Education and Skills Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Official Report 534KB pdf

---

Commissioner for Fair Access

Item 3 is evidence taking from Peter Scott, the newly appointed Commissioner for Fair Access. Welcome, Professor Scott, and congratulations on your appointment. I understand that you would like to make some opening remarks.

I will be brief. I have provided a written submission, which I hope is useful.

It is a great honour to be appointed to this position. I am keenly aware of the burden of expectation that is pressing on my shoulders. This is a great opportunity. As Ruth Silver said, there are many great examples of good practice across Scotland in the area of fair access.

In my written submission, I tried to do three things. First, I tried to be open and frank about my starting point and beliefs. I hope that I have not done that in a dogmatic way. I assure the committee that I am not prejudging any issue.

Secondly, I tried to foresee what some of the key debates might be—it became apparent from the committee’s questions to the previous panel that those are some of the key debates. I emphasised that although the issues have a strong and particular resonance in Scotland, they are more general; they are familiar across the United Kingdom, across Europe and across the world.

Thirdly, I briefly touched on and offered a very preliminary view on a number of more specific and detailed topics, which again came out in your earlier questions. I emphasise that there are many other issues, which I have not covered but which might be equally important, particularly in relation to student support and funding.

I want to allow the maximum time for committee members to ask questions, which I will of course do my best to answer, including a question of which I have had pre-notification, so I will make just two further preliminary remarks.

First, in a sense, the founding text of British higher education is the Robbins report, which was published more than half a century ago. That report established a famous principle, which was that higher education should be available to all those who have the potential to benefit and the willingness to do so. That has been widely accepted, for the past half century, as a fundamental principle. In one sense, therefore, we are pushing at an open door on fair access. I do not think that I have ever come across anyone who does not think that access should be fairer than it currently is. There are, of course, great difficulties in establishing how we achieve that.

There are one or two key words in the Robbins principle, the first of which is “all”. It does not say that higher education is for people who have particular social advantages or parents who are graduates; it says that it is for all. A second key word is “potential”. The emphasis should be on potential, which leads to discussions about contextualised admissions and so on. In the UK and in the Republic of Ireland, unlike most other European countries, higher education institutions in effect choose their students—they decide which students have the greatest potential and choose on that basis. There is no automatic entitlement, as there is in France for someone who passes their baccalauréat, in Germany for someone who passes their Abitur, or in some American states, where someone who graduates sufficiently high in their high school class is automatically entitled to a place in higher education. Universities have always been in the business of measuring potential, although that is difficult.

The second preliminary remark that I would like to make is, in a sense, a very personal one. I recently acquired a new grandchild, who is still under two, and I am 90 or 95 per cent confident that she will go to university. She will probably go to a good university. Both her parents are graduates, and her grandparents on my side are also graduates although, like many baby boomers, we were first-generation graduates. My concern is that I am not so certain that other babies who were born in the same hospital on the same night will achieve those ambitions. We all have a responsibility to ensure that we at least strive to create greater fairness in the system.

At that point, I would like to stop and answer your questions, if I can.

Thank you very much. Congratulations on your new grandchild—that is always one of life’s blessings.

Your final comments play into my first question, which is about targeting. You say in your submission that you see SIMD as a “sophisticated metric”. I know that there is a difference of opinion, both around the table and even among the witnesses, about how effective SIMD is. I am sure that you are not saying that SIMD is the only method of measuring disadvantage but recognise that other methods must be used along with it. Can you explain what you think those other methods are and how you would capture them?

SIMD is a relatively comprehensive measure, as it takes into account multiple aspects of deprivation as opposed to single measures. As has been said this morning, there are strong links between areas of deprivation and lower-performing schools. A much more limited range of people who have graduate qualifications live in those areas. A range of things come together to intensify disadvantage. However, as I said in my opening remarks, I am aware that there are issues with any area-based metric in that it will produce what might be called false positives and false negatives, and we should be sensitive to that.

The work that Universities Scotland is undertaking in looking at those areas and the scepticism that Universities Scotland has about how appropriate SIMD is as a measure to determine targets are to be welcomed. Any work that can be done to develop a more sophisticated basket of measures should be encouraged. However, SIMD is not a bad starting point—that is what I am saying.

