Meeting of the Parliament 14 January 2016
It is an honour to speak in the debate on the Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Bill. There is widespread agreement in the chamber and outside it that Scotland’s universities punch above their weight. They make a major contribution to our economy directly and indirectly, through the human capital that they help to develop.
I believe that every organisation, however successful, needs to review and reform to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Organisations in the higher education sector are no different. We need to get a balance between reforms that increase transparency and accountability, and the maintaining of autonomy. Now that the Scottish Government’s proposed changes at stage 2 will remove the ministerial powers and, therefore, the threat of ONS reclassification of universities that would lead to the loss of funding routes, I do not feel that the Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Bill compromises academic autonomy.
With regard to financial decisions, higher education institutions that receive higher amounts of public funds should be open to greater financial accountability. Their lack of accountability has been symbolised by reports of high levels of pay and bonuses for principals, while junior staff suffer low pay and insecurity as a result of zero-hours contracts. Zero-hours contracts are the scourge of our industry just now. Education in particular suffers very badly in that area because of its importance not only to our country and to our academic teaching staff, but, more important, to the future students who will play the role of running our country and taking us forward.
I do not believe that the voluntary introduction of a governance review will automatically provide the required transparency and accountability. As each university is different, we should not assume that one size fits all. We need reforms that provide basic and clear governance structures that have the means to balance and correct themselves. The election of chairs could probably help to provide checks and balances, as would greater diversity on ruling bodies. I welcome the Government’s clarification of the process of election of chairs and its preservation of the post of rector for our older institutions.
As with any stage 1 debate, we can agree on general principles, but the details are important. There is still more clarification and tidying up to be done before we can be clear that the Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Bill will deliver the desired improvements in accountability.
Many of us have felt, particularly since the Government first interfered—if I can use that phrase—in the education sector, that many principals and boards had been gagged. They had been put in a position where they could not speak freely. They felt trapped, and they felt that they were unable to speak up about the realities of the conditions that faced them. The fact that the powers of hiring and firing lay with the minister meant that the universities, in particular, were in danger of losing the possibility of some very highly educated academics joining them, because they felt insecure about what was happening.
However, the new Government proposals are very welcome. We are going in the right direction, although a lot of work is still to be done. We must ensure that we are in a position to demonstrate to our universities that we will take their interests to heart and deliver a workable programme for them so that they are able to be transparent and to be more accountable than they are now.
15:09