and accountability in the higher education sector.
If we were looking at the higher education sector from day 1, we would not necessarily create the governance model that we have. Our universities and institutions have a rich history, which is part of the issues that we are dealing with. We have some of the most autonomous institutions in the world, but we must find a way to balance that and ensure that there is accountability for public money, that there are trade union and other organisations’ representatives and that universities become part of their local community. One of the most important points is that we need to ensure that the universities continue to have strong democratic accountability in their governance arrangements and remain fit for purpose in modern Scotland.
The principal and vice-chancellor of Robert Gordon University, Professor Ferdinand von Prondzynski, has said:
“The proposals set out by the Government are important elements in getting this balance between autonomy and public confidence right. Scotland’s universities are a great success story. They have nothing to fear from this proposed legislation and a lot to gain.”
That is one of the most important points.
Any proposals that the Scottish Government brings forward will add to the fantastic work that our universities do. We must ensure that our universities continue to thrive internationally and locally and that they are open and accountable modern institutions that continue to deliver for Scotland.
15:08
I welcome the fact that the Conservatives are using their time to look at the key issue of how we organise our universities. The issues in the debate concern governance and the funding of universities, and they have to be seen in the context of what we are looking for from our universities.
We see universities as institutions that allow our young people to receive a good-quality education so that they can play a proper role in society and contribute to a growing economy; institutions that attract support and investment from overseas; and places of research and development that can develop the skills and specialities that Scottish education has become so famous for. It is against that backdrop that we need to look at the governance and funding issues.
The Conservatives seem to take a free-market approach to governance issues.
Will the member accept that what we are taking is not a free-market approach but a fundamentally liberal approach? Such an approach is completely missing around the chamber, except in this corner.
I was going to say that, whereas legislation should not be used for legislation’s sake, as Mr Gray and others pointed out, huge amounts of public money are invested in our universities, and students, taxpayers and the wider public are entitled to a certain amount of openness and transparency.
On what grounds is the member arguing that there is a serious problem in higher education? Where is the evidence that we are failing because governance is not good enough?
Let me go on to my next point.
There are more fundamental issues than simply governance that we have to address in the university sector. However, governance can be used to help with, for example, the skills shortage in the economy. We have real development in the app economy. There are 1.8 million app jobs across Europe, which is expected to grow to 5.8 million in 2018, but we have a skills shortage in Scotland. Across the UK, there are more than 900,000 job vacancies because of a lack of engineering and information technology skills.
There is a job for our universities, with proper leadership from the Government, in tackling the shortages in engineering and IT. To do that, they need proper governance, aligned with leadership from the Government and proper funding. That is why it is extremely regrettable that we see a £21 million reduction in university funding, which has affected research funding and therefore undermines our ability to contribute to specialities such as the app sector of the economy.
The debate has to be viewed in a wider context. Governance is one part of it. I accept that it is not just a case of introducing legislation; legislation has to be tested so that it works. We also need to look at fundamental issues such as the skills shortage.
15:12
I very much welcome the opportunity to speak in this afternoon’s debate on the important contribution that our universities make to Scotland. Liz Smith is right to highlight the educational, cultural and economic benefits that our universities bring to Scotland. As others have said, with four universities ranked in the world’s top 200, there is no question but that Scotland’s higher education system is one of the best in the world. We continue to punch above our weight, as evidenced by the Times Higher Education rankings, which now rank Scotland first when measured by gross domestic product and second when measured by population. Recent studies have also suggested that Scotland is the most highly educated country in Europe and the best place to study in the UK.
That we have managed to create the circumstances in which Scotland’s universities can thrive is testament to the support and the investment provided by the Scottish Government. Restoring free education to Scotland, and thereby ensuring that university education is based on the ability to learn rather than the ability to pay, is undoubtedly one of the Scottish National Party’s proudest achievements.