That is a fair thing to say. Liz Smith would like to come in on the same subject.

One of the most interesting things for us—we heard about it from the previous panel—is that although universities are doing certain things extremely well, there are weaknesses and things that still need to be done. In the short time for which you have been in the job, have you seen areas in which there are already strengths that need to be built on and developed across the institutions? In particular, can you flag up where you think there are weaknesses that we need to address?

I will try. I hope that I will not be unfair in any comments that I make. The strengths are very much in bridging programmes, summer schools and links with colleges in relation to special programmes. “Weakness” is much too strong a word, but articulation could be improved, as I outline in my written submission. That is my broad conclusion at this point.

As Ruth Silver said, a lot of that practice is customised—it is for a particular college and a particular institution working together, often in a particular subject area—so it is very targeted. The challenge is to generalise some of that experience, making it more compatible, so that students are not necessarily locked into a limited range of choices but have a wider range of choices. Equally, however, I would not be in favour of trying to produce an overcentralised and overdetermined system.

We referred to problems with data with the previous panel. I return to the point that the data set is extremely important, both quantitatively and qualitatively, in leading us to identify where the problems lie and in giving direction to you and to the Scottish Government.

Do you agree that, generally speaking, there is quite good data but that it is not put across in a systemic manner, or is there a lack of data? What would you like to be done to help to inform you and to allow you to do your job as well as possible?

11:30  

There is certainly a lot of data available, although it is often not presented in a terribly helpful form. I will give one example. Data is often divided between younger initial entrants and more mature initial entrants. In the reality that we now face in universities and colleges, that is not always a helpful distinction, but it is difficult to get data that is not compartmentalised in that way.

There are masses of more qualitative data at a more individual, institutional, programme or subject level. It is often very customised. In its report, the commission noted its concern about the lack of evaluation of things that worked well and things that worked less well.

People who are enthusiastic about fair access and who have put a lot of personal effort and commitment into developing a programme do not want to be told that it has not worked very well, so there is a bias towards saying that programmes have been successful. We might need to find ways to be a bit more rigorous about evaluation, without in any way dampening people’s enthusiasm or discouraging them from experimenting with new ways of doing things.

I think you are right about that. What you said about nobody having a divine right to go to university is absolutely correct. It is a great strength of the system that it is left to the institutions to decide who has the right potential.

However, the issue comes back to the data. If we go down the road of having more consistent contextualised entry along with some flexibility on the access thresholds, the knowledge that institutions and, specifically, their departments have will be critical to their making the right decisions about to whom they offer a place. That is absolutely essential. Do we need to do more to allow institutions, which are autonomous—and whose autonomy I know you greatly support—to have a better understanding of where that data could come from?

Yes, that has to be true. As Ruth Silver said, it is absolutely right to trust the professionals. We should always trust people who are working in the areas concerned.

The best approach to contextualised admissions should be to leave the detailed work with institutions—and I would say not just with institutions but with subjects. The people who understand contextualised admissions in relation to fine art will be very different from the people who understand contextualised admissions in the context of electrical engineering. Subject expertise is as important as the institutional perspective.

I hope that Universities Scotland will carry this forward in its work. There is value in developing broad guidelines on the kind of factors that might go into the mix when it comes to contextualised admissions and on the approximate weight that should be attached to them. I am talking about some broad guidelines, not a rigid prescription by any means.

One should of course rely on the expertise of the people who are directly involved in particular subjects when it comes to the factors that it is appropriate to take into account. In general, one should struggle to make things transparent so that experience can be shared across institutions and, crucially, so that it becomes more plain to potential applicants how they will be judged.

Thank you for the breadth of your submission, Professor Scott. That breadth points to the weight of the tasks that you plan to undertake. Given that context, how many days a month are you contracted to provide in the role?

I am contracted to provide three to five days a month. I am realistic and understand that the work will probably take more than that. My assumption is that I should spend at least five days a month physically present in Scotland, and I suspect that, in reality, I might spend as much time again thinking, reading and communicating with people. As far as the contract is concerned, I think that the number of days was determined for funding reasons, in order to put a cap on the commitment. I absolutely agree with that approach.

