Hansard

It does not really matter which academic, economic or social measurement is chosen—Scottish universities are held in high esteem throughout the world. That is because they have a long-standing and proud tradition of attracting the very best students and staff, of achieving academic excellence and of maintaining their international competitiveness. That, together with the fact that higher education is one of the key sectors of the Scottish economy, contributing £6.7 billion annually, makes them hugely significant institutions that both define and enhance the academic, social and cultural life of Scotland.

What are the features that have allowed them to do that? First, it is their diversity. We have 16 universities, including the Open University, and three specialist higher education institutions—Glasgow School of Art, the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland and Scotland’s Rural College. Their ages range from two to 601 and their foundations reflect our diverse educational history, way back to ancient papal bull and royal charters. Five were established by the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 and one by Privy Council consent, and four are companies limited by guarantee.

Most importantly, that diversity reflects each institution’s unique role when it comes to the pursuit of academic excellence and its contribution to world-class research and knowledge exchange. Time after time, those in the sector point to the crucial importance of maintaining that diversity if Scotland is to continue to lead the way—a point stressed by Louise Richardson in her recent speech to the Scottish Council of Independent Schools and by several other principals, who seem increasingly prepared to express in public their fears that increasing the amount of Government regulation is detrimental to the diversity of the university system. Their view is not just personal opinion; it is based on professional experience and the fact that Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development studies across the world have found a direct correlation between institutional autonomy and the quality of the education offered.

Just three weeks ago, Professor Peter Downes of Universities Scotland, who is the principal of the University of Dundee, said that the Scottish Government should

“reflect seriously on the wide range of evidence that says the proposals in the consultation paper”

on governance

“will damage universities’ contribution to Scotland’s success”.

He added that that was a comment not just from the sector but from many voices in civic Scotland. It is a strong comment from a sector that bends over backwards to be non-political and objective in its analysis.

Until now, university autonomy has never been in question, for the simple reason that that autonomy has allowed the institutions to employ their expertise and professional judgment when it comes to teaching and to investing in the future—something that, quite clearly, gives them the versatility that is so crucial if they are to respond effectively to the demands of the global context. We should be in no doubt about the speed with which that versatility must operate, as universities respond to the intense international pressures that are constantly on them.

A third factor is the fact that our universities have enjoyed good governance through structures that have continued to evolve over the years to ensure that there is effective, inclusive and transparent management of the universities as they seek to be fully accountable for both the public and the private funds that they receive.

I have looked carefully at the submissions to the consultation, and there have been criticisms from some quarters. Notably, the University and College Union and the National Union of Students say that the opposite is true—that there is very little transparency in the management of the universities and that they are somehow out of touch. I have read their submissions carefully and note their concerns about the levels of principals’ pay and references to freedom of information requests about senior management remunerations, which the UCU claims were not sufficiently transparent. Apart from those submissions, however, I am struggling to find any evidence whatsoever that supports the claim that the current form of university governance is a major issue.

That is a serious matter, because it seems that the Scottish Government is hell bent on meddling in that governance and exerting more control over the sector. To what end would it do that? Where is the evidence that the current governance structures are in any way having a detrimental effect on the educational experiences of our students, on academic standards or on the ability of institutions to attract the best staff?

One of the Scottish Government’s proposals is to ensure that there are elected chairs of court, who would be voted in by a much wider electorate than just the members of the courts. However, what would happen to the crucial working relationship between the chairman and the board if the successful candidate was not one in whom the board had any confidence or for whom it did not vote? Do boards not already include staff, students and alumni as well as a diverse range of independent members who bring expertise from a very wide range of backgrounds, whether in the public, private or third sectors?

In any case, why should the composition of senates or academic bodies be a matter for any Government? Would it actually be legal for the Scottish Parliament to require those institutions that are constituted as companies, such as the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, to change their articles of association? In the context of the charitable status that our universities enjoy, how would moves to amend the powers of boards sit with their regulation by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator?