Last year I asked the Scottish Parliament information centre to look at how much free higher education saves Scottish students. It was found that more than 120,000 undergraduate students save up to £20,000 compared with the cost of studying in England. To put that in context, tuition fees rose to £9,000 in the rest of the UK. In the first three years that they were in force, they cost students there around £14 billion, while Scotland-domiciled students attending Scottish institutions saved almost £1 billion in fees over the same number of years. That is an enormous sum of money that the Scottish Government has saved Scotland-domiciled students, and it is something that we should be proud of.
The current funding arrangements for universities down south result in tuition fees that put higher education out of the reach of many young people. In Scotland, we have been able to use this Parliament’s powers to protect free university tuition and open the doors of opportunity to many young Scots.
We should be proud of our universities, which are a true national asset and world leading in many areas, but that does not mean that we should not strive to make them better. The Scottish Government has invested more than £4 billion in higher education over the past four years, which is a significant amount of public money. Our constituents have a right to expect their universities to be transparent and accountable and to adhere to the highest standards of governance.
Professor von Prondzynski’s review of higher education governance has been integral to informing the Scottish Government’s work on strengthening the sector. It is vital that the framework for the governance of our universities is fit for purpose for a modern Scotland in the 21st century. Writing in The Herald in April, Professor von Prondzynski referred to the importance of striking the right balance between restoring public confidence and protecting our universities’ autonomy—I do not think that there is any argument across the chamber that our universities have to retain their autonomy—and concluded by stating:
“Scotland’s universities are a great success story. They have nothing to fear from this proposed legislation, and a lot to gain.”
I agree very much with that sentiment.
The Tory motion suggests that the Government’s proposals are somehow a threat to the success of our higher education sector in Scotland. However, I argue that the proposed reforms will go a long way towards ensuring that our world-class universities continue to thrive by creating a modern framework for decision making that benefits the institutions, the staff and the students.
The real threat to the international standing of Scotland’s universities is the refusal of the Tory UK Government to reintroduce the post-study work visa in Scotland. We debated the issue at length in Parliament some weeks back, but the point remains that the UK Government’s immigration policies are restricting Scotland’s ability to attract and retain the best international students and graduates. International students make a valuable contribution to Scotland, but higher education statistics show that there has been a drop in the number of them who attend Scottish universities. A strong case has been made for the restoration of the post-study work visa.
I am proud that the SNP has defended free education throughout our time in office. The Scottish Government continues to invest strongly in the higher education sector and I look forward to our world-renowned universities going from strength to strength in the years ahead.
15:17
Presiding Officer, let me declare an interest: my alma mater is the University of Strathclyde, of which I am an honorary fellow. Not surprisingly, I hold my former university in high esteem—I owe it a lot.
When I was established in my career as a lawyer, it was a privilege for me to be invited to serve on the university court, a role that I discharged for a considerable number of years. Uncertain at first about what was involved, I rapidly realised that I was part of an exciting and fascinating forum with challenging responsibilities. I found myself in inspiring company: impressive academics, people from other professions and businesses, leaders of industry, a member of Glasgow City Council—one Hanzala Malik—and, if I recall correctly, a recently retired very senior civil servant, a representative of the non-teaching staff and the president of the student union. There was even then a significant presence of significant women.
The backgrounds were diverse, but that grouping aggregated into a powerhouse of knowledge, skill, experience and wisdom, reflecting a collective ability that was impressive. We did not represent sectoral interests. Our collegiate focus was the best interests of the whole university. The group was also comfortable, given the members’ knowledge of one another, about deciding who was best placed to chair the court. The discussions were among the most well informed and well argued it has ever been my privilege to take part in, and the university benefited from enlightened and strategic decision making and effective governance.
Now, I know that some politicians feel uncomfortable about that. Shortly after I entered this Parliament, a political opponent—a former MSP—observed that because universities were public bodies receiving public money, they should be more under the control of Government, a sentiment that I think is being echoed by the cabinet secretary. Well, fortunately, having attended a university where I was encouraged to question such intellectual candy floss, I pointed out that, although universities derive a proportion of their funding from Government, they raise the rest themselves, hence in no way conforming to the definition of being a public body.