Has the Government given you a budget and arranged for staff to support you in your role?

I have inherited the excellent staff who supported the work of the commission. In the short run, they will be working with me. I do not have a budget. I noticed that there are references in the commission’s report to commissioning research. At the moment, I do not have any resources to do that. However, in specific instances, if there seems to be a need for research, I would go back to the Government and suggest that it provides some resources. Equally, one needs to work with other research organisations to try to shape their research agendas.

Liz Smith has just been asking about research on SIMD, which you mentioned in your submission. Do you consider that research to be important enough to warrant your asking the Government for resources?

In the first place, I need to do a lot of work to understand the issues better. It would be premature for me to make demands on the basis of my half-understanding of some of the issues. However, as I said, I think that the search for the most sensitive possible metrics should be encouraged as much as possible, and I see myself as playing some role in that.

The commission made many recommendations. Does your job description task you with implementing those recommendations?

I should emphasise that some of the recommendations are directed to me, some are directed to the Government and some are directed to the funding council. I suspect that some of my responsibility might be to manage down expectations about what the commissioner can deliver. Equally, I accept that the commissioner has a key role, and that that is the challenge for me. I have given a great deal of thought to how I might work. At this stage, I am in the mode of listening to people, meeting the relative stakeholders and visiting institutions to find out what people are doing on the ground. At some point, I will need to move into a more proactive mode.

Do you see yourself as overseeing the situation with regard to the recommendations for the Government and the funding council, and, in a sense, keeping those organisations on the right track?

It is certainly my responsibility to comment on that situation, if I think that that is appropriate. One of the few formal responsibilities that I have been given is to produce an annual report. I assure you—this will perhaps pre-empt another question—that I will do that without fear or favour. Equally, I hope that my reports will be grounded in evidence and be well informed and sensitive.

In certain situations, it will be quite difficult to establish precisely the degree to which I should become deeply involved in things and the point at which I should stand back so that I can make judgments. I am the first commissioner—not only am I new, but the role is new—so, to some degree, we are at an experimental stage. I think that, in a year, you and I will have a much better idea of whether things are working.

One thing that I can promise you is that I have no intention of trying to operate via a Twitter account.

It is very popular these days.

I know it is.

You should be grateful, at least, that they have not called you a tsar.

I want to ask a final question, if I may. If the week that you plan to spend in Scotland proves to be insufficient, I take it that, under the principle of no fear or favour, you will certainly say to the Government that you need more time to do the job adequately, given the challenges that exist.

I will not demand extra personal resources, but I would certainly be prepared to take on more time. Equally, I need to be realistic. I have other responsibilities and other fixed points in my diary that I have to keep to. However, I have certainly accepted that the work is a major commitment, and I think of it as a kind of half-time commitment.

My question might sound quite broad, but will you elaborate a little on the definition of “fair access” that you will work with? I know that the National Union of Students Scotland has raised a concern about that.

That is a very broad question. There are many dimensions of fairness, and to some extent they come into conflict with one another. It is clear that it is unfair that, because of their social situation, people are categorically disadvantaged in respect of having a hope of participating in higher education. Equally, it is unfair if other people are excluded as a result of encouraging those people to participate more. Therefore, there are many dimensions of fairness.

One way that I can contribute is by encouraging a very open and frank debate about precisely what “fairness” means. If it was a simple matter, I think that we would have found a solution a long time ago. We have to work at that in many dimensions.

One concern that NUS Scotland raised was about the balance between getting more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds into university and the issue that has already been raised in this meeting in relation to parity of esteem between further, higher and vocational education, breaking down privilege, and the idea that further education and vocational education are somehow lesser than higher education. How do you see the balance in your work between getting more disadvantaged young people into university and creating parity of esteem between the levels of education?

I prefer to emphasise higher education rather than universities. Colleges in Scotland make a very important and substantial contribution to the delivery of higher education, and that should be preserved. Many people south of the border might feel that the pendulum has swung too far, that universities have become too dominant an element, and that that has added to a potential downgrading of more vocationally orientated institutions, although the universities are, of course, very vocationally orientated. It is about access to higher education rather than access to universities. We should respect the contribution that colleges make, which in many ways is appropriate.

