Meeting of the Parliament 08 March 2016
Our university sector is genuinely world class, but that does not mean that our universities cannot be improved. Adapting to changing needs, expectations and circumstances is the only way to protect and enhance standards and reputation.
In our HE sector we have something to celebrate, value and respect. One of the sector’s great strengths, of course, is its differences: from the variety of institutions to the diversity of staff and student populations. It is absolutely right, therefore, that governance of our universities properly and transparently reflects that diversity. That means giving an effective voice to students and staff in the decisions that affect their institutions, which will ensure that governing bodies look, sound and act like those whom they represent.
How that is achieved is a legitimate question, and it is territory in which politicians should tread with care, but “care” has not been the Government’s watchword. From the outset, the Government has not been clear about what the problem is that ministers are trying to fix. Little evidence has been produced to justify the approach or to explain which international comparators we are trying to emulate. Ultimately, the Government has been unable to explain how the bill will make our university sector better.
Proposals have been unveiled—often with little or no consultation—only to be withdrawn or heavily amended once the full implications have been spelled out. That has left universities in collective despair, and that applies not only to principals, rectors and chairs of court but to others, too. Liam King, who is president of the students’ representative council at the University of Glasgow, captured the frustration that is felt by many when he said:
“I am perplexed ... as to how the Scottish Government has managed to botch this Bill so profoundly. From inadvertent clauses that risked turning Scotland’s universities into public bodies to utter ignorance of [the] relationship between the role of Rector and role of ‘chair’ of court. This Bill has been an unmitigated disaster”.
He went on to conclude that the process
“has been ramshackle and embarrassing, and ultimately threatens to undermine a proud Scottish tradition, democracy in Scotland’s universities, and good governance”.
Fortunately, the cabinet secretary backed down from her game of chicken with the Office for National Statistics over the threat of financially disastrous university reclassification. However, a mess has still been made, notably in the confusion that has been created by the overlapping roles and mandates of rectors and elected senior lay members. That has been the case despite solemn promises by the minister not to meddle, and despite the committee convener’s efforts to salvage the situation.
Even then, it may have been possible to limit the damage if only the Government had accepted my amendment on exemptions, which would have enabled the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, Glasgow School of Art and other institutions that have a strong case to be exempted from provisions in the bill to have that case heard and, where appropriate, respected. That would have been in keeping with the diversity of the sector.