As Liz Smith has said, we now know from the OECD survey across Europe that there is a direct link between the autonomy of universities and the quality of universities. Each university is very different in character and culture. Far from demonstrating any weakness of inconsistency, that vital diversity is a huge strength. In Scotland, our universities over decades and centuries have showcased the best in learning, research, academic freedom and independence of approach. That is no casual platitude. That is the intellectual forum that is the life-blood of any seat of learning. Universities should exist to question, to challenge, to stimulate the mind, to explore and to discover the new, by examination, by analysis, by research and by deduction.
Above all, universities should be free of any whiff of political control or state intervention in or state prescription about governance. Without any supporting evidence, the Scottish Government wants to wreck that autonomy, trample over freedoms and demolish the fundamental elements of good governance. This has echoes of the chaotic debacle that surrounded the botched attempt to abolish corroboration.
Let me now utter a platitude: fools rush in where angels fear to tread. The cabinet secretary is a highly intelligent woman—she is no fool. When the Scottish Government proposals to change university governance meet serious and compelling criticism from Universities Scotland; from the principal of the University of Dundee, Professor Peter Downes; from the principal of the University of St Andrews, Professor Louise Richardson, who is moving to a very senior position at the University of Oxford in the near future; from the Royal Society of Edinburgh; from the Scottish Council for Development and Industry; and from numerous others—and when the system of governance has the full support of the Scottish funding council, the Equality Challenge Unit and the Equality and Human Rights Commission—I would not be treading where the cabinet secretary proposes to go. Only one conclusion will be drawn.
Please have the courage and wisdom to withdraw these unnecessary, dangerous and inept proposals.
15:21
I am grateful to Annabel Goldie for describing how things can be done very well. The point in any sensible society is that we want to ensure that things are always done very well. Alex Johnstone tells me that it is all about a liberal approach. A liberal approach is undoubtedly what I would want to see, but we do want to follow the public pound, at least well enough to ensure that the bodies to which that money goes are accountable. I am hearing some very loose descriptions of accountability and control. It seems to me that accountability to the general public—whether or not it is to the Parliament—is one thing, whereas control is something very different.
In our society, we have all sorts of discussions between those who have some kind of embedded value and vested interest and those who see an opportunity using their own talents and abilities. In classical economics, that is capital versus labour although, in this kind of educational debate, I would prefer the idea that it has something to do with the institutions—our universities are fine ones—and the opportunities that students and staff recognise.
I will briefly pick up—this inevitably has to be brief this afternoon—on three different issues that have emerged in the consultation. First, when reading through the summary of the responses to the “Consultation On a Higher Education Governance Bill”, I was struck by what I saw on several pages, which revealed some very different views from—I use the term loosely—the management of the universities and from everybody else. It is not universal, but it seems that there are two very different aspects and views coming through from our universities. I find that slightly discouraging, as I would have hoped that there could have been slightly more unanimity among those who work there as to what the collective vested interest is and what the public interest is. That diversity of opinion seems to be sharp enough that those in charge might like to think about why that gap is there.
Secondly, I refer to the issue of elected chairs. It struck me that there were some very strange things among the responses. I will quote from paragraph 1.24, on page 4 of the consultation written responses document, which members will have seen. It says:
“Most universities opposed the proposal”—
referring to the proposal that chairs should be remunerated—
“with a common view being that the post of chair is essentially a voluntary one, with those putting themselves forward doing so on a ‘pro bono’ basis as part of a public service commitment.”
I think that that view belongs to a different generation, and possibly century—if that is not the same thing. Why on earth should we be restricting such posts to those who can afford to be there pro bono—or, if they cannot afford to do so and are being employed by somebody else, why on earth should somebody else be paying them to do the job? Everybody else in universities is paid—and quite well at the top—and I am not at all clear where that view comes from.
Lastly, I want to look at the issue of the way in which universities change. When I saw the motion and the amendments, I was reminded of my time as a student in Cambridge in the 1970s and remembered that we students wrote a report that we put to the college offices about how students might be represented on the college body. That was in 1975, and two of our recommendations were eventually acted on. First, our college allowed women to enter as students—that took 10 years. Secondly, students were allowed to be members of the college council—as far as I can tell, that was enacted in a 2009 statute.
