Post-16 Learning
The next item of business is a statement by Michael Russell on progress on the reform of post-16 learning. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so no interventions or interruptions should be made.
09:45
Only nine months ago, I announced our plans for significant reform of Scotland’s post-16 learning system. My objective was to promote jobs and growth, in order to improve our citizens’ life chances. I was—and I remain—confident that we can deliver on those ambitions. Today, I will report on the excellent progress that the whole college sector has made.
College regionalisation lies at the heart of our reforms. Change of that nature and scale is inevitably complex and challenging, but I congratulate college leaders in every part of the sector—chairs, boards, principals, lecturers, support staff, students, people in unions and others—on recognising the opportunities and applying their expertise and influence. The results are already clear.
In the Highlands and Islands region, we have negotiated a new structure for the University of the Highlands and Islands, with a single outcome agreement, a single fundable body and a further education regional board under the UHI court that will, although it is part of the UHI’s structure, have autonomy in its decisions.
The merger of the Scottish Agricultural College, Oatridge College, Barony College and Elmwood College is progressing well and will create Scotland’s first such tertiary institution. Subject to the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council’s advice, I am pleased to announce that I will shortly propose an order that will, if approved by the Parliament, create the new college on 1 October.
The Edinburgh colleges are in the vanguard of change, and I will shortly approve their plan to merge the three existing colleges in October.
I am delighted that John Wheatley College, North Glasgow College and Stow College are to merge in Glasgow. That means that a college of considerable scale will take its place alongside the City of Glasgow College and the new college that will be created by a merger of Anniesland College, Cardonald College and Langside College. The three new colleges—from the seven that now exist and the nine just two years ago—will combine to form a new region that will be a tremendous driver of skills and learning for Scotland’s biggest city.
Plans for new merged regional colleges are also progressing in Fife and the west. Both regions aim for vesting days in August 2013. In Ayrshire, a joint partnership board has been established and is committed to working towards a single college outcome agreement in a region that will include Kilwinning, which is currently part of James Watt College’s area.
In the Tayside region, a joint memorandum of understanding has been signed, and the colleges have commissioned an options appraisal to consider the respective merits of merger and federation. The Lanarkshire colleges have agreed a four-way federation. I share their view that that is the best thing for them, and the progress that they have recently made is enormously encouraging. The two colleges in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire signed a federation agreement last October. They are already planning provision on a regional basis.
Work is well under way in regions that already have only one college—Dumfries and Galloway, the Borders, Forth valley and West Lothian. There—as elsewhere—the common focus is on developing outcome agreements that will deliver excellent and efficient provision.
With colleagues in the Scottish funding council, we are supporting that work and the innovative solutions that are helping to drive it forward, not least through our £15 million college transformation fund. At the same time, we are protecting college places by providing additional opportunities through the new college learning programme, which Skills Development Scotland manages and funds.
All that represents an unprecedented level of change in the sector—change that is being delivered by the colleges themselves. However, the reform is not simply about structures. We are making similarly excellent progress towards developing a robust set of regional outcome agreements. Endorsed by the Scottish Government as the basis on which our relationships with colleges should be built, outcome agreements provide a way to better meet the needs of learners and employers in every region. Outcome agreements also provide the focus for our shared priorities with the higher education sector.
Russel Griggs’s premise in his report on college governance was that every region—other than the Highlands and Islands—would have one college. When possible, that is what I want. However, I believe firmly that it is for colleges to come together of their own volition in learners’ best interests, so the governance arrangements will allow for some regions to have more than one college.
Nonetheless, I propose in each region a single body that concludes a regional outcome agreement with the SFC, receives funding for the region and is held to account for delivery. In single-college regions, the regional body will be the college. In the Highlands and Islands, it will be the University of the Highlands and Islands. In other multicollege regions, it will be the new statutory regional board. That would see existing incorporated colleges reformed into two types: regional colleges and—in multicollege regions—local colleges. Regional college boards will have new duties to plan, collaborate and consult, and they will be larger than existing boards because of their new strategic role. Local college boards will be much smaller and leaner, focusing on the day-to-day operational management of the college.
