Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 27 March 2013
27 Mar 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Post-16 Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
I thank the cabinet secretary for addressing in his speech many of the issues raised in the Education and Culture Committee’s stage 1 report on the bill and for his quick response—in time for the debate—to the report. I also thank those who provided evidence to the committee, the clerks, and the Scottish Parliament information centre, which provided assistance throughout the stage 1 process.
I make it clear that I am speaking in my capacity as committee convener, which provides me with an opportunity to discuss the main issues in our report in more detail. I will also look ahead to stage 2—assuming that the bill passes stage 1.
The committee’s report sets out various areas where further information is required before we will be in a position to consider amendments. The report notes the broad and strong support for the general policy direction; it also raises a number of questions about some of the specific approaches that are being adopted.
I should say at this point that the committee was split on whether to support the bill’s general principles. The majority of members supported those, whereas others expressed concern about whether the legislation would achieve them. All members noted some concern about the specific means by which the bill would achieve some of the general principles. I will address some of those concerns and questions as I go through our views on the bill, provision by provision.
I doubt that any member is unaware of the educational, cultural and economic importance of Scotland’s higher education institutions. Our universities punch well above their weight internationally, and I believe that no Government—or party—would seek to jeopardise their world-class reputation. Although university reform should therefore be conducted with caution, the Parliament should not run the risk of being overly timid in its approach. Higher education institutions spend considerable amounts of public money, and we rightly expect to derive a public benefit in return.
A major aim of the bill is to improve university governance. The trade unions that provided evidence forcefully made the case for that, citing universities’ weakness in relation to scrutiny, transparency and widening access as reasons for reform.
The Scottish Government’s response to those perceived weaknesses is set out in section 2 of the bill. Essentially, higher education institutions are
“to comply with any principles of governance or management”
identified by Scottish ministers.
It is fair to say that university principals and chairs are worried that the provisions on governance may give too much power to Scottish ministers and jeopardise their institutions’ responsible autonomy. In other words, they expressed the belief that universities can best deliver public benefit when they have clear autonomy to do so. In our report, we have asked the cabinet secretary to explain whether those concerns should be addressed by amending the bill at stage 2.
While we were scrutinising the bill at stage 1, a steering group was developing a new Scottish code of good higher education governance. We understand that the code—which is due to be published in April—will become the “principles of governance” referred to in the bill.
The committee had a number of questions about the code, and in our report we have asked the cabinet secretary to explain how it will be signed off, whether it will address the issue of gender inequality on university governing bodies, and how it will avoid straying into the management, as opposed to the governance, of universities. Given that the code was not available before the end of stage 1, the committee will take further evidence on the content of the code before commencing stage 2.
I hope that everyone present agrees that our universities should be places where all those with the ability to flourish are admitted. However, it is strikingly apparent from the evidence that we heard that some groups of people, particularly those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, are not as well represented in university as others. The bill seeks to address that deficit.
The committee welcomed the principle of widening access and the cabinet secretary’s recent financial commitment to that policy. However, we have asked for further information from the Scottish Government.
First, we want to know how the risk that universities will adopt weak access targets can be avoided. We do not want—or anticipate—such an outcome but, to put it charitably, progress on widening access could perhaps have been a little quicker over the years. As the cabinet secretary acknowledged, universities will maintain autonomy in determining admissions. We also heard from Scottish Government officials that universities are unlikely to face financial penalties for failing to hit targets. Therefore, the committee has requested some clarification on how the bill will be made to work.
Secondly, we have asked for confirmation that the very welcome Scottish Government funding for retention activities will continue in future years, because there is not much point in widening access if the students who benefit then simply drop out of university.
Although the bill allows for the establishment of widening access agreements, what is crucial is whether the intended outcomes are delivered. We have therefore requested an annual update from the Scottish funding council on the progress that is being made on access and retention. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments in his reply to the committee’s report in that regard.
Much has been said inside and outside the Parliament about tuition fees. In the evidence that we took on the provision on tuition fees, the arguments that we heard were well rehearsed and were undoubtedly familiar to all members. The unions restated their opposition to tuition fees and said that students from the rest of the UK who studied in Scotland could face the highest-cost education system in the UK, but Universities Scotland challenged that evidence. It pointed out that the average Scottish fee is “spectacularly” below the average English fee, and that around 30 per cent of degree courses in England last for four years or more.
In effect, the bill puts on a legislative basis an existing agreement that Scottish institutions will cap the level of tuition fees that they charge students from the rest of the UK. The committee supported the general principles of the Scottish Government’s approach to the fees cap.
