Meeting of the Parliament 14 January 2016
I welcome this stage 1 debate although, like Iain Gray, I feel as if we have had this debate already on a number of occasions.
I want to raise a couple of issues. The first is that the Scottish Government is clear that our successful and internationally renowned universities are, and will remain, autonomous bodies. That is only right; the important point for me is how we can help them to grow to become even better than they are at the moment.
I do not think that the Scottish Government is being unreasonable when it asks for the very highest standards of governance, considering that it invests more than £1 billion every year in the sector. It is only right that it would expect those high standards—surely that is not too much to ask.
I could stop at that, Presiding Officer—some in the chamber of might think that that is a good idea—but I will not, as I have much more to say.
Many who provided evidence to the committee agreed that the debate and the bill are about ensuring that our universities continue to succeed. Stewart Maxwell, the convener of the committee, has already quoted Mary Senior, of UCU Scotland, but I think that it is a very important quote. She said:
“No one is questioning that Scottish universities are good—they are good. 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 shows the enthusiasm for the bill that exists in the sector, and the enthusiasm of the sector to work to make the bill even better. We also heard from Professor Von Prondzynski, the principal and vice-chancellor of Robert Gordon University. He said:
“Universities are autonomous bodies, and should be. But their autonomy should not shield them from legitimate expectations that they engage with staff, students and external partners, or from the need to behave in an accountable manner.”
Those quotes explain the position perfectly. Here are two individuals who work in different parts of the sector, both coming to the conclusion that we must move forward. We cannot allow these world-renowned universities to be left behind. The world continues to spin, time moves on and we all need to move forward and progress.
That brings me to the ONS question. In all honesty, I believe that the argument has been used in order to keep us from talking about the many positives of the bill. That in no way means that I take the threat of ONS reclassification lightly, and nor does the Scottish Government, which has stated continually that it does not believe that the bill would lead to reclassification and that, if universities were to be reclassified, it would do all in its power to fight against that. I agree with the cabinet secretary, who states in her letter of 11 January to the committee that
“the Scottish Government concluded that the Bill did not propose any additional risk of re-classification, with specific reference to these secondary indicators of control ... we do not agree with the conclusions reached in the advice provided by Anderson Strathern on what is primarily a matter of statistical classification. However, we have taken careful note of all evidence shared with both the Finance Committee and the Education and Culture Committee. In light of this, I plan to lodge a number of Scottish Government amendments at Stage 2 of the Bill’s consideration. A number of these are relevant to the points made in the Committee’s Stage 1 report. Specifically, the Scottish Government will consider removal of sections 8 and 13 in the Bill.”
That is welcome, because it gives us the opportunity to discuss the important parts of the bill. Too much time has been spent on what could have happened or should have happened—