College governance arrangements need greater public accountability. Therefore, my intention is that the Scottish ministers will appoint new boards to local and regional colleges only when those colleges are first reformed. Subsequently, Scottish ministers will appoint only chairs of regional boards, but there will be key criteria for a broad membership including staff and students, involving local authorities and making key links with the community planning process. Statutory appointments will be subject to the normal public appointments principles.
I shall introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to make the necessary changes, using, where possible, existing powers to make secondary legislation to expedite the process of reform. In the meantime, we need to maintain pace and momentum. I have invited Ian McKay and Henry McLeish to lead the Edinburgh and Glasgow college regions respectively. Today, I am announcing all but one of the other people whom I have invited to lead regional planning, and I have notified the Education and Culture Committee of those details.
I am grateful to Professor Griggs and his colleagues for their thorough report. Today, I have also published my detailed response to each of the recommendations, which has been considered against the backdrop of the plans that I have outlined and the need for a legal framework that sets out the relationship between different links in the accountability chain.
In my previous statement to Parliament, I welcomed the recommendations of Professor von Prondzynski’s thoroughly considered review of higher education governance, and I said that I would consider the findings with the sector. Since then, I have discussed the review’s findings with a broad range of stakeholders. I will continue to do so, but I have accepted virtually all Professor von Prondzynski’s recommendations.
The most effective approach to implementing the recommendations is to do so in three distinct ways: first, by engaging key sector stakeholders as implementing partners; secondly, by engaging the sector itself in implementing the recommendations by agreement and adapting them as necessary to reflect existing good practice; and, thirdly, by employing legislation as required. As previously announced, a bill will be introduced at the earliest opportunity, although the key issue of an underpinning statute will require a second bill, which we hope to introduce within the lifetime of this Parliament.
I can announce today that the recommendation to establish an advisory forum will be taken forward by the Scottish funding council. I accept Professor von Prondzynski’s proposal that the advisory forum should help to consider Government and sector interests in relation to strategic decisions and I have asked that it be convened in time to inform my next guidance letter to the Scottish funding council. I can also announce that, subject to agreement on membership, I have asked the committee of the Scottish chairs of higher education institutions to lead a group to develop a new Scottish code of good higher education governance. Membership of the committee that does that must include the voices of students, staff and the small specialist institutions.
In the midst of all this change, we must keep in mind our priority of putting learners at the centre. We have been clear from the start on the importance of fair and transparent student support in encouraging participation, progression and retention. That is why we have given an undertaking to legislate to introduce statutory widening access agreements. We have made some progress on widening access in recent years, but that progress has been too slow and we need to step it up. In addition, progression to postgraduate study levels is important if we are to ensure that Scotland is internationally competitive. Tuition fees for taught postgraduate courses are a potential barrier to progress and we have moved, by introducing tuition fee loans, to increase the number of supported places that are available to approximately 5,000 from this autumn.
Since publishing “Putting Learners at the Centre: Delivering Our Ambitions for Post-16 Education”, we have worked closely with the National Union of Students Scotland to explore ways in which we could simplify the system for current and prospective higher education students. That work also sought to meet our commitment to offer a £7,000 minimum income for students from the lowest-income households, and I am pleased that we will be able to announce in August a package of student support for the academic year 2013-14 to meet that commitment.
The Government has also been clear in its ambition to protect and enhance life chances. In April, Angela Constance launched opportunities for all, offering every 16 to 19-year-old who is not in work or learning a place in education or training. To that end, staff across our partner agencies are providing advice and support to young people to help them to access opportunities. We are also reaching out to young people and their families to tell them about opportunities for all. We must reach out to those who stand to gain—or to lose—the most.
