Meeting of the Parliament 03 June 2015
Although short, this has been a two-pronged debate: there has been some debate on the success of our universities and their funding, but it has mostly been about governance and the need for reform.
Across the chamber, we have all celebrated the success of our university sector, but I have to say that there has been a degree of complacency about that from some of the SNP speakers and perhaps from the cabinet secretary herself.
For example, a number of speakers, including me, have referred to the fact that we have four universities in the top 200 in the world. However, we should remind ourselves that, a short 18 months or so ago, we had five universities in the top 200, so we have to be a little careful about the direction in which we are going.
Mr Adam spent some time saying that the Scottish Government had maintained funding in the higher education sector, whereas funding had not been maintained in England; in fact, I think that he said it three times. However, if he had listened to me earlier, he would have heard me quote figures from Lucy Hunter Blackburn, the former head of higher education in the Scottish Government, which show that that is not in fact the case. In this year’s budget, the resources that are available to universities have been cut by 2.5 per cent, with £21 million clawed back after the budget was set and a further £14 million transferred to the Student Awards Agency. We could say that there has been a little bit of unusual accounting.
Mr Maxwell focused rather a lot on what a wonderful world it is for students in Scotland. That, too, rather stepped over the daily reality that students face.
I do not agree with Liz Smith that free tuition has created a funding gap between Scottish and English universities. I think that the helpful NUS briefing gives some detail—too much to go into in the short time that I have—which shows that the funding gap is rather illusory.
Mr Maxwell also said that the current set-up means that Scotland is the best place in Britain to be a student. However, as Mr Baker pointed out, that is certainly not the case for a student from a poorer family, because the level of bursary and grant support available to them will be significantly less and therefore, in order to live, their level of indebtedness will be significantly higher. Perhaps that is why we have a lower proportion of poorer students in our universities and—as Mr Baker pointed out—a higher drop-out rate.
As for governance, Liz Smith has asked on a number of occasions for evidence of failure. However, in her own speech, she indicated the most egregious evidence of failure, which is the lack of transparency in and the very high levels of principals’ pay. Even in the past year, principals’ pay has risen by between 7 and 13 per cent, at a time when most public sector workers are lucky to have a pay rise of 1 per cent.
The UCU—Liz Smith referred to this—has pointed out that even though universities claim to be transparent now, when it asked for details of remuneration committee minutes, two thirds of institutions failed to provide it with that information. That is a failure—it is a failure of governance—and there is no reason at all why we should not consider introducing transparency and consistency.
If Liz Smith talks to those who take part in the current governance structure, such as staff reps, she will find that they do not believe that the governance system is working.