One of my fellow students who was involved in that report was none other than the Rt Hon Oliver Heald QC MP, who I suspect will be known to my Tory colleagues. The point is that, as students, we saw things differently, and the issues that we raised then still apply.
15:25
I am pleased that Parliament has this opportunity to debate the challenges that face our universities. In Aberdeen, the issue of support for our university sector is a fairly current concern. Our local university has announced that it is to lose 150 posts. That has caused great anxiety among the staff and students. It raises real questions about how universities are equipped to perform their vital role in our country. In Aberdeen, the impact on our local economy of the University of Aberdeen and Robert Gordon University cannot be overstated. Of course, the universities are of great importance nationally, given their support for our oil and gas industry and the skills and expertise that it needs. We must hear today from the cabinet secretary how the Government will ensure that our universities receive the resources that they need to recruit and retain the staff they require in the ferociously competitive global higher education sector, and, specifically, how it will support the University of Aberdeen and ensure that there are no compulsory redundancies.
Higher education is an area in which we have long had a competitive advantage. That is not an advantage that our nation can afford to lose. Staff at the University of Aberdeen should be rewarded for their efforts rather than being put in a position where they face redundancy. That demands a response from the Scottish Government.
Most of the speeches that we have heard today reflect a consensus that has been established that free tuition is the right policy for Scotland. Of course, Labour wanted to reduce fees in England, which would have provided a potential boost for the sector here. However, any temptation that there might be to say that the fact that we have no tuition fees means that the job is done in higher education should be resisted. I am not sure that it has been resisted over the past few years.
We have long debated the impact of the cuts in further education, and Universities Scotland’s submission outlines funding challenges in the higher education sector in Scotland as well. On capital funding, we can understand why the constraints are there, given the context in which the Scottish Government works. However, cuts in research funding can only be damaging to institutions and our economy.
There are wider issues as well. Some of our institutions have the worst drop-out rates in the United Kingdom, and I would not be surprised if they were among the worst in Europe. That represents a wasted opportunity for the students who drop out and a wasted investment for the state. It is certainly not discussed enough in this Parliament. We want our universities to be the best that they can be and we want to be as proud of them as we can be. Therefore, ministers must get to grips with this issue and seek solutions to the problem. We are also still not doing enough to widen access, as has been discussed. Student support is a crucial part of both of those issues. The level of grant that is available to students from low-income backgrounds is of massive importance to the success of their studies. Students here have benefited from free tuition but, in other parts of the UK, students have had better grants and student support. That issue requires more scrutiny and debate in Scotland.
On governance, of course it is important that university courts are properly inclusive and that staff are represented. Looking back, we previously had elected chairs of courts through the role of the rectors. As Iain Gray said, reform is important, as is accountability. However, in that context, the independence of universities must also be respected.
The Scottish Government has been quick to take powers to itself rather than devolve them and to seek to centrally control organisations such as colleges, which should be empowered to make the decisions locally that best fit their distinctive needs. In the same way, universities must have proper local accountability. However, beyond that, their independence is important.
Could you draw to a close, please?
That is not an argument against reform; it is an argument against an overbearing approach from central Government. There should be accountability to staff and students, not simply to ministers. Our universities are held in high esteem. They are high achievers. Our job is to enable them to continue to play that vital role for Scotland.
I am afraid that I have to advise members that there is absolutely no time. Please stick to your time.
15:30
My constituency has two universities within its boundaries: Edinburgh Napier University and Heriot-Watt University. I take great interest in both institutions not only because I am a member of the Education and Culture Committee but because my sons graduated from those universities.
Edinburgh Napier University is in the top 20 UK universities for graduate employability, with 95 per cent of undergraduates and 92 per cent of postgraduates in employment or further study six months after graduating. Importantly, it has worked over many years with partners to build aspirations for higher education among people from low-participation neighbourhoods and non-traditional backgrounds. Community engagement takes place in schools and colleges and resulted in 2,292 students joining Edinburgh Napier University directly from Scottish colleges in 2013-14.