Underpinning all this change is a need for our skills provision to support our central ambition of driving growth and employment in Scotland. I am pleased—as the whole chamber will be—to note today’s publication by the Higher Education Statistics Agency, which shows that, at 90.4 per cent, more graduates in Scotland are in employment or further study than anywhere else in these islands. However, we cannot be complacent. We must continue to listen and respond to what employers need, building on existing good practice within the new, strong framework of regional outcome agreements.
My statement has covered a wide range of changes to various parts of our post-16 learning system, but, of course, there is more. Some of the changes are structural in their focus, but the purpose behind the reforms is what counts.
In January 1885, Lord Reay, then rector of the University of St Andrews, told his students:
“The chief wealth of Scotland consists in the natural resources of Scottish brains. The development of brain-power on a wide scale is what Scotland has to look to.”
I endorse that statement. Scotland’s learners are our greatest chief natural resource. This Scottish Government will continue to lead our ambitious efforts with their needs at the forefront of our concerns.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow approximately 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement.
Labour generally welcomes the process of improving governance and bringing more transparency and accountability to further and higher education. We also support initiatives that improve on the excellence already being delivered. We have no doubt that further improvements can be made, but we have general concerns about the power grab by ministers, which we see particularly in relation to further education. They have forced through shotgun marriages and have introduced an unprecedented level of ministerial control and interference in our colleges. For example, new chairs and boards will be appointed, and can be removed, by ministers.
The cabinet secretary said that he has today notified the Education and Culture Committee of details of who has been invited to lead regional planning bodies. In fact, my colleagues on the committee have not yet had sight of those details; it would have been helpful to ensure that they were made available before the statement was made to Parliament.
Will the cabinet secretary spell out in detail the criteria that are being used to appoint the chairs of college and regional boards? Is the public appointments process being used for the initial appointments? If not, why not?
Scottish Labour generally welcomes the direction of travel in relation to higher education governance, but why has Parliament not been given a copy of the Scottish Government’s response, as was done with the response on further education? The cabinet secretary has said that he has accepted virtually all the recommendations. Will he spell out which ones he has not accepted?
We welcome moves to improve student support. Will the cabinet secretary tell Parliament why the announcement will be made in August, rather than to the Scottish Parliament?
I express my gratitude to Hugh Henry, who has generously accepted that the process of reform is one that is now supported by Labour. I welcome that conversion, and I am pleased that we have Labour’s support to progress changes that have been long anticipated in the sector.
The appointments are of chairs of shadow boards, which are the bodies that will be involved in setting up the structure. Any appointments to statutory boards will, as I confirmed in my statement, go through the public appointments process, as they must. I also indicated that the only ministerial involvement will be to nominate chairs. I am glad to set that matter to rest.
I have made clear in this and previous statements that the recommendations on higher education will work their way into legislation, and I have indicated how that will happen and how we will build on it.
The timing of student support is determined, of course, by the timing of the application round. It is important that the student support arrangements are in place when the new application round opens at the beginning of September. The arrangements are complicated and it is taking a great deal of time to put them in place. I am sure that Hugh Henry will welcome the fact that we have moved so much further than our predecessors in terms of the level of that support, and I give him a guarantee that I will ensure that the Education and Culture Committee is kept informed every step of the way, as it was this morning, when it received the list of shadow chair appointments.
What evidence has emerged from the cabinet secretary’s discussions with stakeholders to suggest that the reforms that are already being made by colleges and universities themselves are in some way insufficient and require Scottish Government direction?
We know from previous debates that university courts almost unanimously rejected the suggestion that their chairs should be elected. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that that is one of the recommendations in the von Prondzynski report that he will not now pursue?
In yesterday’s debate on police and fire service reform, Roseanna Cunningham said that the Scottish National Party does not consider quotas for membership of governing bodies to be an acceptable way forward. Does the cabinet secretary agree with Roseanna Cunningham and therefore reject recommendation 30 in the von Prondzynski report?
Again, I welcome what is clearly now broad support for the process from the Conservatives. That is a strong move forward.
