Te Scottish system is based upon the prime responsibility for higher education lying with the state not with the individual student for paying for it. Tat will not change. I’m now saying all my final decisions have been made in that context,” Russell tells Holyrood. “Tat does not rule out a graduate


contribution of some sort. What it does rule out is the swingeing and divisive approach that’s being taken south of the border.” Te move by the UK Government to raise


fees to as much as £9000 from 2012/13 – payable once the student graduates and is earning £21,000 – whilst cutting universities’ teaching grant, amounts to no more than a substitution of public funds with money out of graduates’ pockets, Russell argues. “Tis is much more comprehensive and


complex than people would believe. What has astonished me over the last couple of months is this complete one-dimensional debate. Tis debate is about lots of things. It’s not just about graduate taxes or graduate contributions. And if you reduce it to that it’s a false prospectus,” he says. “My expectation is that south of the border


many universities will find themselves worse off, not better off. So I think the argument that this is some golden age coming is complete bollocks.” It may not be all about money, but that is


the issue driving the debate. For over a year principals have been sounding the warning bell about the ‘funding gap’ emerging between Scottish universities and their competitors south of the border and beyond. Glasgow University Principal Anton Muscatelli even warned that if no action was taken his institution could go bankrupt by 2013. A solution must be found and be in place by 2012/13, principals’ body Universities Scotland has urged. And the principals’ preferred solution? A fair and progressive graduate contribution, of course. And a graduate contribution does feature


in the Green Paper – but only as one of six options for future funding. Russell admits at the beginning that funding for the sector must be increased “to ensure it remains both nationally and internationally competitive”. But there is more than one way to skin a cat. Te state retaining primary responsibility for funding HE is still a viable option, the paper maintains. Indeed, this is the Government’s “preferred option”. Other possibilities include increasing efficiency; increasing donations and philanthropic giving and a greater contribution from business. Perhaps more controversial is the option of


raising more revenue from “cross border flows of students” – English, Welsh and Northern Irish students. English students who come to Scotland currently pay £1,820 a year but with


fees south of the border due to be hiked up to a possible £9000, the fear is of a flooding of the market with so-called ‘fee refugees’ and a squeezing out of Scottish students. Te Green Paper’s proposed solution is to raise these students’ fees to between £4,500 and £6,500 a year. 28,160 students from elsewhere in the UK study in Scotland, making up 14 per cent of all undergraduates. Meanwhile overseas (non-EU) students who pay full fees account for 11 per cent of the student population. But is it really feasible to have 25 per cent of students subsidising the other 75 per cent? “We don’t want Scotland to be a cheap


option. We made that decision when fees started south of the border. Essentially, there was an equalisation of fees. I think it’s inevitable that that will happen again,” says Russell. “We choose the figure that works for us.


It’s obviously got to be below £9000 and we won’t know what the average will be [for English institutions to charge] but my own view is it will be somewhere in the region of between £5000 and £6000 so it will probably be about the lowest level you can expect to pay south of the border. Tat’s a substantial source of income. We shouldn’t rule that out as being very significant.” But as Russell points out, the debate is


about more than money; the whole structure of higher education is up for reform. Te paper sets out an array of options to make the ‘learner journey’ from school to college to university more flexible and more efficient. Tese include encouraging advanced entry into the second year of university for pupils with Advanced Highers or Scottish Baccalaureates and improving articulation between college and university. Te possibility of a radical shake up of


the funding system is also explored. Under the proposals, students could be given their first year at university for free while paying a graduate contribution for further years. Students could receive funding for only three years of a degree to encourage advanced entry and articulation. Alternatively, they may have to choose between doing sixth year at school and first year at university. Te role of colleges is also raised, with the possibility of a new ‘Associate’ or ‘College Degree’ floated. With an issue as politically explosive as


this one, the ensuing row could have been anticipated. Labour’s education spokesperson Des McNulty MSP slammed the paper as nothing more than a “shopping list” and an exercise in procrastination. “Tis Green Paper is hollow and vague, it is


a sketchy and un-costed consultation paper when the higher education sector needs facts and well thought out plans,” McNulty said. “Scottish universities and colleges are now


on the brink of a crisis, meanwhile, Mike Russell is playing roulette with the future of higher education,” he added. Te Scottish Tories’ response was equally dismissive and they called on the Cabinet Secretary to ‘get real’ about the challenge facing university finance and to accept that some form of graduate contribution is needed. “It is no longer credible to say that the


Michael Russell MSP


“That does not rule out a graduate contribution. What it does rule out is the swingeing and divisive


approach that’s being taken south of the border”


state can shoulder all the burden of higher education costs if we are to raise academic standards, maintain our international competitiveness and widen access with sufficient bursary support for poorer students. Te long-term sustainability of our university system is not possible without an additional source of income coming into the system. Tat additional amount will not be achieved just by savings and greater efficiencies in the university infrastructure,” Conservative education spokesperson Liz Smith MSP said. Te Lib Dems, on the other hand, welcomed


the paper and pledged to bring forward its own proposals “to support young people, students and the institutions themselves” before the election. Within the sector there was a mixed reaction to the publication. Universities


January 2011 Holyrood 35


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80