Meeting of the Parliament 14 January 2016
There is a strong consensus that our higher education institutions should uphold the highest standards of governance. However, there are differences of opinion about the Scottish Government’s role, about current standards of governance in the sector and about some of the measures that are proposed in the bill.
As we are aware from the debate that was held in the chamber during our stage 1 scrutiny, there has been extensive discussion of an issue that is not even mentioned in the bill—namely, the possible risk of our universities being reclassified. According to many voices, higher education governance is in a good state. Certainly, universities were keen to point out the link between their international success and their existing governance arrangements, while highlighting their continuing work to make further improvements.
Neither the review that led to the bill, which Ferdinand von Prondzynski chaired, nor the cabinet secretary provided specific examples of deficiencies in the sector. Even some unions—the strongest proponents of change—acknowledged that the bill would not be starting from a position of real weakness. For example, the University and College Union Scotland said:
“No one is questioning that Scottish universities are good—they are good.”
Crucially, however, it added:
“What we are saying is that they could be so much better if staff, students and trade unions were fully involved in how they operate.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 6 October 2015; c 11.]
That appears to us to be the nub of the bill. Will it help to make a good system even better? Will it help to reduce the risk of some of the poor instances of governance that were highlighted to us recurring?
Overall—with the exception of two members—the committee supported the bill’s general principles of strengthening governance in higher education. However, we were clear that the Scottish Government needed to provide further information on various issues to fully inform the debate. That demand reflected the fact that much of the bill’s detail was still under active consideration when we published our report.
I thank the Scottish Government for responding to our report in good time for the debate. It is clear from that response that, should the bill progress to stage 2, there will be a significant number of amendments for us to consider. Many of the proposed changes reflect the recommendations from our stage 1 report, and it is welcome that the Scottish Government has responded positively to our concerns.
The Scottish Government has taken into account our view that it should have provided more justification for some of the provisions contained in the bill. For example, we queried the rationale for universities’ academic boards being limited to 120 members. The Scottish Government’s response says that it engaged with Professor von Prondzynski during stage 1 and subsequently came to the view that it might be better to remove the cap.
The Scottish Government has clarified another key provision of the bill, which is that the Scottish ministers are to determine a process by which institutions appoint the chairing member of their governing bodies. Our report expressed support for measures that could increase the pool of suitable candidates for the post of chair. We also agreed that openness, transparency and consistency in the appointment process are desirable.
However, we noted a lack of detail on how the chair is to be appointed, so I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government’s response provides more information on the steps involved. On the specific issue of possible remuneration for governing body chairs, I appreciate the fact that the Scottish Government has responded to our concerns by flagging up relevant amendments for stage 2.
We said that the role of rector—a historic and often high-profile figure in Scotland’s ancient universities—should be clarified. If there are to be elected chairs and elected rectors, there should be no ambiguity about their respective roles, and both figures should be able to work together for the good of the institution.