We should be worried if it appears that the social composition of the student body in universities is very different from that in colleges, but members would find that the social composition of the more traditional universities in England is very different from that of the post-1992 universities, which, of course, represent a much larger section of the university sector in England than they do in Scotland. We should be concerned that there are no barriers. Equally, we should not say that the only desirable outcome is an honours degree from a university. Higher education has many other desirable outcomes.

On that cultural point, in some situations and some sections of society, parents would see their child getting a higher national diploma or a higher national certificate as a lesser achievement than their getting an honours degree. How do you perceive your role in shifting that culture?

The major thing that I can do is not to focus too strongly on just the universities’ contribution and to give greater recognition to what colleges can and do deliver without in any way diminishing the ease of articulation or transfer from one type of institution to the other, if that is appropriate. It might be appropriate to transfer in the other direction on certain occasions—who knows? The issue is very difficult, and the amount that one person can contribute to changing a culture always has to be limited.

11:45  

I will start with a supplementary to the questions on contextualised admissions. You said that there is a need to make things plainer for learners and, indeed, for them to know whether they have the required grades, and that the danger is that contextualised admissions make things more obscure. Can you elaborate on what you think needs to happen to make things plainer for learners?

All universities publish tariffs for each subject in terms of the required UCAS points for entry, but in practice universities vary those and, to a degree, take into account prior educational experience and social circumstances. Traditionally, they might have taken into account other things that might even have intensified privilege, rather than diminishing it.

It is important that people understand the factors that will be taken into account—but not in order then to aggressively play the system in terms of their own CV, although that is of course a risk. The point is that they should have full knowledge of the factors that might be taken into account and the weight that might be attached to them, which I think is fair to people. It is also fair that someone who has achieved higher grades but does not get a university place is helped to understand that the university chose another person who apparently had lower tariff points than they did because other factors were taken into account. It is therefore fair on both sides to know the factors that are taken into account.

The factors that can be taken into account will vary between institutions and subjects. Frankly, there are some subjects for which prior, detailed educational experience in quite a technical sense is absolutely required, but there are other subjects for which that is less necessary. However, it is important to bring all of that out so that the person who is applying to university has a better understanding of how their application will be judged. I suspect that the situation is often pretty opaque now, apart from UCAS points.

That is absolutely right. I look forward to seeing future work on that.

You mentioned in your written submission the need to look at what is happening in other parts of the UK. The critical starting point of the recent Diamond review in Wales was to look at students having sustainable levels of income while they are studying, which I think is quite interesting and a different approach. What lessons does the Diamond review have for us in Scotland? How much will you look into the issue of student support?

That is an area that I do not particularly cover in my written submission. However, I think that the Diamond review is a very interesting experiment. To a degree, a change of policy was forced on the Welsh Government because its policy of subsidising fees was probably not financially sustainable and led to what appeared to be a large outflow of resources to English institutions—as you can imagine, Welsh institutions, which felt that they should have benefited from the policy, objected to that. There were therefore particular circumstances around why the Welsh Government’s previous approach needed to be modified.

The emphasis on student support, rather than higher fees with fee waivers and loans, as in England, or free tuition, as applies in Scotland, is nevertheless interesting. My instinct is that there is no one right model. In a way, it is useful to be able to look across the United Kingdom at different ways of approaching the issue and their potentially different impacts on fair access.

However, to return to one of the points that I made in my written submission, inequality of access reflects much deeper cultural and social factors. Regardless of the funding arrangements that there might be or whether student numbers are capped, those inequalities of access persist and need to be addressed.

The experience in England has been that approaching the matter purely in terms of financial incentives by providing bursaries to students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds is often an intervention that comes too late; that we need to address the issues much earlier; and that outreach activities, bridging programmes and summer schools—all the things that we talked about earlier—are more effective than financial incentives. Equally, we should make sure, of course, that there are no financial barriers to participation, as far as possible.

I agree with that set of assumptions. A wide range of factors are in play, but affordability is a very important one. On that basis, what role do you see, or what discussions have you had, with regard to your participation in the student support review that has been announced?

