 ond we will propose a number of initiatives in that as well. We now move on to the next item of business, as that concludes questions. We move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 14596, in the name of Elizabeth Smith, on Scotland's universities. I would invite members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call on Elizabeth Smith to speak to and move the motion please. 14 minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and may I straightaway move the motion in my name, which makes a very specific demand of the Scottish Government to remove those sections of the Higher Education Bill, which would increase the risk of our universities being reclassified as public sector bodies and, by definition, more open to the direction of Scottish Government ministers. Ambitions, which the Scottish Secretary, Cabinet Secretary of State, claims do not exist, but which, because ministers and officials have been unable to produce convincing evidence to the contrary, remain a very serious concern for the entire university sector. Indeed, it is abundantly clear from the evidence sessions, both the education and the finance committees of this Parliament, that the Scottish Government has been unable to produce the necessary paperwork to defend its cause, hence the reason why the assumption remains, and it is the reason for this debate this afternoon. Deputy Presiding Officer, we take the Scottish Government at its word. The Higher Education Bill is designed to expand academic freedom, and I have to say it would be very good, Cabinet Secretary, to know exactly how you see that taking place, and to increase the democracy transparency and accountability within university governance. The Scottish Government claims that the bill is essential to ensure that university governors fully account for the public money that they receive, and it also tells us that no one has anything to worry about. The bill is merely building, and I quote, on best practice that is already there. Why, then, has there been such wide-ranging and fierce criticism? Not just within the sector, but amongst business and civic Scotland, the names that my colleague Annabelle Godie listed in his chamber just before the recess are significant in their number and in their opposition. Partly it is because they remain totally unpersuaded that there is a fundamental failure within the current system of university governance, which is somehow acting to the detriment of higher education. Why, then, they ask when there are so many seriously pressing issues in education, such as closing the attainment gap, improving literacy and numeracy, cuts to colleges to name just but three? Why is the Government so focused on a problem for which there appears to be so little evidence? The greatest anger, and a mean anger, is reserved for two key aspects of the bill, most of which relate to sections 8, 13 and 20, which would change the very nature of our higher education institutions, specifically by increasing ministerial powers and by making universities into public sector bodies. Through the recent exchanges at the finance and education committees, this chamber knows that University Scotland has substantive reasons for being concerned about the prospect of the Office of National Statistics reclassification of universities. Those concerns come about after their very careful consideration of the relevant guidance on reclassification, issued by ONS, the consideration of the bill alongside existing controls on universities and consideration of treasury guidance about the application of the European system of accounts 2010. That might sound very technical, but it matters. It matters a lot, because University Scotland rightly made the point that Government powers over an institution's constitution are seen within the European system of accounts as the important indicator of whether an institution should be classified as being within the public sector. However much the Scottish Government protests, this bill, as it stands just now, expressly gives ministers the power to amend universities' constitutions by altering the composition of their governing bodies, a point that was confirmed by Scottish Government officials at the education committee on 6 October. It changes universities' constitutions by giving ministers the powers to determine the selection method and term of office of the chair in the governing body. It also expressly gives ministers the power to change universities' constitutions by changing the membership of their internal academic regulatory body. Treasury guidance on sector classification makes it clear that there is a risk even if ministers do not themselves appoint the members of the governing body. The Scottish Government tells us repeatedly that this is not its intention. It has no desire to expand ministerial control or to insist that universities become public sector bodies. I thank the member for giving way. Listening to what she said, might it not reasonably be argued that legislation in 1966 and many other acts affecting the constitution of universities in Scotland has changed the constitution of universities without the least suggestion that this implies ministerial control of them? Minister, that is completely separate from what is proposed in this bill. The key issues about this bill and the ones that I have referred to in the evidence are very clear that the Scottish Government's reasons for doing this do not stand the test of that evidence that has been presented. That is the issue, minister. Those concerns that have been raised by University of Scotland back in June at the time of the bill was published. They have also been raised in a letter that was sent to the Scottish Government on 