Higher Education
The next item of business is a statement by Michael Russell on higher education. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interruptions or interventions.
14:36
At the beginning of this year, I consulted on a wide-ranging green paper on higher education. Following that process, I made a statement to the Parliament on 16 March in which I set out how, in the event of re-election, I intended to progress an ambitious agenda of reform. Today, I return to the chamber to set out the next steps, which will be taken in the context of a wider ambition for education in Scotland.
My vision and that of the Government is of a sector that plays an important role in delivering improved life chances for young people; that provides the best outcomes for learners; that takes its world-class research base to even greater levels of success; and which makes the maximum possible contribution to achieving greater levels of sustainable economic growth for Scotland.
Scottish universities are highly regarded throughout the world and will play a central role in delivering our wider ambitions for Scotland’s future. We want to protect and enhance their international competitiveness while ensuring that they provide opportunities for all.
Before the election, I was quite clear that the debate on higher education was sometimes too narrowly focused on fees. The green paper opened up a more fundamental discussion about the role of our universities and how we support them without mortgaging the futures of our students and graduates to pay for it. We will not follow England by putting an unmanageable debt burden on our graduates. On average, Scottish graduates currently have less than half the debt—almost £11,000 less—of their English counterparts. Under the new arrangements south of the border, the average debt of English graduates could be as much as £30,000.
The Scottish election established a clear consensus that tuition fees, whether up front or back door, are not the right solution for us, nor is any form of graduate contribution. As Ken Macintosh said in the debate on 16 June, the Conservatives aside, we have solidarity on tuition fees in the Parliament, so it is no longer a live issue for us. In this country, higher education is, and will continue to be, based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay.
Our first step must be to address the financial challenges ahead of us, which in great part have been created by decisions that were taken in England. I have done everything that I can to maintain stability for our sector north of the border by being clear on two issues: we will not charge fees for Scottish students and we will commit to funding the sector to retain its competitive position.
At the start of June, Alastair Sim of Universities Scotland helpfully pointed out that the fees situation in England will not be clear until next month. Moreover, Universities UK has stated that it will not be fully clear until students start to take their places at university next year. It is possible that yesterday’s launch of the United Kingdom white paper may only have added to that uncertainty. I intend to use the best information that we have available over the summer recess to work with the sector through the spending review to begin to put in place a funding solution for the sector, which is why I am announcing what our response will be to higher fees in England and Wales as regards students from the rest of the UK who choose to study in Scotland.
I say at the outset that this is not a measure that I take any joy in having to implement. Scotland welcomes students from all over the world. We want them to continue to come here because of the quality of what we offer and the quality of where we offer it, but we must be the best option, not the cheapest option, and we need to move quickly. Our universities are already starting to plan recruitment campaigns for the academic year 2012-13. We must provide clarity for potential students from the rest of the UK who want to make the positive choice to study in Scotland.
That is why I am launching a consultation on proposals for secondary legislation to allow Scottish universities to set their own fees for students from other parts of the UK from the academic year 2012-13. From 2013-14, I plan to introduce primary legislation to restrict the fees that our universities can charge those students to a maximum of £9,000 per annum—the upper limit in England.
I have agreement from Universities Scotland that universities will voluntarily comply with that cap until the primary legislation is in place. That means that we can expect a range of fees for other UK students—from £1,800 to £9,000—which will give institutions flexibility to target their recruitment. I expect the average fee in Scotland to be lower than that in England and possibly to be around the £6,375 figure that was used in the technical working group with Universities Scotland.
We have no option but to act. If we did nothing, students from England in particular would pay only just over £1,800 a year to attend a Scottish university. That compares with five times that figure—£9,000—in their home nation. Action is essential to ensure that Scottish students are not squeezed out by students from elsewhere in the UK. The proposal that I have described meets that objective. Our universities will be able to offer Scottish students the same number of places next year as they did this year. In fact, in time, the arrangement might even allow them to offer more places—I will consider that.
I will ensure that the additional revenue is distributed fairly. Universities with high numbers of other UK students will benefit, but we will work with the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, Universities Scotland and the National Union of Students Scotland to ensure that the additional income that is generated helps the whole sector. The consultation process will run from today until 2 September, and the relevant secondary legislation will be laid in Parliament later that month. I hope that it will be approved by November.
As well as implementing the new fee arrangements, we will continue to explore the feasibility—within the boundaries of European law—of a management fee for European Union students. The issue is complex, and we must take our time to explore fully what might be possible. My officials are continuing to engage with the European Commission and member states, and I hope to say more about the subject later in the year.
