Meeting of the Parliament 14 January 2016
That is one of the possible models that could arise from the Scottish Government’s suggestions and the work that the Government and the sector will take on. Given that I am speaking as convener of the committee, I will not give a view on whether that model should be chosen. I will say only that there should be flexibility across the sector to allow it to figure out the best way of going forward along with the Government in subsequent discussions. I note that there will be amendments in this area and that the Scottish Government’s view is that it will be up to institutions to ensure that rectors and elected chairs work effectively together.
The bill proposes the inclusion of new members on the governing bodies of institutions, including trade union representatives. Higher education institutions stressed that union representatives on governing bodies should be there in a representative capacity for all staff, to avoid the possible accusation of a conflict of interest.
We were not persuaded by such arguments and we noted that all members of a governing body must act in its best interest. We also agreed with the principle that a diverse group of people should be included on the governing body and recognised that the bill’s proposals would make governance more inclusive. However, we recognised that such changes would not in and of themselves guarantee improved governance.
HEIs were concerned about how they would accommodate the changes to governing body membership, given that such bodies are not supposed to have more than 25 members. Concerns about changes to the governing body were just one of the reasons that the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland cited in its recent letter to the Scottish Government to ask to be excluded from the bill. I am sure that we would all very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s views on that request.
I would like to know whether institutions are likely to be reassured by the Scottish Government’s suggestion that governing bodies are not now to include two graduate members. That did not seem to be a major concern in our evidence taking. They might be more comforted by the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council’s response to our report, which in summary said that it would not be concerned by a short-term increase in governing-body membership.
I have already touched on reclassification. There is no specific reference to Scottish HEIs being included in the relevant work that the ONS is carrying out. Nonetheless, we appreciate that reclassification would be in no one’s interest and recommended that all reasonable measures be taken to minimise any risk of it occurring.
In part, the HE sector’s concerns stem from the sections of the bill that would give the Scottish ministers the power to make regulations about governing bodies and academic boards. We therefore welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to amend or remove sections 8 and 13.
However, despite what the cabinet secretary said a moment ago, I remain disappointed that the Scottish Government has still not adequately addressed our request for further information on academic freedom and specifically on students’ freedom. I expect a response to the committee on that issue as soon as possible.
A key consideration when scrutinising any bill is the improvement that it is likely to deliver. Such a judgment may be particularly difficult with this bill, as separate efforts by HEIs are also under way to improve governance. We therefore asked the cabinet secretary how she would evaluate the bill’s success and were pleased when she confirmed that the sector would play a role in monitoring the bill’s impact. We expect that to be a fully inclusive exercise that involves all the relevant bodies in the higher education community. That would be consistent with the bill’s aims and would encourage everyone to continue to focus on improving our already world-class higher education sector.
14:19