I know that one of the recommendations in the commission’s report was that work on the impact of student funding and support on fair access should be commissioned within, I think, three months. My instinct today is that it might be premature to rush into that, although it is clearly an extremely important factor.

What impact does the prospect of student debt have in terms of perceptions and encouraging—or otherwise—people to go to university?

We could say that we are engaged in a gigantic experiment in relation to that south of the border. Of course, people in Scotland and Wales graduate with levels of debt. They are lower than they would be in England, but they still exist.

We still have a rather insecure understanding of perceptions of debt, particularly among younger people. So far, the evidence is that, for many young people, debt is perhaps not as intimidating a prospect as it probably was for me when I was younger. I think that circumstances change in that respect. We need a better understanding of perceptions of debt among different social groups. Some people are probably more ready to accept and not worry about debt—they see how it might be funded and paid back. For other people, perhaps because they lack that self-confidence, it is a much more intimidating prospect.

I think that it is much more about perceptions of debt. Equally, however, I do not think that it is fair to expect someone who graduates from university to already have, in effect, a second mortgage to pay.

Daniel Johnson has touched on the majority of the issues that I was going to ask about. I have the Diamond report here, and I met Sir Ian Diamond recently. I will not cover the same ground as Daniel Johnson, but the report is clear that a move from the tuition fee grant to improved maintenance support arrangements for undergraduate students—particularly those with the highest level of grant support covering the full maintenance costs, or all their living costs—could help to support the widening of access as well as retention. Will you reflect on that as part of your annual report?

We are looking to learn from best practice across the UK but, rather than that just being something that is covered in this committee, will it be something that you reflect on as you proceed and as you report back to Government?

Yes. I agree that that is the key aspect. I am sorry if I am being a bit tentative. It is simply because I do not want to claim understanding that I do not currently have, and that is probably the area where I have most to learn.

Comparisons across the UK are valuable, and I will certainly keep in touch with others. I already know and have met my approximate equivalent in England—the director of the Office for Fair Access, who is a former colleague. As far as possible, I will share any lessons that can be learnt from England, as I will in the case of Wales. As I said, the Diamond review has been an extremely interesting experiment, though it is at a very early stage. It might yield very interesting information as well, so I will certainly address that topic in my annual report.

Something about the report that was quite interesting was the reaction from students, who seemed to welcome a lot of the suggestions.

You pre-empted one of my questions in your response to Liz Smith. I take it that it is a genuine commitment that, when you feel that perhaps policy is not always achieving the objectives that it is set of it, you will be fairly robust in highlighting that to Parliament.

Yes. I am very determined to maintain my independence. All that I can say is that if the Scottish Government has any doubt on that count, it has not done its preparatory work satisfactorily, because I have a reputation for being independent. Equally, I hope that I will be sensitive. I think that my role should be challenging, but also very supportive and very respectful of the work that is currently being done.

Gillian Martin, do you have a supplementary question?

Would you say that the task that you have before you has surely been made significantly easier, given that Scottish students who want to go to university do not have the burden of potential debt from having to pay student fees, and that that is one barrier that has been removed that has had an effect on the people who we are trying to target on getting into university?

Sorry, could you rephrase that slightly?

Yes. You are dealing with widening access in a country that does not put the burden of paying tuition fees on its higher education students. Would you agree that that will make the widening access agenda easier to achieve?

I would say that, in very broad historical terms, providing free tuition does, on balance, produce fairer access, but it is by no means a simple equation. It would be a great mistake for anyone to conclude—and I do not think that anyone in Scotland is concluding this—that simply because tuition for Scottish students is free, that has somehow solved the problem. There are many other issues that have other sources. However, I have no doubt that that is the right starting point.

I have to say that, regardless of my own personal views, that is—and has to be—the starting point, because it is the policy of the Scottish Government, and it has been so under different political administrations since it was established. In practice, it would be very difficult to move to a different kind of system.

Conversely—and sadly, I would say—it would be quite difficult now, in England, to unscramble, or retreat from, a system that is dependent on charging high tuition fees. One has to accept that political reality. As far as my personal beliefs are concerned, I think that the Scottish approach is much more likely to promote fair access in the longer term than the approach of the UK Government acting as an English Government is.

