Good morning and welcome to the Education and Culture Committee’s 23rd meeting in 2015. I remind everybody present to ensure that all electronic devices are switched off at all times, because they can interfere with the sound system. I would not like to have to give you a row in the middle of the meeting, so it would be helpful if you switched off devices now.
I welcome Liz Smith MSP, who has joined us for the first agenda item today, which is a round-table discussion on the Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Bill. We have no apologies from members. Unfortunately, Liam McArthur has been delayed on his flight from Orkney, but I am sure that he will join us soon. We have had apologies from Professor Ferdinand von Prondzynski, who is unable to be with us.
I will start with a few words on the process. The Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Bill contains few provisions—it is a relatively thin bill—but it has certainly generated a lot of comment and interest in the sector. We have published almost 300 submissions on our website, and I thank everybody who contributed. For the avoidance of doubt, and because a lot of people wanted to come along today, I assure everybody that all evidence—written and oral—is treated in equal measure and in the same way.
The purpose of today’s meeting is to allow us to make progress on the main issues that arise from the bill, bearing it in mind that there have so far been conflicting views, a number of which have been expressed outwith the committee. I hope that everybody will get the chance to clearly express their views on the bill this morning and to propose any changes that they see fit to suggest.
Participants were all notified in advance of a number of broad topics that we want to discuss. We will manage the session so that we go through those three areas, but they do not cover all the things that members and contributors will want to discuss. I hope to encourage free-flowing discussion and I am happy to take comments from across the round table. I am also happy for contributors to question each other.
I am not sure whether both sides of the argument have been round the same table yet; this may be the first opportunity. If you want to discuss certain issues, by all means contribute. If you want to question someone else’s submission or evidence, please do that as well. I will try to allow that as much as possible.
I start with the first general topic that we sent you in advance. Will the specific measures that are set out in the bill rectify the perceived weaknesses in higher education governance that have been identified by some participants who are here today and in some of the written evidence that has been sent to the committee? All those with an interest in the sector consider that HE institutions’ governance arrangements should be fully effective. There is no argument about that, but there is some disagreement about how we move forward on the detail.
The submissions from a number of bodies, including HEIs, indicate that they are not clear on the problems that exist in HE governance that the bill seeks to address. However, others have clearly laid out that they believe that there are deficiencies in existing practice in a number of areas, such as transparency, democracy, and pay and diversity issues. There are a number of issues, on which I am sure that you have read the written evidence.
I ask those who perceive problems and difficulties to lay out why they think that that is the case, why they think that the bill should be taken forward, what they see as the merits—and perhaps some of the problems—of the bill and any changes that they would like to see in it.
I ask Mary Senior to start by outlining her views. I will then come to the National Union of Students, which is represented by Emily Beever, followed by the chairs and the universities, after which I will bring in members. I know that members are keen to ask questions, but I will bring in our guests first and let them lay out some of the groundwork for the discussion.