Another worrying proposal by the Scottish Government is to legislate to include in the statutory requirement for academic freedom the “exploration of new ideas”. Why should we do that? Have the universities not proved over many generations that they are perfectly capable of fostering new ideas without any Government telling them what to do? The Scottish Government also says that it wants to force university governing bodies and courts to include representatives of particular interest groups—something that would not only be contrary to the Nolan committee principles of probity within public life but undermine the independence of the governing council. Yet again, the Scottish Government has not provided one shred of evidence as to why that should be necessary.

Is it because the Scottish Government believes university governance perpetrates inequalities? I do not think so, because the current system of governance has the full support of the Equality Challenge Unit, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. Is it because there is a gender equality issue, with too few women in governance positions? No, because no fewer than five out of the last six appointments to chairs of court have been women and 42 per cent of all the recent appointments to governing bodies have been women—and they are there on merit. Is it because the university governing bodies are not seen to be sufficiently accountable? I do not think that it is that either, because recent research has shown that universities are involved in no fewer than 550 lines of reporting to Government and external agencies and that not one of those has made a complaint about reporting procedures.

I ask again: where is the evidence that there is any sense of failure among the current structures of governance that is undermining the performance of our universities? Would it not be better for the Scottish Government, instead of trying to tackle a problem that does not exist, to concentrate on the problems that do exist and on the real educational priorities such as raising literacy and numeracy levels, closing the attainment gap and providing better bursary support for poorer students?

All the Scottish National Party’s boasting about free higher education hides the truth that students from poorer backgrounds are proportionately worse off now compared with when the SNP came to power. That has prompted Lucy Hunter Blackburn, who was the Scottish Government’s higher education officer between 2000 and 2004, to say recently:

“Scotland is unique in having a system which assigns the highest student debt to those from the lowest income homes”.

Indeed, in Scotland, non-repayable grants form a significantly lower percentage of total student support than is the case in other jurisdictions. Student support is a serious issue, and the facts do not sit well with the Scottish Government’s claims that social justice is at the very centre of its policy focus.

Of course, all that raises the much wider issue about what is a more sustainable and equitable method of university funding. The SNP has made plain many times that it is committed to free higher education. That is its choice, but in making that choice it must explain how it will fund it. Will it cut college budgets again or will it cut other areas of public expenditure? Will it raise taxes? How will it close the funding gap, which is undoubtedly growing between Scotland and the other parts of the UK? Will it continue with its highly discriminatory policy whereby domiciled Scots and EU students pay no fees while their counterparts from the rest of UK and non-EU foreign students do? How will it raise sufficient bursary funds to support poorer students?

Those are the issues that the Scottish public wants answered before the Scottish election next year rather than some vindictive, bureaucratic and completely unnecessary attack on university governance, which shows no sign whatsoever of having any problems. How will the Scottish Government explain to the people of Scotland that that is its priority rather than all the other pressing issues in education?

As we await the Scottish Government’s legislative response to the consultation, I ask that it takes stock carefully and considers what is in our universities’ best interests. Is that an autonomous and free-thinking sector, or is it one that is increasingly in thrall to Government and its restrictive practices?

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the outstanding contribution that Scottish universities make to the academic, economic, social and cultural life of Scotland and to the enhancement of Scotland’s international reputation; believes that their ability to achieve excellence is dependent on their longstanding ability to attract both students and staff of the highest quality, their international competitiveness, their ability to act with versatility to take advantage of opportunities for the institution and the fact that they are autonomous institutions; recognises that current mechanisms of higher education governance are inclusive of staff and students, including them as members of the governing body, and are a central part of what is an open and transparent process for recruiting a university’s principal and chair for the annual appraisal of those roles, and is concerned that the current funding arrangements for higher education and the principles that underpin the Scottish Government’s proposals to reform university governance threaten to undermine the ability of Scottish universities to remain world class institutions and diminish the autonomy that has been the main driver of their success.