My statement was entirely clear about how we should proceed with the von Prondzynski recommendations. Liz Smith has in the past quite unjustifiably accused me of trying to push or pressurise bodies, so I am sure that she will welcome the fact that I am keen to negotiate and discuss these matters. The von Prondzynski recommendations are essentially correct but, when I work with the institutions, I want to make sure that we engage—and I quote my statement:
“the sector itself in implementing the recommendations by agreement and adapting them as necessary to reflect existing good practice”.
That will cover all the recommendations that I regard as good ones, but I have also said that we will have legislation as required. We are trying to move step by step with the organisations. I am sorry that Liz Smith was not listening so I will repeat what I said in my statement:
“I have asked the committee of the Scottish chairs of higher education institutions to lead a group to develop a new Scottish code of good higher education governance. Membership of the committee that does that must include the voices of students, staff and the small specialist institutions.”
We are engaging with the sector on all issues. The von Prondzynski recommendations are soundly based and important for the future, and I am having detailed discussions and negotiations with the sector so that we can get the best out of it. I would have thought that every member of Parliament would want me to do that.
Many members wish to ask a question. I ask members to ask one question only. The cabinet secretary should be as succinct as possible in his replies.
I welcome the positive progress update from the cabinet secretary. I am pleased to note that learners are still at the centre of the reforms.
Will the cabinet secretary outline the steps that Carnegie College and Adam Smith College need to take next to ensure that the new Fife regional college will be up and running by autumn 2013?
Both colleges are making good progress in their discussions. Last night, I spoke to Alex Rowley, the leader of Fife Council, and I am keen to involve the local authority in the process. Among other things, we discussed the appointment of a shadow chair. I have tried to discuss that issue as widely as possible with key stakeholders. I believe that the colleges will bring forward their formal plans shortly, and I will look at them very closely. On the recommendation of the Scottish funding council, that is what I have to do.
We know that Scotland’s colleges lost 40,000 places last year, and in Glasgow, 39,000 weighted student units of measurement—the equivalent of one full college—are being taken out of the system. How does that stack up with the commitment to maintain places?
As I explained to Mr Findlay on Tuesday, all members should support the change to using full-time equivalents and meeting the real needs of unemployed young people, prioritising that under opportunities for all. If Mr Findlay simply wants to make political points about changes in weighting and the way in which colleges operate, he is entitled to do so. I am much more interested in supporting young people through the college system. We are developing a series of reforms that, because of Mr Henry’s response, I thought Labour welcomed. Clearly, Mr Findlay still has some catching up to do.
I welcome today’s statement. Will the cabinet secretary provide further information on widening access to universities and the steps that will be taken to improve that?
We have to put into statute the issue of widening access agreements, which are part of the outcome agreements with the higher education sector. We will do that, which will allow us to ensure that we have carrots and sticks—although I am more in favour of using carrots than sticks. We must continue to drive up access and get it moving faster than it has been doing. Some universities have done exceptionally well, and some have done very poorly; I want to make sure that all do exceptionally well.
As the cabinet secretary is aware, most if not all colleges have a single staff representative on their boards, drawn from the entire staff pool, which may mean that there is no trade union or lecturer representation at the top table. How might that change under the reforms?
Given the difference in size between regional and local colleges, it is anticipated that in local colleges there would be a minimum of one representative. I say “minimum” because there is scope for greater involvement, which boards should consider. In regional colleges, the minimum should be two, although, again, colleges can appoint more. When colleges come together, which a number of colleges have done, they may want to have interim arrangements to ensure that all the colleges are well represented and all the staff feel satisfied.
I stress a point that I stressed when Mr Findlay brought a group of staff and students from the agricultural sector to see me, which is that I want staff and students to be integrally involved in the planning and delivery of all these changes and, thereafter, in the successful management of the institutions. That is the intention, which I hope that legislation will fulfil.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement, in which he accepts
“virtually all Professor von Prondzynski’s recommendations”,
one of which was to ensure that at least 40 per cent of a governing body’s board membership is female. I ask him very specifically whether he accepted that recommendation. If not, what is it about progressing the case for gender equality that he disagrees with?