Your last two answers pleased me no end, as you talked about independence and about an English Government. Sorry, I am abusing my position as convener. Sorry, Liz Smith.

Johann Lamont has a question.

You said two things in your opening contribution and in your submission that I welcomed. The first was to put the issue in the context of two children, one of whom had been born with opportunity. Although that opportunity is not guaranteed, the reality is that, for too many of our children, their life chances are determined by the time that they are five. I hope that, while that issue might not be in your remit, you will continue to have it in your head, because it is so important in terms of Government policy more generally. That issue is not going to be sorted by some kind of system of making it fairer for the ones who actually manage to get through the process, but by recognising that we lose so much potential all the way through the system.

The second thing that I welcomed was that you said that your work would be evidence led. It is my contention that education policy in Scotland and evidence-led policy are completely different things. I hope that you will recognise that. We have just heard about that, around the question of tuition fees.

I note your personal view and what you have said. I wonder whether you would look at what might be the unintended consequences of the tuition fees policy. If you look at the evidence, you see that, first, the universities tell us that the policy is underfunded. Secondly, it is cross-subsidised, fortunately, from students coming from across the border who pay fees. Thirdly, it is rationed by a quarter—there is a cap on the system. I am told that it is more difficult for a young person in Scotland to go to university now than it was five or 10 years ago precisely because of our funding system—and the system has the consequence of cuts to college education.

12:00  

Do you have a role in looking at that evidence and saying, “If you want to call it free education, you are going to have to either put more money in or, if the resources remain the same, recognise that there is a balance to be struck”?

Yes, I think that to some degree I can make those points. Equally, I have to—and I do—accept that those are political decisions, and that the Scottish Government has to establish its own priorities and has been elected on that basis.

I, naturally, would argue for increased expenditure on higher education and education more generally, but I am very aware that the national health service or other areas might be a greater priority. Therefore, although additional resources would be very welcome, realistically we always have to accept that there is going to be some limit on what resources are available and that the priorities affecting choices are ultimately political ones.

You mentioned the cap on student numbers. I know that there is quite a focus on that in Scotland and the impact that it might have in terms of displacing Scottish students. I have tried to emphasise that, in a sense, there are always going to be constraints on capacity in any system. Issues such as displacement can, notionally and logically, arise in all circumstances.

I also should point out that the cap on student numbers in England has only been fully removed this year. It is very early days to see how that will work. We should not imagine that simply removing the cap, or raising it significantly, will solve all our problems of fair access. However, I absolutely accept that we need additional resources and, if I feel that it is appropriate, I will make that argument.

The argument is about how resources are shared. Of course the capacity is there; it is simply that Scottish students cannot get those places because of the way in which the tuition fee policy operates. I should add that our young people are the most indebted. Disadvantaged students in Scotland are more indebted than those in other parts of the United Kingdom.

You say that that is a political decision. Is it not your job to challenge political decisions that are not evidence based? There might be contention around what I have said about the evidence. However, is it not your job to say to the Scottish Government that, although it is describing a policy as free tuition, that policy has consequences, particularly for access, as I would contend? Is it not your job to say, “You may want to make that political decision, but you will make it in the knowledge that it is contrary to a policy of fair access and opportunity”?

Certainly my response would be to point out the consequences of both the student cap and the level of overall funding. However, the decision lies elsewhere. It is certainly correct that I should point out the consequences and the evidence that supports the conclusions that I have reached.

I suppose that what I am keen to hear from you is a recognition that a decision ought not to have the credibility of the label of free education if it has consequences for access and runs counter to what we are looking at. I want to hear that, rather than you simply saying, “That is not a matter for me; it is a decision for Government”.

I certainly should look across the wide range of policies. I ended my written statement by saying that Government should try to make all policies access proof. Even if the area appears to be comparatively remote from entry to higher education, we should try to make some assessment of what the implications, whether positive or negative, might be in relation to fair access. I certainly think that it is my responsibility to try to increase in all areas of the Scottish Government a sensitivity to the impact of its policies as far as fair access is concerned.

To be fair, I think that everyone here will want to be in a position to support what you have said about valuing higher education for everyone and the difficulty of seeing how that fits in with the tuition fees policy.

