Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 29 September 2011

29 Sep 2011 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Scotland’s Colleges

Russell, Michael SNP Argyll and Bute Watch on SPTV

I have frequently said that I wish that that had not been the case. I wish that the Labour Party had not so enthusiastically backed student fees south of the border and had not voted for them. Now it is proposing to raise fees for Scottish students—even in Scotland, it looks like—to £6,000 a year. I will take no lessons from Labour on fees.

In the time left, I will tell the chamber what we are going to do. To realise our ambitions, we cannot avoid taking a hard look at delivery structures, which must work for learners and employers and must be sustainable. I want regional groupings, greater collaboration and mergers where such a move makes educational and financial sense. In case anyone might be tempted to misinterpret that last point, I will make my position clearer still. I have talked about mergers. We are not and never will be in the business of closures. We have terrific examples of the benefits of college mergers—indeed, I have already mentioned Glasgow—and various rural colleges are getting together. In Edinburgh, Brian Lister, the principal of Stevenson College, has told me how they are positively working with Jewel & Esk College on a merger.

Of course, this is not just happening in Scotland. Members should stop being so isolationist and look around at what is happening. In Northern Ireland, 16 colleges have been reduced to six; in Wales, there are plans to move from 25 to 15; and in England, from 1993 to 2008, there has been a reduction of 72 colleges. Collaborations between colleges and universities are taking place in Scotland, including, for example, between Aberdeen College and Robert Gordon University. The message is clear: mergers of and collaborations between post-16 institutions are far from uncommon and where they benefit learners they should take place by negotiation.

In the past week, I have been contacted by many principals. They told me four things, the first of which is that, unfortunately, they did not approve Scotland’s Colleges first letter. Let that pass. They made three other interesting points. First, they believe that the Government is focusing on the right things: the needs of learners, of employers and of the wider economy. Secondly, notwithstanding the challenges, there is genuine appetite for reform. Thirdly, ambition and leadership are absolutely crucial, as is deeper collaboration between Government and the college sector.

I will let Sue Pinder, principal of James Watt College, speak for them all. She wrote to me, saying:

“I believe that such fundamental and far-reaching change can only successfully come about by joint working between the leaders of the service, the Government and the funding council.”

I agree entirely. I want to help the sector adapt to that change and get it off to a flying start. Why do I want that? I want it for the benefit of Scotland’s learners and Scotland’s economy, which seem to have been forgotten by the Opposition parties.

I move amendment S4M-00955.2, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert:

“commends the valuable work of the nation’s colleges; welcomes the commitment from Scotland’s Colleges to work constructively with the Scottish Government to deliver learner-centred reform of post-16 education; supports the Opportunities for All programme that will provide a suitable place in learning or training for all 16 to 19-year-olds not already in work or education; notes the value to the people of Scotland of maintaining free access to higher education, and completely rejects the introduction of tuition fees for Scotland-domiciled students.”

10:44

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 29 September 2011

In the same item of business