Heriot-Watt University is ranked second in Scotland and 18th in the UK by The Guardian university guide, although the UK ranking hides the fact that it is second in the UK for civil engineering and third in the UK for electronics and electrical engineering as well as for accounting and finance. To encourage a widening of access to its courses, Heriot-Watt University awards £6 million in scholarships and bursaries to more than 400 students each year.
As other speakers have said, Scotland is a leading nation in higher education, with four universities in the world’s top 200 and each of our higher education institutions undertaking research of world-leading quality. That is, in part, due to the funding that our universities have received in recent years from the Scottish Government. Last year and this year, the Scottish Government is providing more than £1 billion per annum to the higher education sector. Given that level of investment of public funds in universities, something would be amiss if the Scottish Government did not take an interest in the sector.
The “Report of the Review of Higher Education Governance in Scotland”, which was submitted to the Scottish ministers in January 2012, highlighted why governance is important:
“Universities in today’s world play many roles of direct significance to society, going well beyond the personal interests of those embarking on higher education, well beyond the organisational ambitions of individual institutions, and well beyond the expectations of those who employ graduates. They stimulate economic development; they provide a focus for cultural growth; they are engines of social regeneration; they play a major part in establishing a positive view of Scotland internationally. Universities are major employers and providers of livelihoods, and they own and control buildings, land and infrastructure that are vital assets for communities. They instigate and nourish public debate, and provide necessary critical analysis of the ideas and actions of public bodies and politicians.
For all these reasons, university governance is not just a private matter. Indeed, the public interest in university governance arguably extends beyond that which applies to corporate governance in the business world. It is not just a question of assuring the integrity and transparency of processes, it is a question of allowing society to protect its broader investment in education, knowledge and intellectual innovation in a way that makes the most of a long Scottish tradition adapted to the needs of the 21st century world.”
Our higher education institutions should reflect the society that we live in and, as the NUS Scotland president-elect stated in the press recently,
“As public bodies, rightly in receipt of well over a billion pounds every year, we want to see our universities open themselves up to greater transparency, democracy and accountability, staying relevant to and representative of the people they serve.
The proposed reforms to higher education governance give us a great opportunity to ensure that happens.”
15:34
Although short, this has been a two-pronged debate: there has been some debate on the success of our universities and their funding, but it has mostly been about governance and the need for reform.
Across the chamber, we have all celebrated the success of our university sector, but I have to say that there has been a degree of complacency about that from some of the SNP speakers and perhaps from the cabinet secretary herself.
For example, a number of speakers, including me, have referred to the fact that we have four universities in the top 200 in the world. However, we should remind ourselves that, a short 18 months or so ago, we had five universities in the top 200, so we have to be a little careful about the direction in which we are going.
Mr Adam spent some time saying that the Scottish Government had maintained funding in the higher education sector, whereas funding had not been maintained in England; in fact, I think that he said it three times. However, if he had listened to me earlier, he would have heard me quote figures from Lucy Hunter Blackburn, the former head of higher education in the Scottish Government, which show that that is not in fact the case. In this year’s budget, the resources that are available to universities have been cut by 2.5 per cent, with £21 million clawed back after the budget was set and a further £14 million transferred to the Student Awards Agency. We could say that there has been a little bit of unusual accounting.
Mr Maxwell focused rather a lot on what a wonderful world it is for students in Scotland. That, too, rather stepped over the daily reality that students face.
I do not agree with Liz Smith that free tuition has created a funding gap between Scottish and English universities. I think that the helpful NUS briefing gives some detail—too much to go into in the short time that I have—which shows that the funding gap is rather illusory.
Mr Maxwell also said that the current set-up means that Scotland is the best place in Britain to be a student. However, as Mr Baker pointed out, that is certainly not the case for a student from a poorer family, because the level of bursary and grant support available to them will be significantly less and therefore, in order to live, their level of indebtedness will be significantly higher. Perhaps that is why we have a lower proportion of poorer students in our universities and—as Mr Baker pointed out—a higher drop-out rate.