I turn to college regionalisation, which forms the most substantial part of the bill and on which we took a large amount of evidence. There was praise for the bill’s aims and the wider reform process, but several witnesses criticised the bill and the wider process. The changes that the bill proposes and the separate continuing process of college mergers will result in a significant restructuring of Scottish colleges. There will be regions with a single college—that will be the case here in Edinburgh, for example—as well as multicollege regions in Glasgow and Lanarkshire. New regional boards will be created for Glasgow and Lanarkshire, which will distribute funding and plan provision across the region. Individual colleges in those areas will be known as assigned colleges.
In the light of comments by the Scottish funding council, we particularly asked the cabinet secretary for a detailed explanation of the relationship between regional boards and assigned colleges. Specifically, the committee sought clarity on lines of funding and accountability between the two levels of governance. We also wanted to understand how regional boards will meet the needs of students and business without becoming overly bureaucratic or consuming precious resources.
The bill will also allow the funding council to review the provision of fundable further and higher education to ensure that it is provided in a coherent manner. Such a review could include consideration of the number of post-16 education bodies and of the learning and courses that they provide. The provision in question does not appear to radically alter the funding council’s existing powers in that regard, although Scottish Government officials said that it would give the funding council
“a clearer mandate to discuss with institutions evidence of, for example, unnecessary duplication that is to the detriment of learners and wider public investment.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 15 January 2013; c 1745.]
Universities Scotland criticised the proposals. It said that it was not the funding council’s responsibility to decide on the number of fundable higher education institutions and went on to set out some of the potential problems that a higher education institution could face if it were known that it was under review. Although the cabinet secretary and the funding council sought to reassure Universities Scotland, we have asked the Scottish Government to consider whether the bill could be amended to provide further reassurance to universities.
I turn to the provisions in the bill that concern data sharing. If the bill is passed, a legal duty will be placed on relevant bodies to share data with Skills Development Scotland to help it to identify young people who have disengaged with learning or training, or who may be at risk of doing so.
Although the cabinet secretary stressed that a relatively minor change is being sought, our understanding of the provision was not at all helped by the evidence that we received. In particular, we struggled to understand how a database—or a data hub, as it was called—could identify young people who were
“at risk of disengaging with learning or training”.
I had some difficulty understanding the evidence that we received from SDS. Our comprehension was not helped by the fact that the policy memorandum does not explain what the phrase means, nor does it say how many young people it could cover or exactly how they would be helped.
Although a minor change is being sought, the underlying policy is of immense importance and we took some time to disentangle the provision from the wider policy. We also asked SDS for a detailed explanation of how it will proactively support young people who may be
“at risk of disengaging with learning or training”.
The committee, by majority, supports the general principles of the bill. We have taken our responsibilities at stage 1 extremely seriously and have taken evidence on all the key issues from a wide range of interested parties. As ever, their input has been invaluable and I would like to thank all those who provided written submissions or oral evidence. I restate my—and, I am sure, the committee’s—thanks to the clerks and SPICe for all their support during the stage 1 process.
Our report summarises the bill’s strengths and weaknesses. Witnesses and the committee have made it clear that greater clarity on the bill is required, and I very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to work with the committee to ensure that the bill can and will be improved at stage 2.
15:14
I make it clear that I am speaking in my capacity as committee convener, which provides me with an opportunity to discuss the main issues in our report in more detail. I will also look ahead to stage 2—assuming that the bill passes stage 1.
The committee’s report sets out various areas where further information is required before we will be in a position to consider amendments. The report notes the broad and strong support for the general policy direction; it also raises a number of questions about some of the specific approaches that are being adopted.
I should say at this point that the committee was split on whether to support the bill’s general principles. The majority of members supported those, whereas others expressed concern about whether the legislation would achieve them. All members noted some concern about the specific means by which the bill would achieve some of the general principles. I will address some of those concerns and questions as I go through our views on the bill, provision by provision.
I doubt that any member is unaware of the educational, cultural and economic importance of Scotland’s higher education institutions. Our universities punch well above their weight internationally, and I believe that no Government—or party—would seek to jeopardise their world-class reputation. Although university reform should therefore be conducted with caution, the Parliament should not run the risk of being overly timid in its approach. Higher education institutions spend considerable amounts of public money, and we rightly expect to derive a public benefit in return.
A major aim of the bill is to improve university governance. The trade unions that provided evidence forcefully made the case for that, citing universities’ weakness in relation to scrutiny, transparency and widening access as reasons for reform.
The Scottish Government’s response to those perceived weaknesses is set out in section 2 of the bill. Essentially, higher education institutions are
“to comply with any principles of governance or management”
identified by Scottish ministers.