My aspirations for the sector are much wider than merely financial. For example, modern and transparent governance arrangements must be in place across all our universities as a prerequisite for long-term stability and success. The plans will be shaped by the governance review that I announced two weeks ago. The review is being led by Professor Ferdinand von Prondzynski, who has considerable experience of university governance outside Scotland. His review will consider whether an appropriate level of democratic accountability and transparency exists, while the benefits of autonomy and the importance of a strategic purpose that aligns with national priorities are recognised. I am publishing the review’s remit today alongside a call for evidence, so that we can gather views over the summer. I expect to have recommendations by the end of this year and to legislate, where necessary, next year.
However, we must go further. In September, I will produce more detailed proposals in a pre-legislative paper that covers not just universities but colleges, skills and training. That will be followed by a period of public discussion and debate, before legislation to reform all those areas is introduced to the Parliament in 2012.
Meeting the learner’s needs will be at the heart of those proposals. Scotland’s ability to flourish depends on its people, and I am committed to ensuring that our people—all of them—have the opportunities that they need to improve their life chances, attainment and employability. There will be tough choices. We need to be much clearer about the provision that is on offer—the extent to which it is duplicated and the degree to which it helps people to secure positive outcomes when their learning is complete.
Broadly speaking, my reform proposals will include establishing more efficient and flexible learner progression whereby more students are capable of moving seamlessly from school to college to university and into jobs; incentivising learning provision, so that it is better aligned with our ambitions for jobs and growth; creating structural change across the entire post-16 education landscape, so that public funds for education and training are used more efficiently; guaranteeing wider access, including lowering socioeconomic barriers to involvement in education and training; maintaining Scotland’s world-leading position in university-led research; developing revised student support arrangements that are fair and affordable; ensuring that governance in colleges and universities provides greater accountability for public funding and commands greater public respect; and simplifying the funding structures and flows for higher and further education.
I am pleased to announce that I plan to hold a review of the governance of our further education colleges, which will run in parallel with our university review. It will examine the quality and relevance of, and potential future contribution that can be made by, enhanced governance structures for our colleges. I am delighted to inform the Parliament that the review will be led by Professor Russel Griggs, who will be assisted by representatives of staff, students, principals and others. Professor Griggs has held many non-executive positions in the public and private sectors and is the chair of Dumfries and Galloway College’s governing body.
I believe that, just as for our universities, the governance structure of colleges should pay strong regard to democratic accountability. College governance must be geared to providing world-class leadership, inspiration and scrutiny in order to support the economic and social role of colleges in what will inevitably be a highly challenging future financial climate. I will therefore ask Professor Griggs to make recommendations that will ensure that the governance of our colleges is fully aligned with those challenges. I will also ask him to consider what improvements can be made to the democratic accountability of our colleges.
What we teach and what we learn has played an important part in developing Scotland’s people, economy and society. Education plays a central role in improving life chances. Learning, in all its forms and settings, has a wide reach. At one end of the spectrum, it helps those who are furthest from the labour market to move towards employment; at the other, it develops high-level skills and produces world-leading research. Our tradition in education influences how other countries perceive us and how we project ourselves in the world. Our people and our distinctive culture are the richer for it.
These proposals for reform are ambitious. They represent the most significant changes since devolution. They will transform for the better the education and training landscape and enhance the life chances of all Scots.
The first Earl of Birkenhead, Frederick Edwin Smith, was rector of the University of Aberdeen from 1927 to 1930. In a rectorial address to the university, he stated:
“Scotland is renowned as the home of the most ambitious race in the world”.
That was a great compliment. It was true then, and it is true now. The Government and I are ambitious for the people of Scotland. Our proposals will ensure that those great ambitions are realised, for education makes ambitions come true.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement. I also broadly welcome the further information that he has provided on the review of higher education and the announcement of a review of further education. Labour wishes accountability in those areas to be improved, and we look forward to discussing proposals at a later stage.
However, I was slightly taken aback by the minister’s comments on charging fees for rest-of-UK students, which prompted more questions than answers. The minister has set the fee cap at £9,000 a year, but will that apply over three years or over the typical Scottish four-year course? Does the cabinet secretary accept that if it is open to principals to set a four-year charge of £9,000 a year, the cabinet secretary will be in the ludicrous position of setting fees in Scotland that are higher than those in England?
On the same point, will any university that introduces the new fees have to meet the criteria set by the Office for Fair Access, or will no widening access obligations be attached?