I have one last wee question on access. Will you be looking at the necessity of having a four-year degree in Scotland in light of the view of many young people that the first year at university is similar to the sixth year at school?

It would be very bold of me to suggest a total reconstruction of the pattern of undergraduate education in Scotland. After all, we should recognise that Scotland’s approach is standard across Europe and the world; it is England and Wales that are exceptional in having a shorter undergraduate degree.

However, I accept that one needs to ensure that any overlap between the final year of school and the first year at university is managed sensibly. There might be instances of high-performing students being given some form of advanced standing, for example.

In general, the four-year degree course gives Scotland a flexibility that is not available in England, where the range of possibilities is rather narrow. That said, that flexibility has not always been used, certainly in relation to articulation. My understanding is that roughly half the students with higher nationals who transfer to university are given no credit or advanced standing at all. In England, the proportion is rather lower, despite the fact that students might be coming into the final year of a degree programme rather than into year three. Therefore, managing articulation should be easier in Scotland than it is in England, where the degree programme is shorter.

Therefore, I think that one should encourage a degree of flexibility, in a limited number of circumstances perhaps, by allowing some form of advanced standing, even for first-entry students from school; and I think that that flexibility should certainly be used to improve articulation and to make it more common. However, I do not think that it would be sensible for me to recommend any wholesale changes in that respect. On the whole, it is a great advantage that should be used more commonly than it is.

I wonder whether I can get some clarification on that. Notwithstanding the different views on higher education funding—I am not asking about that difference of perspective—do you, with your title of commissioner for fair access, believe that a problem in the current system lies in the different categories of students, whether they be domiciled Scots, European or international students or rest-of-UK students? Do the students in those different categories have different perspectives on the payments that they make to universities? After all, some are paid for by their Governments, while others use their own means. I am not asking for your views on the future of higher education funding, but does that issue concern you from a fair access point of view?

Moreover, to take up Johann Lamont’s point, I wonder whether you think that there is a knock-on effect on the competitive edge for places as a result of the capped system, which does not exist for some students. Will you look at that aspect?

Yes, I certainly think that we should be frank about that. As I have said in my written submission, this is not a new problem; in a sense, it has existed for at least half a century in relation to students from outside the European Union. I agree, though, that a new dimension of complexity has been created by the different decisions that the UK and Scottish Governments have taken on tuition fees, which produce areas of potential controversy and complexity in relation to fair access.

I see the primary responsibility of my role—and I think that this was the prime focus of the commission—as being to focus on fair access for Scotland-domiciled students. I do not think that I have any remit to make access fairer for students who come from England or Wales to attend Scottish institutions, although I accept that the social composition of those students changes the flavour and affects the culture of at least some Scottish universities.

NUS Scotland provided figures for the committee. It told us:

“our ancient universities account for only 6% of students from the most deprived backgrounds moving from college to university”,

and that

“of those 113 students, 91 are made to start over again in first year ... A further 10 are made to duplicate a year of study”.

Does that seem fair?

On the face of it, it is not fair, but we must always start from where we are, rather than where we should be. I think that we would find a very similar pattern at the most famous American universities or at Oxford and Cambridge. On the whole, there would be a limited number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, despite the great efforts that those institutions make to search for such students and to welcome and support them when they enter the institution.

Rather than comment in detail on specific universities, I make the general point that it is important that the institutions that have the most socially privileged intakes have a leadership role. It is not appropriate to say that fair access will be taken care of by the post-1992 universities or the colleges; the responsibility is for the whole sector. Indeed, in a way, Edinburgh and St Andrews—or whatever institutions you have in mind—might have a heightened responsibility to exercise leadership in that area.

I have to say that those universities make major efforts. I was in St Andrews last week, talking to the new principal, and the university had organised a conference to bring together people from across Scotland who are concerned with fair access. I was impressed by the new principal’s personal commitment in that regard, and I know that St Andrews has some quite interesting programmes.

I would not expect everyone to approach fair access in the same way, but the statistic that you gave is alarming.

NUS Scotland also said:

“Overall, across all institutions, 51% of articulating students are forced to repeat years of study”.

That seems a high proportion.

