University leaders told a Holyrood inquiry legislation is open to abuse by giving Mike Russell, the Education Minister, wide discretion to intervene in the day-to-day management of their institutions.
The state would also be handed “inappropriate” control over which students are admitted, what courses are taught where and even the power to withdraw public funding from a university of which it did not approve.
Giving evidence to the committee, principals warned the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Bill would substantially undermine their autonomy and cited research showing this would have a direct impact on standards.
The chairmen of university courts described the move as “perverse” given that other countries are moving towards less political control in the hope of emulating Scotland’s success.
Witnesses at the education committee’s meeting yesterday included Sir Timothy O’Shea, the principal and vice-chancellor of the University of Edinburgh, and Professor Seona Reid, the director of Glasgow School of Art.
Sir Timothy told MSPs: "Our anxiety is that if a future government were given the apparatus whereby it could intervene in our management or governance structures then it might choose to do so.
"And clearly if you look around Europe you find examples of countries where governments, or regional governments, do intervene in the governance of universities and it is clearly unhelpful."
Universities Scotland, which represents the higher education sector, questioned the need for tracts of the Bill and argued its purpose could be achieved more simply by attaching conditions to institutes’ public grants.
In a written submission to the committee, the body said the legislation would “create new and in some cases quite extensive and unspecific powers over higher education institutions.”
The Committee of Scottish Chairs (CSC) of university courts similarly warned the Bill “will give unnecessary control over the governance and management of universities to ministers with the potential for misuse by future administrations.”
Its submission to the inquiry added: “It has been recognised throughout the world that one of the reasons for the success of universities in Scotland is the fact that they are autonomous institutions and not subject to political control.”
Both documents, published yesterday, said the organisations are particularly concerned about Section 2 of the Bill, which gives Scottish ministers “very wide discretion” over how universities are run.
As well as giving them the power to introduce on an “arbitrary” basis any rules that they think would help good governance, Universities Scotland said the legislation also specifically allows them to interfere in their “management”.
This breaches “the long-established principle that universities should not be subject to political direction”, the body said, and “seriously” undermines the accountability of senior managers for how institutes are run.
Ministers will also be allowed to force universities to admit more youngsters from poor backgrounds, but the SCS warned this could mean them being coerced into lowering entry grades or providing “unaffordable” support to less well-off youngsters.
Another section of the Bill was attacked as “inconsistent” with autonomy as it allows the Scottish Funding Council (SFC), the quango that controls public funding, to limit the number of universities that receive grants.
That would theoretically allow the SFC to withdraw a university’s funding if the Education Minister did not approve of the way in which it was being managed.
Any institute whose money was under threat would face extreme difficulties in attracting and retaining staff, securing research funding and attracting international students, Universities Scotland said.
The body also warned the section compromises “academic freedom” by allowing the SFC to dictate what courses are taught at which university.
This risks these decisions “being subject to political expediency and change every time a new administration assumes office”, the universities said.
Speaking after the evidence session, Liz Smith, Scottish Tory education spokesman, said: “There are many countries around the world which want to further remove the involvement of the state in universities. So why is the Scottish Government doing the reverse?”
However, the committee also heard that mandarins are “reconsidering their position” over some of the Bill’s provisions. A Scottish Government spokesman said ministers were “listening to all points of view” and may make changes.