Meeting of the Parliament 03 June 2015
I am grateful to Annabel Goldie for describing how things can be done very well. The point in any sensible society is that we want to ensure that things are always done very well. Alex Johnstone tells me that it is all about a liberal approach. A liberal approach is undoubtedly what I would want to see, but we do want to follow the public pound, at least well enough to ensure that the bodies to which that money goes are accountable. I am hearing some very loose descriptions of accountability and control. It seems to me that accountability to the general public—whether or not it is to the Parliament—is one thing, whereas control is something very different.
In our society, we have all sorts of discussions between those who have some kind of embedded value and vested interest and those who see an opportunity using their own talents and abilities. In classical economics, that is capital versus labour although, in this kind of educational debate, I would prefer the idea that it has something to do with the institutions—our universities are fine ones—and the opportunities that students and staff recognise.
I will briefly pick up—this inevitably has to be brief this afternoon—on three different issues that have emerged in the consultation. First, when reading through the summary of the responses to the “Consultation On a Higher Education Governance Bill”, I was struck by what I saw on several pages, which revealed some very different views from—I use the term loosely—the management of the universities and from everybody else. It is not universal, but it seems that there are two very different aspects and views coming through from our universities. I find that slightly discouraging, as I would have hoped that there could have been slightly more unanimity among those who work there as to what the collective vested interest is and what the public interest is. That diversity of opinion seems to be sharp enough that those in charge might like to think about why that gap is there.
Secondly, I refer to the issue of elected chairs. It struck me that there were some very strange things among the responses. I will quote from paragraph 1.24, on page 4 of the consultation written responses document, which members will have seen. It says:
“Most universities opposed the proposal”—
referring to the proposal that chairs should be remunerated—
“with a common view being that the post of chair is essentially a voluntary one, with those putting themselves forward doing so on a ‘pro bono’ basis as part of a public service commitment.”
I think that that view belongs to a different generation, and possibly century—if that is not the same thing. Why on earth should we be restricting such posts to those who can afford to be there pro bono—or, if they cannot afford to do so and are being employed by somebody else, why on earth should somebody else be paying them to do the job? Everybody else in universities is paid—and quite well at the top—and I am not at all clear where that view comes from.
Lastly, I want to look at the issue of the way in which universities change. When I saw the motion and the amendments, I was reminded of my time as a student in Cambridge in the 1970s and remembered that we students wrote a report that we put to the college offices about how students might be represented on the college body. That was in 1975, and two of our recommendations were eventually acted on. First, our college allowed women to enter as students—that took 10 years. Secondly, students were allowed to be members of the college council—as far as I can tell, that was enacted in a 2009 statute.
One of my fellow students who was involved in that report was none other than the Rt Hon Oliver Heald QC MP, who I suspect will be known to my Tory colleagues. The point is that, as students, we saw things differently, and the issues that we raised then still apply.
15:25