Hansard

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 Scotland is important, and she and I agree exactly on how to do that, which is to have independence in Scotland.

The bill reflects our strong belief that access to higher education should be extended to all, especially those in our most deprived communities. The bill will end once and for all the perception in those communities that a top-class education is an opportunity that is designed for others. The distinguished Toronto educator, Avis Glaze, says that “poverty is not destiny”. The bill will make yet clearer that in Scotland, post-16 education is for everyone with the ability, drive and ambition to pursue it.

The bill will allow us to ensure that Skills Development Scotland has the information that it needs to identify young people who are at risk of dropping out of education. It will allow us to cap tuition fees for students from the rest of the United Kingdom and impose a related condition of grant on the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, which will ensure that such students are not charged more than they can access in fee support from their own administrations. We abhor the monetisation of higher education that has been set in train by the UK Government; unfortunately, that is the reality, and this Parliament has had no alternative but to take action.

The bill will substantially improve the governance of both college and university sectors. That is right and proper, and it is commensurate with the assurance and accountability required for public investment of £1.6 billion each year.

The bill will establish the structures that are necessary to deliver the full benefits of college regionalisation. As many commentators have observed, a regional system of planning and delivery will allow a much sharper alignment of provision and economic need, which will boost the employability of learners and deliver the skills that are necessary to drive forward the Scottish economy. Finally, the bill will give the SFC an explicit power to initiate a formal review of Scotland’s post-16 educational offer, to ensure that it effectively meets the needs of learners and the economy.

I am pleased to say that the evidence presented to the committee has revealed strong support for those principles, which is in stark contrast to the impression created by some Opposition members last week. The clear message that I hear from learners, staff and institutions is that the policy objectives that we have identified are the right ones.

To take just one example, on widening access, Robin Parker of National Union of Students Scotland clearly told the committee: “The legislation must happen.” However, that should come as no surprise, because we did not arrive at the bill’s principles on our own.

In the early autumn of 2011, we embarked on a process of detailed consultation and engagement. We published “Putting Learners at the Centre” in September that year. With the funding council, we consulted on detailed proposals for college regionalisation in November. Professor von Prondzynski and Professor Griggs consulted widely during their respective, independent, reviews of university and college governance. All that has led to a constructive process full of challenge, discussion and debate, to which we have listened carefully. We have taken that on board and have made improvements, and we will go on listening and looking at those ideas and influences as we progress with the bill.

However, I do not claim that there is consensus on the detail of every provision—it would be surprising if there was. Throughout the process, I have been clear that I welcome constructive challenge, and I will go on doing so because my priority is to work with staff, students and institutions—and this Parliament—to produce the best possible bill: one that maximises benefits for learners and for Scotland.

Today we are talking about the bill’s general principles—that is our focus. Looking ahead, I encourage all members, whether they are on the Education and Culture Committee or not, to come forward with suggestions that can help us to achieve a better bill.

I turn to some of the issues that were highlighted in the committee’s report. I noted with interest the differences that emerged. For example, some of the concerns over the provisions relating to college regionalisation are founded in perceptions of complexity. However, there is broad acceptance that a regional model of planning and delivery will achieve substantial benefits for learners, institutions and employers.

It has been suggested that, in allowing for both single and multicollege regions, we are creating an overly complex system. However, the bill allows for those different structures because we want colleges to determine the best model for learners in their region. Ian McKay, a former college lecturer and trade union official who is now regional lead for Edinburgh, put it well in his evidence to the committee when he said:

“In a place as diverse as Scotland, it will be necessary to have a degree of variance in the way in which we exercise control over a national structure. It makes sense that there should be such variance.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 19 February 2013; c 2026.]

An alternative approach would have meant forcing colleges to merge. We are not going to do that. Those who criticise our plans for regionalisation cannot at the same time oppose the flexibility that the bill allows.

Opposition parties have united to call for a delay to the bill, but at every stage we have answered the questions put and have addressed the issues raised, and we will go on doing so. Delaying the bill would be the wrong thing to do because college leaders are already seizing opportunities for post-16 reforms and are delivering the benefits of those reforms at an unprecedented pace.