It is fair to say that university principals and chairs are worried that the provisions on governance may give too much power to Scottish ministers and jeopardise their institutions’ responsible autonomy. In other words, they expressed the belief that universities can best deliver public benefit when they have clear autonomy to do so. In our report, we have asked the cabinet secretary to explain whether those concerns should be addressed by amending the bill at stage 2.
While we were scrutinising the bill at stage 1, a steering group was developing a new Scottish code of good higher education governance. We understand that the code—which is due to be published in April—will become the “principles of governance” referred to in the bill.
The committee had a number of questions about the code, and in our report we have asked the cabinet secretary to explain how it will be signed off, whether it will address the issue of gender inequality on university governing bodies, and how it will avoid straying into the management, as opposed to the governance, of universities. Given that the code was not available before the end of stage 1, the committee will take further evidence on the content of the code before commencing stage 2.
I hope that everyone present agrees that our universities should be places where all those with the ability to flourish are admitted. However, it is strikingly apparent from the evidence that we heard that some groups of people, particularly those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, are not as well represented in university as others. The bill seeks to address that deficit.
The committee welcomed the principle of widening access and the cabinet secretary’s recent financial commitment to that policy. However, we have asked for further information from the Scottish Government.
First, we want to know how the risk that universities will adopt weak access targets can be avoided. We do not want—or anticipate—such an outcome but, to put it charitably, progress on widening access could perhaps have been a little quicker over the years. As the cabinet secretary acknowledged, universities will maintain autonomy in determining admissions. We also heard from Scottish Government officials that universities are unlikely to face financial penalties for failing to hit targets. Therefore, the committee has requested some clarification on how the bill will be made to work.
Secondly, we have asked for confirmation that the very welcome Scottish Government funding for retention activities will continue in future years, because there is not much point in widening access if the students who benefit then simply drop out of university.
Although the bill allows for the establishment of widening access agreements, what is crucial is whether the intended outcomes are delivered. We have therefore requested an annual update from the Scottish funding council on the progress that is being made on access and retention. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments in his reply to the committee’s report in that regard.
Much has been said inside and outside the Parliament about tuition fees. In the evidence that we took on the provision on tuition fees, the arguments that we heard were well rehearsed and were undoubtedly familiar to all members. The unions restated their opposition to tuition fees and said that students from the rest of the UK who studied in Scotland could face the highest-cost education system in the UK, but Universities Scotland challenged that evidence. It pointed out that the average Scottish fee is “spectacularly” below the average English fee, and that around 30 per cent of degree courses in England last for four years or more.
In effect, the bill puts on a legislative basis an existing agreement that Scottish institutions will cap the level of tuition fees that they charge students from the rest of the UK. The committee supported the general principles of the Scottish Government’s approach to the fees cap.
I turn to college regionalisation, which forms the most substantial part of the bill and on which we took a large amount of evidence. There was praise for the bill’s aims and the wider reform process, but several witnesses criticised the bill and the wider process. The changes that the bill proposes and the separate continuing process of college mergers will result in a significant restructuring of Scottish colleges. There will be regions with a single college—that will be the case here in Edinburgh, for example—as well as multicollege regions in Glasgow and Lanarkshire. New regional boards will be created for Glasgow and Lanarkshire, which will distribute funding and plan provision across the region. Individual colleges in those areas will be known as assigned colleges.
In the light of comments by the Scottish funding council, we particularly asked the cabinet secretary for a detailed explanation of the relationship between regional boards and assigned colleges. Specifically, the committee sought clarity on lines of funding and accountability between the two levels of governance. We also wanted to understand how regional boards will meet the needs of students and business without becoming overly bureaucratic or consuming precious resources.
The bill will also allow the funding council to review the provision of fundable further and higher education to ensure that it is provided in a coherent manner. Such a review could include consideration of the number of post-16 education bodies and of the learning and courses that they provide. The provision in question does not appear to radically alter the funding council’s existing powers in that regard, although Scottish Government officials said that it would give the funding council
“a clearer mandate to discuss with institutions evidence of, for example, unnecessary duplication that is to the detriment of learners and wider public investment.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 15 January 2013; c 1745.]
Universities Scotland criticised the proposals. It said that it was not the funding council’s responsibility to decide on the number of fundable higher education institutions and went on to set out some of the potential problems that a higher education institution could face if it were known that it was under review. Although the cabinet secretary and the funding council sought to reassure Universities Scotland, we have asked the Scottish Government to consider whether the bill could be amended to provide further reassurance to universities.
I turn to the provisions in the bill that concern data sharing. If the bill is passed, a legal duty will be placed on relevant bodies to share data with Skills Development Scotland to help it to identify young people who have disengaged with learning or training, or who may be at risk of doing so.
Although the cabinet secretary stressed that a relatively minor change is being sought, our understanding of the provision was not at all helped by the evidence that we received. In particular, we struggled to understand how a database—or a data hub, as it was called—could identify young people who were
“at risk of disengaging with learning or training”.
