Meeting of the Parliament 08 March 2016
As we have heard, the passage of the bill has not been a great advert for the Scottish Government’s competence and grasp of educational matters, but then again, what is? Matters that should have been thrashed out in co-operation with institutions’ staff and students have been pushed through, despite frequent opposition over reasonable concerns. In particular, there was significant apprehension about the impact of changes that could adversely affect institutions’ financial status. The institutions were not easily mollified by Scottish National Party reassurances, particularly given the Scottish Government’s track record of such reassurances turning into expensive mistakes. Doubts remain about some aspects of the bill, and dissatisfied parties abound, who will be looking for outcomes that give substance to such doubts.
Despite the messy management of its passage, at the heart of the bill lies a good intention, which is to create more democratic, diverse and accountable governing bodies that operate with greater openness and transparency. A primary objective in the process, which has been supported by Scottish Labour in amendments that it lodged, was to ensure that the operation of the governing bodies is opened up to staff and students and clearly works for their benefit. Where such representation existed, we wished to ensure that powers that were already in the hands of staff and students were not undermined.
The role of elected chairs should strengthen transparency and democracy in universities. The bill as it was initially drafted neglected the role of the rector and gave rise to strong criticism from the universities that have rectors elected to chair their university courts and to represent students or, in one case, staff and students.
Stage 2 amendments made provision for election of the senior lay member position and for retention of an elected rector in the four institutions where the rector has the right to chair the court. For many, that was second best to having a rector who is elected by all staff and students, who chairs the court and who has full leadership responsibilities. Although it was not the preferred option, it has been accepted as a compromise that will work. For the other institutions, the provisions are a major step forward in representation and have been welcomed even by those who have concerns about the final shape of that representation.
There is no doubt that there have been problems in our higher education institutions—what the University and College Union calls “a disconnect” between principals and senior management on the one hand, and staff and students on the other. The bill should go some way towards bridging that disconnect.
With some much-needed changes that took on board major concerns, the Scottish Government has somehow managed to muddle through and retain a bill that is worth supporting—or is, at the very least, passable. Of course, it was too much to hope that the Government would have improved it further by accepting all our amendments. Our amendments today included Mark Griffin’s amendment 43, which would have extended staff and student representation to relevant sub-committees of the governing body, and Cara Hilton’s amendment 48, which would have strengthened diversity and fair representation. The bill is weaker and poorer as a result of their rejection.
18:48