On the principles behind his thinking, will the cabinet secretary clarify whether he sees the primary purpose of the new charges as being to deter fee refugees or to generate income? If it is the former—which is Labour’s position—does he plan to set a limit on the number of places that are available to rest-of-UK students?
The cabinet secretary began his statement by ruling out a market for higher education for Scottish students. However, by allowing course-by-course and institution-by-institution flexibility over rest-of-UK fees, does the minister consider it acceptable to create a market for English students? There are already widespread fears that some institutions tailor their courses according to available funding streams, for example research grants or the number of postgraduate students. How does the minister intend to prevent those same institutions from offering courses to fee payers from the rest of the UK, which effectively would displace Scottish students from those courses?
Finally, the statement was noticeable for the lack of any detail on how the Scottish Government will proceed on charging EU students. Will the cabinet secretary at least assure Parliament that the plan that he has come up with and is working on is lawful as well as feasible within the boundaries of the EU?
I will deal with the last question first. There were many questions, so I will work my way backwards.
My statement was entirely clear. I used the words “within the boundaries of European law”. We will do our best to make progress on that. What we propose is certainly lawful in Ireland, where it operates, so I would have thought that it would be lawful here, too.
For a variety of reasons, I am disappointed in Ken Macintosh’s litany of questions. First, I hope that he will join me in saying that the best solution would be independence for Scotland, because in those circumstances we would be able to treat everybody entirely equitably. We would have our own money, raised through a variety of taxes, and we could choose how to spend it. Unfortunately, we are not in that position.
Ken Macintosh might reflect that the difficulties that have been created by decisions south of the border were set in train by the Labour Government, which commissioned the Browne review and clearly supported its outcomes. In those circumstances, if there are problems, many of them lie at the Labour Party’s door.
Mr Macintosh talked about the fees that I am setting, but my statement was entirely clear that I am not setting fees: I am giving Scottish universities flexibility to compete with their counterparts elsewhere in the UK. Mr Macintosh is also wrong that, in some curious way, there will be disadvantages. Some courses, such as medicine, that typically attract the highest proportion of students from the rest of the UK are the same length north and south of the border. The fee is an annual fee, but it will be up to the universities to decide how they compete. That is an inevitability. Because of the situation in which we are placed with the limitations on the Scottish budget, I cannot, and nor should I, pay for every single student who comes to Scotland.
As I made entirely clear in my statement, the proposals are designed to ensure that the same number of students from Scotland that we have this year—107,000—should be accommodated next year. I want to ensure that we go further. I said in my statement that I will consider lifting the cap on the number of students.
The measures are a necessary compromise that has been sought by the universities, with which I have had detailed and helpful discussions. In all those circumstances, the proposals are the right thing to do. I am glad that Mr Macintosh welcomes some parts of the statement, although it would have been more sensible if he had welcomed it all.
Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
I thank the cabinet secretary for the prior sight of his statement.
Will he confirm whether the increased fees that are to be charged to RUK students will be indexed in line with inflation?
Given that the vast majority of English institutions have now set their fees, with the average being £8,600, will the cabinet secretary confirm whether he believes that the total funding gap is still only £155 million?
David Willetts confirmed yesterday that there will be 10 per cent more cash in the English university system by 2014-15. What increase in cash terms will be enjoyed by Scottish universities in 2014?
Again, the member makes a basic mistake in her questions. I am not setting fees for students from the rest of the UK; I am ensuring that the freedom exists, under a cap, for the universities to do that. Providing that the consultation produces the appropriate responses, we will go forward on that basis, because that is what the universities want. That is the best situation that we can make out of the demands that have come from south of the border.
I am keen to stress a number of aspects. In Scotland, we will guarantee widening access, but we will do that by means of the legislation that I have proposed. Many people believe that the proposals south of the border will not guarantee widening access. We have opportunities to make the system work for Scotland. It would be very good indeed if the Tories left the position that they are in, which is unique, and supported the Scottish democratic tradition.
On resources to universities, we have guaranteed to ensure that we close the gap, and the universities are happy with that. I commend to Liz Smith a letter that I have had from the convener of Universities Scotland—from Scotland’s universities—which states:
“can I reaffirm Universities Scotland’s entire acceptance that in the post-election environment any further discussion of graduate contribution options is irrelevant.”
I think that that makes Liz Smith irrelevant, and I wish that she would join the relevant side of the chamber.
Many members wish to ask the cabinet secretary a question. If members keep the questions and answers brief, we might get through everybody.
Does the cabinet secretary share my regret that UK Governments of various shades have created the situation that we face today—Labour by introducing tuition fees in the first place, and the Tories and Liberals by their recent changes to fees in England? As much as we appreciate the cabinet secretary’s statement—
Ask a question, please.