As for governance, Liz Smith has asked on a number of occasions for evidence of failure. However, in her own speech, she indicated the most egregious evidence of failure, which is the lack of transparency in and the very high levels of principals’ pay. Even in the past year, principals’ pay has risen by between 7 and 13 per cent, at a time when most public sector workers are lucky to have a pay rise of 1 per cent.
The UCU—Liz Smith referred to this—has pointed out that even though universities claim to be transparent now, when it asked for details of remuneration committee minutes, two thirds of institutions failed to provide it with that information. That is a failure—it is a failure of governance—and there is no reason at all why we should not consider introducing transparency and consistency.
If Liz Smith talks to those who take part in the current governance structure, such as staff reps, she will find that they do not believe that the governance system is working.
I am afraid that you must close now, please.
They are not trade union reps but they are often treated as such.
As I said in my opening speech, yes, there should be autonomy, but it should be responsible autonomy for the modern day.
15:38
I say to Mr Gray that, although I have many faults—I am sure that he is familiar with a few of them—complacency is most certainly not one of them.
As I reflected on the debate, it struck me that Liz Smith, in her opening speech, used some uncharacteristically—certainly for her—strong language. She described the Scottish Government, in pursuing the higher education governance bill, as “vindictive”, “bureaucratic” and “meddling”. I would like to point out that the European University Association autonomy scorecard identifies Scotland’s higher education sector as one of the most autonomous in the world. Our proposals are most certainly not about increasing ministerial control. I certainly welcome the fact that most members in the chamber recognise that having diversity, inclusiveness and partnership within the higher education sector is not just the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do.
We are now in a three-week pre-introduction phase for the higher education governance bill, and it is difficult for me to discuss in detail a bill that will be introduced to Parliament in the near future. I am confident that we will demonstrate that we have been listening to principals, chairs of court and—crucially—staff and students. After the bill’s introduction, the Government commits to continue working with partners, and to collaborate across the sector and the chamber. There must be a two-way process, and I want to ensure that where possible those in the sector can work together and move forward as a community.
As we would expect, we have had some discussion about funding, and it is important to stress that, via the Scottish funding council, the Government plans to invest £282 million in core research and knowledge exchange. That modest increase of half a per cent builds on increased levels of research funding since 2007. From 2011-12 up to financial year 2015-16, higher education resource funding has increased by 12 per cent in cash terms and more than 5 per cent in real terms, at a time when the Scottish Government’s fiscal budget has been reduced by 9 per cent in real terms and our capital budget by 25 per cent in real terms. Nonetheless, in response to Mr Gray’s point, we have told the funding council to proceed with firm commitments so that it can make firm spending plans for £1,041 million. We have asked it to hold back £22 million—roughly 2 per cent—so that we have flexibility across the post-16 education budget.
Will the minister address the point about the transfers to the SAAS?
Of course there has been a transfer of resources, but that has no impact on the level of support available to students. SAAS funding for student support is demand led, under criteria that are published and decided on by the Government. The funding is demand led and therefore responds to the needs of students. Where possible, the Government will always endeavour to increase resources to support students, within our available resources, such as the improvement to the overall living support package that I announced a few weeks ago.
There have been changes to the distribution of the research excellence grant. Six institutions have seen a reduction in their research funding, but 12 have received an uplift. It is therefore not true that every institution has had a reduction in its research funding, although the global excellence initiative fund—which was always a time-limited fund—no longer exists. Of course that has an impact on institutions and their deliberations, but the change in the distribution of the research excellence grant is due to the general improvement among Scottish universities in the UK-wide research excellence framework for 2014.
Mr Baker demanded a response from the Scottish Government on job losses in Aberdeen. Job losses in any institution or sector in Scotland are always regrettable, but the savings that are being sought at Aberdeen are not related to changes in research funding. The university is seeking to make savings of £10.5 million, but the reduction in research funding is just £350,000 for the next academic year.
I will happily close my remarks there because I appreciate that time is pressing.
15:44
The debate has been very good, with wide-ranging and thoughtful contributions, including from Annabel Goldie, who described her experience on the board of governors at the University of Strathclyde. It has been an excellent opportunity for us all to put on record the success of our universities, which is a topic that is debated too rarely in the chamber.