13 August. No reply to that letter was provided until 16 October. The only excuse being offered for the delay appeared to be that University of Scotland had asked some very difficult questions. Well, yes, they had, of course they had. The only answer that we can get at the moment—and I quote the officials—were more than halfway through looking and working on it. Hardly does that inspire any confidence. Given that this is becoming the most threatening aspect of the bill, there can be little comfort taken from the Scottish Government's response, and that is a point in which it was criticised by the finance committee. When everyone else is arguing that there is a high risk of reclassification, the Scottish Government persists in its claim that we, and I quote again, we deem reclassification to be zero additional risk. When it is asked for the evidence for this, it cannot find it, most especially as it transpires that it has actually not gone to the bother of taking detailed independent advice in the same way that others. Thank you for taking the intervention. Can you tell me where in the Anderson-Strauthern report for the University of Scotland that there is evidence that there will be reclassification of the universities? Where in that report? I think that it is pretty well all through it. Mr Brody, I heard your questions at the finance committee, and I think that you have some pretty serious concerns about this as well, the education committee as well, so I think that it's a bit rich to ask that. If you are prepared—I think that I've given way enough, Mr Mason, just now—if you're prepared to stand up and provide me with the evidence that proves that ministers are not intent on taking control over universities or wanting to reclassify public bodies, I'd be delighted to see it, because as yet we haven't had it. The blunt reality, I think, of the concerns were put to the finance committee by Alistair Sim, Professor Anton Muscatelli and Gary Coots, when they set out both the general and the specific risks of ON reclassification. On a general level, ONS reclassification would meet the following. The scope for universities to borrow money would be seriously limited. They could not hold over reserves from one year to the next. There would be a detrimental impact on entrepreneurial activities, business relationships and community engagement. Exactly the reasons why we've seen very senior businessmen, such as Sir Tom Farmer and Sir Maure Lockhead, speak out so strongly against the bill. There could well be further difficulties faced when attracting philanthropic funding, which last year was worth £53 million. On a specific level, Anton Muscatelli set out what the numbers would mean for Glasgow University. He told us that his governing body has just approved a plan that will involve an investment of £175 million over the next 10 years. An investment, he argues, is of significant positive impact for Glasgow and indeed for Scotland. It includes £29 million for what would be one of four UK quantum technology hubs. A £16 million project aimed at reducing the university's energy running costs by about £2.2 million and its carbon footprint by 20 per cent. The programme, however, has to be financed from operating surplices in the cash reserves that will be the order of £145 million by the end of this financial year. He points out that those projects, which clearly can't be completed in a short-term basis, could not happen in the same way if reclassification occurred. Gary Coots, the same committee, told us that the issues would be just the same for Highlands and Islands University, a unique and diverse institution that has done so much in recent years to provide many new and exciting opportunities for Scotland. It is an institution that has direct experience of what reclassification has meant for colleges in terms of not being able to retain reserves from one year to the next. Mr Coots made the point that the United Nations High School's efforts to develop new student premises, new courses and new community partnerships might all seriously be undermined if universities became public sector bodies. Multiply the financial effects on Glasgow University in Highlands and Islands for the whole sector, and the total is close to £1 billion. That is surely something that the SNP could not possibly have on their political conscience. That is why I repeat the call for the Scottish Government today to commit to removing those sections of the bill, which are so clearly alarmed so many in the sector and which, if they were allowed to proceed, would do untold damage to the viability of that sector. Deputy Presiding Officer, just a few weeks ago, the higher education international rankings revealed that five Scottish universities are currently in the top 200, and that three of them are in the top 100 in the world. As the cabinet secretary herself said shortly before recess, that is a remarkable achievement by any standard. Indeed, I do not think that it really matters which academic, economic, social, cultural measurement is chosen. Scottish universities are held in the highest esteem throughout the world. That is precisely because they have a long-standing and proud tradition of attracting the very best students and staff and of maintaining their international competitiveness. The member mentioned students, but the National Union of Students says that there is a lack of genuine democratic culture in governing bodies, a lack of transparency and accountability over how decisions are made and who makes them. Is that not a problem that needs to be addressed? I have to say that I have some comments here from students who take completely the opposite view in respect of that. I have somebody who is president