Meeting of the Parliament 08 March 2016
At various stages, I have referred to the diversity as well as the quality of our university sector. During our consideration of the bill, we have heard ample evidence of both and pleas to avoid doing anything that would undermine either. The poster child for that has perhaps been the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, whose staff, students, management and stakeholders have all made abundantly clear their outright opposition to the bill applying to their institution.
No one can seriously dispute the uniqueness of what the conservatoire does, how it is set up and the expectations that are placed on it. That was set out in the letters that the Education and Culture Committee received from the widest possible cross-section of the conservatoire’s stakeholder community, which expressed collective dismay at the bill’s consequences for the conservatoire. Those concerns exemplify the risks that are inherent in taking the blunt instrument of legislation to something that is as diverse and complex as our university sector.
By way of illustration, in a letter this week to Dr Allan, the principal of the conservatoire, Professor Jeffrey Sharkey, stated:
“An election for a Chair will be especially divisive, disruptive and diversionary given our scale ... and our disciplinary focus. Elections will sow the seeds of division and will politicise the role of Chair.”
Given that the election of chairs is now embedded in the bill, the only option left for addressing those concerns is to allow for the conservatoire to be removed from the application of the bill’s provisions.
I pay tribute to Sandra White for the efforts that she has made in articulating that case, which she has done on behalf not solely of the conservatoire but of Glasgow School of Art. She has argued forcefully on behalf of both institutions and has highlighted the extent and range of ways in which both institutions are unique and are ill suited to the statutory approach that ministers favour.
Although Scotland’s Rural College has been mentioned less frequently in dispatches than its more artistic counterparts, its claim for an exemption is arguably no less strong. In truth, the most sensible approach at this late stage is to leave open the opportunity for each institution to make its case to ministers for exemption. It would then be for ministers to decide whether that was justified in whole or in part.
The only way in which that could be done would be through the more general exemption that my amendment 25 proposes, rather than the institution-specific approach that Sandra White and others took—quite reasonably—at stage 2. Other universities may well believe that they have a case for partial exemption from certain provisions. For example, in the past Jim Eadie has made a pressing case on behalf of the University of Edinburgh. The more general approach that I propose would have the benefit of allowing such arguments to be considered more fully and would leave the ultimate decision with ministers.
That said, given that the conservatoire has been the cause célèbre on the issue, I will leave the final word with Professor Sharkey, who said:
“The problem that this Bill seeks to solve in relation to the Conservatoire has not been articulated. Given the opposition of the entire Conservatoire community to the Bill, the risks and costs associated with its implementation, and in the absence of any clear benefits that might outweigh those risks and costs, we believe that the Conservatoire should be excluded from its scope.”
I look forward to the contributions of members on all sides of the chamber.
I move amendment 25.