I am pleased to hear that the cabinet secretary has listened to Universities Scotland and will respond. That is very helpful.
On this day of commemoration, in another place, for Charles Kennedy, I believe that it is worth putting on record his role as the rector of the University of Glasgow. I hope that members do not mind my doing so, given that we are debating Scotland’s universities today and given that he was a Highland MP. [Applause.] I thank members for that.
No one who is, or aspires to be, connected with higher education in Scotland can be unconcerned about what the future holds. We need to look at how we protect and enhance our universities’ traditions and their autonomy, which almost all members mentioned in their speeches. Given their incredible history and incredible success, our universities are consistently ranked among the best in the world. It is worth taking a brief look at that history, and at the success that demonstrates the importance of the traditions and autonomy of our institutions.
The University of St Andrews was founded in 1413—so it is only 602 years old—by a group of Augustine masters, mainly graduates of Paris, who initiated a school of higher studies in the town.
Our next oldest university, the University of Glasgow, was founded in 1451. The students of today walk in the footsteps of some of the world’s most renowned innovators, such as John Logie Baird, and those of the best-selling author of his time, Adam Smith, who of course wrote “The Wealth of Nations”.
The University of Aberdeen is a relative newcomer; it was founded in 1495 to train doctors, teachers and clergy for the communities of northern Scotland, and lawyers and administrators to serve the Scottish Crown. As many MSPs will remember, this Parliament once sat in Aberdeen during our annual eviction from our old place for a week during the General Assembly.
The newcomer is the University of Edinburgh, which was founded in 1583 and has played host to scientists, philosophers and politicians who have shaped the modern world. Edinburgh graduates signed the United States declaration of independence, founded ivy league universities and wrote some of the world’s most widely read books.
Scotland’s long and distinguished tradition of first-class higher education continues, with four of our universities ranked in the top 200 universities in the world. As members will agree, that is no mean achievement. Scotland remains a popular destination for academics from all corners of the world, and excels in research, ranging from Peter Higgs’s eponymous boson to Abertay University’s burgeoning games industry and considerable world-renowned health research. We should be rightly proud of our traditions and ensure that that stellar work continues.
We have unprecedented numbers of entrants to higher education despite budget constraints, and we can hold our head high in terms of research in comparison with other countries not only in the UK and the EU but worldwide.
Something has been happening in university governance that few members have mentioned today. University governance was recently modernised, through the new “Scottish code of good HE governance”, which was published in 2013.
A review of the new code and framework last year reported that, after only one year, achievements included the fact that five out of six new appointments of chairs were women—on merit, I should say—and 42 per cent of new appointments of independent governing body members were women. There is improved accountability, and greater inclusion of students and staff on nomination committees for principals and chairs.
The need for further action and interference is quite unclear, given the positive moves that have been achieved through the new code and through improved working between universities and the Scottish Government. As I am sure members will understand, although we can make some judgments after one year, many board appointments are for three to four years, so we will have to wait until those appointees have fulfilled their terms of office before replacements can come forward.
Surely the principle of academic freedom is fundamental to higher academic institutions. I make no apologies for repeating what Liz Smith said: the OECD conducted studies across Europe and found a direct correlation between institutional autonomy and the quality of the institution. Furthermore, the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s response to the Scottish Government’s consultation on the higher education governance bill contends that the Government’s proposals to interfere in university governance are
“inappropriate, unnecessary and potentially counter to good governance.”
I hope that the cabinet secretary’s reassurance that she has listened today and has taken on board many views will go some way towards allaying those fears.
Of course, we are in favour of legislation to address problems, and we always to seek to improve public spending and to further positive viable outcomes, but we do not see our universities as a problem, as broken or as being in any need of additional bureaucracy or interference from politicians. Our universities are clearly excelling, as they have been for centuries. I hope that the cabinet secretary will take on board the many contributions that have been made today and ensure that the success of Scottish universities continues.
Previous
Portfolio Question TimeNext
Nursery Vouchers