THE Government moved yesterday to end the student union ''closed
shop'' and to take the sting out of the political campaigning role of
the National Union of Students.
Education Secretary John Patten outlined plans to give students the
freedom to choose which political activities they wanted to be involved
in, and to outlaw the use of public funds for political action.
He said: ''We have already abolished the closed shop in the trade
union sector. Our reforms will apply the voluntary principle to student
unions throughout Britain. We will give students the power to choose for
themselves what collective involvement they want.''
The Government's proposals, given a warm welcome by Tory back benchers
but angrily criticised by Opposition MPs, centre on two key changes.
First, Mr Patten said that he planned to limit the purposes for which
universities and colleges could pass money received from ''public
sources'' to their campus unions.
All students will retain access, if they wish, to a core of essential
campus services -- welfare, catering, sport -- but other campus union
activities will be placed on an ''opt-in, voluntary subscription
basis.''
Secondly, Mr Patten believes that student unions should be more
accountable and fully representative. The Government therefore wants a
code of practice governing the conduct and behaviour of campus unions.
Mr Patten will consult on the matter, and wants responses by October
1, but he said yesterday: ''In preparing these proposals we have taken
careful account of universities' and colleges' concerns about essential
student services.
''For other activities, it will be up to students themselves to decide
what collective involvement they want. Our intention is not to impede
students' activities. It is to limit the purposes for which student
unions can spend public money.''
The Education Secretary emphasised the importance the Government
attached to freedom of the individual and freedom of choice, and added
it was ''a matter of high principle for anyone to be forced to join an
organisation they did not wish to join and, through that membership, to
be forced to accede to a campaign of which they did not approve.''
For Labour, Education spokesman Jeff Rooker said that all student
unions would benefit from a clarification of legal status, but
''smashing up'' the wide range of services they provided was not the way
to go about it.
Mr Rooker claimed that the Government knew from its own surveys that
an average of less than 2% of student union incomes was spent on
political campaigns.
In the exchanges which followed, SNP leader Alex Salmond said it was
''sad and pathetic to see an Education Secretary reduced to pushing
around students because he is having so little success in pushing around
teachers.''
Mrs Maria Fyfe (Glasgow Maryhill -- Lab.) said that students -- and
parents of students -- up and down the country would take note of the
fact that the Government was ''so authoritarian it could not tolerate
students behaving like students.''
Mr John McFall, Labour's Front Bench spokesman on education in
Scotland, said that he had visited almost all the Scottish universities
in the past year, and on no occasion had the staff complained about
student bodies.
He said they had been more concerned about the ''pile
'em high, teach 'em cheap philosophy of the Government.''
In a statement issued last night, Scottish Secretary Ian Lang said
that he would listen carefully to the views of Scottish institutions on
the range of activities which may be considered ''core'' services for
students.
He added: ''These reforms reflect the principles of choice and
responsibility. The Government believes that individual students should
have the right to choose how far to involve themselves in the activities
of their student bodies.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article