I hope that that angry question can be turned away by my strong support for the principle in the Prondzynski report. I hope that that will be one of the issues that will progress through the process that I have described today.
Is that a yes or a no?
If the member would simply accept that I am trying to agree with her, that would be a very good end to a long session in which we have had far too much negativity.
Is that a yes or a no?
Mr Findlay cannot take a positive response for an answer. That really says it all about Labour, and it is why Labour is still 13 points behind.
As the cabinet secretary explained in his statement, the set-up of the Highlands and Islands further education regional board will be slightly different from the set-up in other regions, with the board sitting under the UHI court. Will the cabinet secretary explain how autonomy of decision making will be guaranteed for the board?
I pay tribute to Jean Urquhart, who has been very much part of the University of the Highlands and Islands over the years. The development of the UHI structure has been a long process. It has had to take account of not just the unique geography but the unique ecostructure in the Highlands and Islands. We need to ensure that there is an autonomous further education board because it will have about £90 million to disperse, which is three times the amount that UHI has. It is very important that we have a structure that allows that to happen in the interests of further education, and which is integrated with the overall learner journey in the Highlands and Islands.
I have asked Michael Foxley to take on the initial task of chairing a small group in UHI to devise the correct structure. He is doing that now, with the agreement of the university and with the involvement of key players throughout the Highlands and Islands. Once that is done, that body will, I hope, move into the shadow body that will start to implement the work. I am keen to get Michael Foxley’s recommendations. He is a very talented individual and I am sure that he will bring us some interesting stuff.
The cabinet secretary states that the reforms will maintain college places. I recently received an e-mail from a lecturer at Reid Kerr College in Paisley, who says that numerous courses for students with special needs have been cut. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that college places for students with special needs will be maintained?
I have met a number of organisations that deal with that issue. I have made a commitment that it should come within the outcome agreements. I want those places to be maintained.
Two weeks ago, I met the principal of Reid Kerr College and the named shadow chair of the new west region, who is the chair of one of the existing colleges. They confirmed to me the commitment in their area and throughout the sector to students with special needs. I have no difficulty in confirming that.
I welcome the progress in the Ayrshire further education region, where a joint partnership board has now been established; of course, I also welcome the SNP Government’s £50 million investment in a new college facility in Kilmarnock.
How does the cabinet secretary see the code of good governance for higher education in Scotland taking shape? What is the timescale for delivery?
Cabinet secretary, you have a wee bit of time in hand.
I met representatives and chairs of university courts some weeks ago. We discussed the body that they would establish in order to devise the code. Last week, I met the chairs of the small specialist institutions and asked them to join in the process, and they have indicated that they will. I have said to the chairs of the university courts that I want to ensure that staff and students are involved in the process. Subject to that being done to my satisfaction, that is how we will proceed.
The important thing to say is that the von Prondzynski report and the recommendations are radical, well thought through and detailed and will produce a better sector. I have indicated how we want to deal with the report. I remain dedicated to its radical nature, and we will put that system in place. Rather than carping at that, I want everyone to say, “This is a good thing; let’s make it happen.” We will make it happen if we have detailed negotiation and discussion with the sector, which is precisely what I am committed to. I am pleased that the chamber has at last endorsed the principle of the changes. Now, let us work together on the details.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I know that you have an aspiration that members should be able to hold ministers to account and that that is an important principle for you. That aspiration can be delivered only if ministers are prepared to offer information and answer questions that are asked.
Today, the cabinet secretary has said that he has accepted
“virtually all Professor von Prondzynski’s recommendations”.
That suggests that he knows what he has accepted and what he has not accepted. On three occasions, he was asked what he has not accepted, but we are still waiting on an answer. Can you ensure that, in order to hold ministers to account, we can get an answer to a straight question?
I thank Mr Henry for his point of order. He knows that, as previous Presiding Officers have said, ministers’ answers are their responsibility, and their responsibility alone.