Urgent need to reform Higher Education

Speaking in the Scottish Conservative-led debate on Universities today, Liz Smith MSP, Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Education & Lifelong Learning, said (check against delivery):

On my plane journey back from London to Edinburgh on Sunday, what should I find on the seat beside me but a copy of "Scotland on Sunday" and an article by the Cabinet Secretary headed "Time for a consensus on Scottish education". Now, I know funny things can happen when the air is thinner at high altitude but I found myself having great difficulty with this article so incredulous was I about the content; Bold as brass, in his usual modest tone, here was the Cabinet Secretary trying to persuade the people of Scotland that it was the SNP who had been leading the debate in Higher Education so significant had been their 2007 manifesto commitments and announcements since then. I asked a member of the cabin crew for a strong coffee and I read on.

It got worse; three times the Cabinet Secretary punted the line that it was only as a result of his leadership that the other parties had been forced to start talking about the right issues. Well, I can't speak for Labour and the Liberals and what they really think about this issue - maybe we will find out more this morning - but let me say this Cabinet Secretary, on this side of the chamber we do have policies and if you really believe you are leading the field when it comes to finding a Scottish solution to the problem, why is it that we have not yet had any utterance from you as to what you will do as opposed to what you will not do?

Let me cut to the chase; two things need to happen and they must happen now, not at some undefined time in the future. Firstly, students must be asked to make a graduate contribution, and, secondly, there must be reform of the structure of the university system. One will not work properly without the other and I want to use this debate to set out our policy stance on both.

And let me be crystal clear: The Scottish Conservatives believe there are four key principles which should underpin any sustainable funding mechanism for the future and it is because of these principles that we have ruled out up-front tuition fees and a pure graduate tax and instead declared ourselves in favour of a deferred fees system facilitated through income contingent loans; so let me articulate these four principles:

Firstly, any funding mechanism must be ‘needs blind' so that it is academic merit and not wealth or privilege that is the driver for a university place; an ethos which we believe has always been central to what is best in Scottish education.

Secondly, we must do everything possible to enhance the very important autonomy of our university system; something which Sir Andrew Cubie has always rightly argued must never be undermined by government or by commercial enterprise.

The third principle which has driven our thinking is that of income contingency, which is fundamental in ensuring that the less affluent students, far from being dissuaded from applying to university, are actually encouraged - because at the heart of an income contingent scheme is the loan which is repaid by the student once a given threshold of earnings is reached and at a rate which is affordable to the student. In short, income contingency is a form of insurance which means that the individuals only repay their fees when they can afford to.

The fourth principle is variability in the fees which are charged; variability which reflects the cost of the individual course and the ability of the university itself to set the fee.

Let me lay out some more home truths on these points:

Firstly, the status quo in Scotland is actually highly regressive and our proposals are designed to make the system more progressive so that it better reflects both the marginal social and marginal private costs and benefits from a university education. As the former aide to Tony Blair, John McTernan, rightly posited: "Is it right that a dustman, who left school at 16, should work extra hard so that a duke's daughter can have a free education, and then enjoy the lifelong economic benefit of a university education, calculated by economists as between £200,000 and £400,000 across a lifetime?"

Secondly, and crucially in my view, evidence from other countries, like Australia, England, and New Zealand, suggests that university fees have not deterred those from poorer backgrounds from attending university. Indeed, both the Russell Group of Universities and Universities UK argue that being able to charge these fees has provided them with more revenue to widen access to those people from lower-socio economic backgrounds. And just last week, there was more evidence to suggest that there is a higher proportion of those from deprived backgrounds making it to university in England, Wales and Northern Ireland - where fees are levied - than in Scotland where there are no such fees.

But any policy recommendations we make in the area of higher education must work in tandem with a more flexible and more efficient structure for higher education, because without addressing some of these institutional and organisational issues we will not fully stem the tide of the financial pressures which Scottish universities face.

For instance, there are fourteen higher education institutions in Scotland with university status which, as yet, probably do not do enough to co-operate in terms of research funding and administration. Too many universities are simply trying to do too much in-house. Scotland - perhaps even more so than England - has the distinct advantage, as a result of the unique geographical location of our universities, old and new, for greater scope for economies of scale and for resource sharing. This is a key part of my colleague, David Willetts's, plans in England, and while on the point of efficiency, we agree with those in the sector who say there is a debate to be had about the future of the Scottish Funding Council.

But cooperation should not be confined to the university sector alone. The Independent Budget Review report, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, and some of our university principals have all stated that there is a need for encouraging greater private sector investment in Scottish higher education. If we can succeed in achieving greater rationalisation and specialisation within our university sector whilst making degree qualifications more flexible we will have a better chance of attracting much needed private sector investment. And as some of my colleagues will say later, there is also much scope for introducing greater flexibility into the degree system - flexibility that will not only offer better educational prospects but a reduction in costs.

Of course, the elephant in the room is the question of whether too many young people feel too pressurised to go to university because there aren't sufficient opportunities available for non-university based education. Scottish Conservatives believe that this is wrong, and that is why we also have policies to accelerate the pace of developing top quality, formal vocational training and apprenticeships at an earlier age, and why we have been advocating more flexibility within the SQA examination system.

I could go on for much longer, but I think it is clear that it is the not Scottish Conservatives who are short of ideas. It may be time for some consensus, but it's well passed the time for some leadership and our universities are desperately waiting for Mike Russell and the SNP Government to provide some.

Back to all posts