of the EIS in the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland who is arguing, well, you may laugh, but that is one of our best institutions. It is one of our most diverse. It is one that has the highest international reputation and you laugh it off as though it does not matter. That is pathetic. Let us get back to the absolute basics of that reputation that our universities have, including those reputations held by the Royal Conservatoire. They are about the diversity, the precious autonomy that they have and the flexibility with which they are able to take part in what is a highly competitive market in education. If there is one thing about this bill that really has a significant problem, it is the lack of the evidence that has been put forward by the Scottish Government to go with it. It does not matter how many times Scottish Government officials are asked, it does not matter how many times we ask for the back-up evidence to support everything that they have said, it is simply not there. That is the crucial problem. If the cabinet secretary is willing to provide some of that reassurance, then perhaps we will be able to take a different view. But this has been going on since the bill was published in June, constantly going on since it was published in June. To date, we simply do not have these answers. I think that it is absolutely incumbent upon the Scottish Government to make a move on that. Scottish universities are the jewel in the crown of so many aspects of Scottish life. Are we really saying that we want to undo that by a piece of unnecessary, unevidenced and completely unacceptable legislation that is going to do nothing to enhance the reputations and everything to damage it? Deputy Presiding Officer, the cabinet secretary has some serious answers to give about this bill. I invite her today not only to remove those very dangerous parts of that but to provide us with the evidence that, to date, has been so sadly missing. I now call on Angela Constance to speak to and move amendment 14596.2. Cabinet Secretary, you have 10 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased that the Conservatives have again chosen to discuss Scotland's universities. It gives us all another opportunity to celebrate Scotland's higher education sector and its success. Today's debate also provides an opportunity to promote the higher education governance bill and in doing so to describe and clear and rational terms how it will help to enhance the reputation of our excellent institutions. This bill will ensure that every member of the campus community, including students, staff and unions, has an equal say on how our institutions are led towards future success, because our institutions are a success. Under this Government, Scottish higher education continues to thrive and Scotland's students and researchers continue to benefit. This year, the Scottish Government is investing more than £1 billion in our higher education institutions. In a period of UK Government-imposed austerity, we have invested at this level every year since 2012-13. As Liz Smith rightly mentioned and it is worth repeating, new rankings published on 30 September show that Scotland has five universities in the top 200 of the times higher education world university rankings for 2015-16. That is one more than last year. Our universities also have a world-class reputation for research with 77 per cent of the research assessed as world-leading or internationally excellent in the 2014 research excellence framework exercise. Turning now to the higher education governance bill, it aims to strengthen governance in our institutions, making them more modern, transparent and inclusive. The bill's content has been informed by the evidence-gathered and recommendations set out in the review of the higher education governance led by Professor Vaughan Prynsynski published in 2012. This Government has listened carefully to reviews expressed by all stakeholders and partners on the provisions in the bill and is familiar with them and respectful of the arguments advanced. I will give way briefly to Mr Brown. I am grateful to her for giving way. Can she confirm that the clauses which caused the most concern, namely 8, 13 and 20, were not part of that review and were not part of the Government consultation on the bill? I am certainly aware that there are four clauses in the bill that some stakeholders have genuinely held beliefs about section 1. As Mr Brown mentioned, there are clauses 8, 13 and 20. Section 1 is purely creating a space to allow for further dialogue and to create an opportunity for co-design across the sector about the process of how chairs can be nominated and elected. It is the Government's intention that, by stage 2, there will be stage 2 amendments to replace section 1. With regard to sections 8, 13 and 20, those are quite simply about future-proofing a bill, a bill that has very discrete purposes. Where I can give assurance to Mr Brown, because we view all commentators as critical friends, where there is scope to alleviate concerns that I do not accept, but nonetheless, where there is scope to refine and improve draftment and alleviate concerns and make improvements, we will indeed take the opportunity to improve those aspects of the bill. Let me make some progress and I may come back to Mr Smith. I want to make four very clear statements aimed at addressing the points that are made by some stakeholders and, of course, by the Conservatives in their opening address. Firstly, the Scottish Government does not seek to advance ministerial control of our higher education institutions, either by this Government or any future Government. Scottish universities are autonomous bodies and will remain so, and