I had some difficulty understanding the evidence that we received from SDS. Our comprehension was not helped by the fact that the policy memorandum does not explain what the phrase means, nor does it say how many young people it could cover or exactly how they would be helped.
Although a minor change is being sought, the underlying policy is of immense importance and we took some time to disentangle the provision from the wider policy. We also asked SDS for a detailed explanation of how it will proactively support young people who may be
“at risk of disengaging with learning or training”.
The committee, by majority, supports the general principles of the bill. We have taken our responsibilities at stage 1 extremely seriously and have taken evidence on all the key issues from a wide range of interested parties. As ever, their input has been invaluable and I would like to thank all those who provided written submissions or oral evidence. I restate my—and, I am sure, the committee’s—thanks to the clerks and SPICe for all their support during the stage 1 process.
Our report summarises the bill’s strengths and weaknesses. Witnesses and the committee have made it clear that greater clarity on the bill is required, and I very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to work with the committee to ensure that the bill can and will be improved at stage 2.
15:14
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick)
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-06059, in the name of Michael Russell, on the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Bill.I remind all members that...
The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning (Michael Russell)
SNP
I am delighted to open this debate on the principles of the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Bill. I thank everyone who has contributed to the development of the...
Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Lab
You rightly say that the objective of the reform is to widen access to education for people in deprived areas, for example, and vulnerable people with learni...
Michael Russell
SNP
The process of regionalisation will be part of the process of widening the offer. I am glad that the member has raised that issue, because last week, I met t...
Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab)
Lab
Today, I received an email from Unison, which has done a quick survey around the City of Glasgow College and identified almost three pages of courses that ha...
Michael Russell
SNP
I am not really surprised that Mr Findlay is behind Ruth Davidson in raising those points. She raised them some months ago but, unfortunately, she has not co...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
Order.
Michael Russell
SNP
The process of regionalisation is providing wider opportunities across the college sector and across Glasgow. It is doing precisely that.
Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Con
I take your point about various aspects of the issue and that we have to weigh up other things in the balance. Could you be specific? College regionalisation...
Michael Russell
SNP
There is a guarantee of widening access to higher education in the outcome agreements, and the regionalisation process will ensure better offers for every st...
Margo MacDonald (Lothian) (Ind)
Ind
I thank the minister for giving way—he is taking a great number of interventions. Perhaps he should be absolutely bare-faced and honest: we will widen access...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
Members should use members’ full names.
Michael Russell
SNP
Margo MacDonald is, as ever, wise, but the bill is about opening the door and creating the opportunity. Of course, moving people away from poverty in Scotlan...
Liz Smith
Con
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Michael Russell
SNP
I am sorry, but I am very short of time. Perhaps I will do so in a moment.It is college leaders who, right across the country, are presiding over the emergen...
Liz Smith
Con
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Michael Russell
SNP
No. I am sorry, but I am coming to the end of my opening speech. I will genuinely try to take an intervention later in the debate.I turn to the issues that w...
Stewart Maxwell (West Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
I thank the cabinet secretary for addressing in his speech many of the issues raised in the Education and Culture Committee’s stage 1 report on the bill and ...
Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab)
Lab
As a member of the Education and Culture Committee, I, along with my colleagues, sat through many hours of evidence on the bill, and my view on it has been s...
Margo MacDonald
Ind
Those are good questions, but does the member have any answers to them? It sounds to me as though they could be issues for debate.
Neil Findlay
Lab
What a fantastic question from Ms MacDonald. I just wish that she had put that point to the minister.
Stewart Maxwell
SNP
Sorry, but I do not want members in the chamber to get the wrong impression of what occurred in the committee. The member raised many of those questions—he l...
Neil Findlay
Lab
The committee asked the cabinet secretary question after question after question, as did the people who gave evidence, so that is utter nonsense.What about t...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
You are in your last minute.
Neil Findlay
Lab
Section 14, on “Review of further and higher education”, is a provision on which Universities Scotland has raised concerns.Finally, on section 15, following ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
You must conclude.
Neil Findlay
Lab
I take no pleasure in saying that the bill is not fit for purpose. The Government should recognise that, withdraw the bill and come back with one that the se...
Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Con
We can all agree that this is a very important time in further and higher education. There are a huge number of challenges involved in facing up to a fast-ch...
Michael Russell
SNP
The member cited Professor von Prondzynski. To be fair, she should not give the impression that Professor von Prondzynski said that everything was fine and t...
Liz Smith
Con
I acknowledge that, but the whole point is that Professor von Prondzynski was saying that there is no need for a radical overhaul, particularly—