Is it not the case that, if those parties had acted differently, the cabinet secretary might not have been in a position in which it was necessary to make the statement in the first place?
It is certainly obvious that many of the difficulties that we face were generated elsewhere. I am trying to decouple ourselves from that situation and create a clear policy that we can follow in Scotland—one that Mr Macintosh had indicated that he supported, although clearly he now has reservations. As long as we have reasonable agreement across the chamber that we have a distinctive and successful policy in Scotland, I want to limit the harm that is done—Mr Hepburn is right about that—by decisions made elsewhere.
The cabinet secretary has previously stated that an EU service charge will raise in the region of £22 million towards plugging the university funding gap. Can he confirm whether such a charge would be legal? If he is confident that he can pursue a charge, will it be additional to fees and will it have to apply to home students as well, as it does in Ireland?
With the greatest respect, the member knows the answers to those questions. They were in the statement, and they have been previously discussed. It would be good if the Opposition joined in supporting our initiative within the EU to ensure that we can put a service charge in place. I am happy to offer the member a briefing from officials on the service charge, because we want to ensure that everybody supports it. To use it as the stuff of politics and to bandy it about this chamber will not help universities, the situation or European students.
I welcome the inclusion of colleges in the statement. Will the cabinet secretary explain a little more about what he meant by “democratic accountability”, and will he provide some insight into the terms of reference of the further education review?
I will finalise the terms of reference with Professor Russel Griggs shortly. I had a conversation with him yesterday evening about some of the wider issues. He not only has a lot of experience in the further education sector but has worked in the better regulation sector and was part of the UK’s better regulation task force.
We want to simplify arrangements to ensure that we have in place governance arrangements that are the simplest possible and which provide colleges’ accountability to a number of communities. At the Education and Culture Committee yesterday, I referred to the concept of nested communities, which includes the academic and learning community of the college, the wider community in which the college is set, and the wider community of people in Scotland who provide education and training to the whole of the nation. In understanding the situation in that way, we want clear lines of accountability to be established. I am sure that Professor Griggs and his team will work on that, just as Professor Ferdinand von Prondzynski will work on it for the higher education sector. I hope that they will also work together more broadly.
What discussions has the cabinet secretary had with the UK Government to ensure that UK students from outside Scotland will be able to access funds to pay their fees through the Student Loans Company or another source?
When I discuss such matters with the UK Government, it is always on the basis that we both want to continue the cross-border flow of students. I had a phone conversation with David Willetts this very morning about a number of issues arising from his white paper yesterday and my proposals today.
There is a recognition throughout all the parts of these islands that we want to maintain cross-border flows. They are very important to us all. However, none of us should be in a position of finding our universities or colleges swamped by others from elsewhere, because that would create enormous problems.
There is a commitment to continue to support students coming from other parts of the UK. We are also committed to continuing to support students going to other parts of the UK, and of course we pay full fees when we do that. Any student going from Scotland to a course south of the border is paid for through the system and borrows the money to undertake their course. That will continue, and as long as we are all moderate and sensible the good things in the system will continue.
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of his statement. I also welcome the further detail on the review of higher education. Although he talks about the more efficient and flexible learner progression, there is not a great amount of detail. Will he confirm whether that includes the possibility of moving to Scottish degrees that are completed within three years? Although he was quick to encourage Ken Macintosh to rally to the standard of independence, without confirming any of the details of the legality of the management of the service charge in Ireland, does he not accept that the plan runs the risk of lumbering the Scottish ministers with the bill for the fees for students not just from the rest of the EU, but from the rest of the UK?
To be blunt, I think that the Liberals are becoming a single-issue party: they just talk about independence all the time. I have a much broader view.
If, at independence, we were faced with the problem of having to pay for students from the rest of the UK, I am sure that we would find a way to do it. The Irish way is interesting, as it applies a management fee to every person who goes to university in Ireland, including those from outside Ireland, but provides means-tested access to funding for Irish students, so there is a contribution—a generous one—to students. We could consider that for everybody, but I am keen to continue to explore the matter. Indeed, it is being well explored.
As for the variety of other governance and accountability issues, it is extremely important that we recognise the responsibilities of further and higher education and connect them to the people who are being served. If we do that, the system will work exceptionally well.
During the consultation period and while the voluntary guidelines are in place, what representation will the cabinet secretary make to universities to ensure that fees are set in a timely manner to give students a clear path ahead?