It seems a high proportion to me, too. I think that it is higher than the proportion in England, as I said, despite the fact that England has a shorter degree programme.

There are two areas of concern in that regard: one is for the individual student, who prolongs their education, which leads to issues of debt, worry about entering the labour market and so on. Such issues are worse for students who are forced unnecessarily to prolong their education. Secondly, it is a waste to duplicate a funded place that could have been available to another student.

I think that more could be done to improve the situation. Universities sometimes start from the position that a higher national student is guilty until proved innocent—it has to be proved that the experience that they had in their two years articulates sufficiently well with the university programme for them to be allowed on to it. We should try to shift that round, so that on the whole the student is regarded as innocent until proved guilty: the starting point should be that they are given advanced standing and appropriate credit unless there are compelling educational reasons, in relation to particular subjects, why that would not be appropriate—of course, there will be midway positions, too.

12:15  

In the interest of fairness, is that an area that you would very much be looking at?

Yes. I would have expected Scotland’s performance on articulation between colleges and universities to be superior to that of other parts of the United Kingdom, but it appears to be rather less good. It is an area that one could work on.

Organisations such as the NUS say that articulation is a success story. Clearly, though, there are other issues behind it that perhaps need to be addressed in the interests of widening access and fairness.

Yes, I agree.

I welcome you to your new post, Professor Scott, and I wish you well going forward.

We have had an interesting discussion today and a lot of points have been covered, but I have a question for you that I put to the previous panel. For me, this issue is about ensuring that people have choices. I think that it was Tavish Scott who made the point that there is perhaps almost an obsession with university and college education, or further education as a whole. However, I would like to see young people across the country having choices and feeling that, whatever they choose, they are on an even keel with others. You have talked about that issue in your responses to questions from different members, but what is your view generally on that?

You are right that we should not indicate that there are standard ways of achieving success and that there are routes that are inherently less successful. I would certainly resist very strongly any suggestion that a college experience or its courses and qualifications are somehow inferior to a university experience—such a suggestion would be wrong. The key, though, is to ensure that people have the correct information to make choices. To level the playing field, people should start from the same position and have the same chance—or reasonably similar chances—of the choices that they would like to make being realistic ones for them to follow. It would be very unfortunate if in the process of pursuing fair access, the choices available to people were narrowed down.

In future, my guess is that there will be a proliferation of different pathways that students might follow, including apprenticeship modes of various kinds—there will be a much more diverse range of pathways for people to follow; so fair access should not be narrowed down too much so that success is achieved in a particular way.

Do you have any plans to do work with the business community on, for example, the modern apprenticeship scheme? Is it on your radar to do anything like that?

It certainly should be on my radar. As I said, I think that I should try to resist as far as possible seeing fair access simply in terms of access to universities and perhaps particular kinds of university. That is important, but it is only one aspect of fair access. As you said, fair access is about trying as far as possible to respect the choices that students might make if they are following less traditional routes. This is not at all a criticism of the commission on widening access’s report, which I think is a wonderful document in most respects, but it is focused very strongly on younger initial entrants, and the situations of mature or adult students and part-time students, who because of their circumstances need to study in a more flexible way, also need to be addressed.

I need to try to cover as much as possible, but I also need to be realistic. Clearly, there are certain agendas on which people wish to see progress. The Scottish Government has established some targets and the funding council has established, in effect, targets for institutions to meet—outcome agreements. However, we should not be too constrained by such targets; we should try to see fair access in a very broad and open kind of way.

I appreciate that those were very broad questions and I acknowledge that you are just in post. I genuinely look forward to you coming back before the committee at some point in the future, when you have had more time to develop in the role. I will be keenly interested to see how things are going.

I am clear that I am offering very general answers to questions for which the answers should be much more specific. I need to think hard, certainly in the first year, about the areas that I should focus on. I would hope to determine three or four areas to focus on and make that publicly known. However, I would not want to lose a sense of the need to encourage a debate about what fair access means.

Thank you, Professor Scott. I am sure that when we have you back before the committee, we will ask you questions about those areas of interest.

That concludes the public session. I thank Professor Scott for his time and evidence, and I wish him well in his new post.

12:21 Meeting continued in private until 12:31.