It is in the universities’ interest to ensure that they set fees at the right time, in the right way and at a level that they believe will attract the number of students that they wish to have. The universities were very keen for me to make this announcement before Parliament rose for recess; indeed, those who attended the two cross-party higher education summits that were held before the election will remember that the universities asked for this issue to be brought forward before the end of June. That is what we are doing. They are now ready to start the process of setting fees and, when we get the secondary legislation after the consultation, they will be able to ensure that they can charge them from next year. I am quite sure that they will do that well and in a timely—and careful—fashion. After all, they want to continue to attract the maximum number of students from elsewhere. Indeed, they might, as will be their right, wish to attract more students to certain courses.
As Marco Biagi has pointed out, the terms of reference of the higher education governance review refer to
“an appropriate level of democratic accountability given the level of public funding”
received. Will the review address the issue of lack of public audit in higher education, particularly given the difference between HE and FE in that respect? Will the cabinet secretary also confirm that there will be no further inflation in principals’ pay over the course of this parliamentary session?
It is quite impossible for me to fulfil the member’s second requirement, because I do not set university principals’ pay. If I did, I might be willing to give the member that commitment; however, given the circumstances, the issue is up to universities themselves. Nevertheless, I hope that they will be mindful of what the public thinks and feels. Indeed, members on all benches in the previous Parliament made it very clear that they were not happy with the way in which the matter had been handled. I echoed that sentiment and continue to echo it and make it clear to the university principals.
The member’s question about public audit is very interesting. Although the Scottish funding council requires a great deal of compliance activity, there is very little transparency in the publication of figures. The member is right to be concerned about that. It will be an issue for reform and will be tackled.
Jean Urquhart (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments, particularly the determination that higher education will continue to be free in this country. I would like to make a suggestion regarding Scotland’s newest university, the University of the Highlands and Islands. A couple of weeks ago—
The member should come to her question.
A couple of weeks ago, the new centre for nordic studies was launched. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary believes, as I do, that there should be better connections between UHI’s northern and island university colleges and the Scandinavian countries.
I agree entirely. Indeed, on a visit to Finland a year last March, I was very struck by meeting at a technical college in Helsinki a small group of social care students from Dundee College who were on a training fortnight. That link was very useful, and I encourage students and lecturers across the college and university sector to think of places outwith Scotland to make connections with, because such activity is exceptionally important. I am encouraging next year to be seen as the year of outgoing for Scottish students, and I have funded special activities to allow them to study abroad. The more that that happens in Scotland, the better.
The cabinet secretary has said that he will ensure that the additional revenue is distributed fairly. How will he achieve that and will all universities be able to hold on to the additional revenue that they generate?
Clearly, there has to be some benefit to each university, given that it has to meet the costs of the course. It would be inequitable if we were to do anything else. However, I think that all the universities recognise that there should be an additional sharing mechanism. After all, some of them attract more students from the rest of the UK than others. As I indicated in my statement, that is a matter for negotiation between Universities Scotland, the Scottish funding council and the NUS, but the Government will also have a role in ensuring that there is an equitable mechanism.
In taking forward his plans for higher education, will the cabinet secretary commit to continue to recognise and reflect the diversity of our university sector, and in particular the significant contribution that is made by research-intensive universities such as the University of Edinburgh, which undertakes important work, including its world-leading carbon capture and storage technology, which has the potential to benefit millions of people across the world?
Scotland has five of the world’s top 150 universities. I do not think that even France can stand in that league, so we play well out of our league in terms of size. We are also the most cited small nation in the world. We must maintain that, which is why my statement specifically referred to ensuring that the world-class research performance of Scottish universities is maintained. I am absolutely committed to that and will continue to be so.
The cabinet secretary has said previously that the comparative spending gap can be partly filled by efficiencies and philanthropic giving, despite the fact that those, of course, are also being pursued by English institutions. What other funding sources does he envisage using to fill the funding gap other than simply trying to charge English, Welsh and Northern Irish students more?
Murdo Fraser should start being ambitious and stop being so timorous. There is a famous phrase that if you invent a better mousetrap, people will beat a path to your door. If Scottish universities are, as we believe them to be, world leaders in research and teaching and are respected internationally, they will play well outside their league in philanthropy and research funding. They already do so in funding from, for example, the British and UK research councils. There is a variety of other ways in which they can work in that regard. The little Scotlandism of Mr Fraser is famous in the chamber. I am a Scot who is ambitious for our universities and for Scotland. Thank goodness that universities are achieving, because if they listened to Mr Fraser they would achieve nothing.