we are crystal clear on that point. Further, we are not of the view that the content of this bill adds to any risk of reclassification of Scottish higher education institutions as public sector bodies by the Office for National Statistics. I have written to the Finance Committee to that effect and note that committee's recommendation that all analysis conducted by the Scottish Government on this matter be shared prior to the stage 1 debate to be held early in 2016. Next, reclassification—I have to stress this, Presiding Officer—is an outcome that the Scottish Government would never want to realise. Finally, I welcome the comments of the Finance Committee on its recent report on the financial memorandum to the bill that the written evidence submitted to the Education and Culture Committee by the Office of Scottish Charity Regulator addresses satisfactorily the points made by some stakeholders that the bill's provisions might jeopardise the charitable status of our higher education institutions. I am afraid that I do not accept that there is any clarity there whatsoever. On 6 October, one of your Scottish Government officials was asked by myself if there would be any alteration to constitutions of universities. After a long wrangle, it transpired that there would be some changes to that. That, by definition, means that the Government is taking some ministerial control. The follow-on from that is that that has an implication for the reclassification. That is the concern. Your officials are not in tune with what you are saying. The bottom line, Ms Smith, is that this bill does not give me any more powers as a minister. If we need to refine aspects of the bill to clarify that, we will indeed. We have not reached stage 2 yet, which is a very important part of the parliamentary process. We gave a commitment to serious discussion with our stakeholders on the very specific point about altering institutions of higher education institutions and the point that she makes about ONS. In evidence to the Education and Skills Committee, Oscar examined in detail whether or not the bill's impact on the constitutions of the ancients would revisit in the resultant charitable status has been jeopardised. They concluded that that is not the case. During FMQ's prior to recess, Ruth Davidson said that the bill could jeopardise charitable status, and I would hope that chamber and indeed Conservatives would accept that that is not the case. I need to make some progress. I want to focus on the overarching aim of the bill. The Government is committed to creating a fairer, more inclusive Scotland, one that better reflects our nation's diversity and which everyone gets to have their say. By enabling a more transparent and open governance in our universities, we can ensure that every voice in the campus community is heard and involved in taking decisions. That is why we have made sure that the bill contains provisions to allow staff and students, including trade unions, a guaranteed seat at the table on university governing bodies. Labour may wish to note that the bill has significant support from students in the United States and Scotland, and many individual academics in the UCU and EIS fell. My office is full of hundreds of those postcards from academics, the length and breadth of Scotland. As we begin to plan for stage 2 of the parliamentary process, we will, as I said earlier, continue to examine all of the constructive ideas and suggestions that have been put to us and the contributions of the relevant committees. As I said, section 1 of the bill, which deals with elected chairs of governing bodies, was introduced as a powerful minister to make regulations in order to provide time for a substantive dialogue to be conducted with all stakeholders, including rectors, on the model for the appointment of elected chairs in Scottish higher education institutions. That dialogue has begun and that dialogue will continue in advance of stage 2. I am aware that this outcome is favoured by Professor von Prinsinski, as recorded in his submission of written evidence to the Education and Culture Committee. Finally, I want to be very clear that the bill will not abolish or diminish the role of rectors in our ancient universities. The role of rectors is part of a democratic tradition in five of our universities that is also in keeping with the spirit of democratic renewal in forming this bill. In talking to all stakeholders about how a model for elected chairs in our institutions might work, we are committed to ensuring that the role of rectors continues. We are looking closely at all parts of the bill that provide ministers with the ability to frame secondary legislation. Those elements of the bill, which are, as I said earlier, largely intended to future-proof the legislation. Let me just reiterate that this bill is intended to be a discreet, targeted, focused piece of legislation. As such, the views and suggestions made by stakeholders on the necessity of including all relevant sections in their current form has been examined very thoroughly indeed. I move the amendment in my name. I now call on Ian Gray to speak to your move amendment 14596.1. Mr Gray, you have six minutes. I rise to move the amendment in my name. There is no doubt that the cabinet secretary is right about the importance of the university sector. To Scotland, we have more world-class universities per head than any other country in the world. They deliver an economic impact of over £11 billion to the economy and support 144,000 jobs. Their history is long and proud and to be cherished. From the old chestnut of Scottish exceptionalism that in the 16th century we had as many universities in Aberdeen alone as there were in the whole of England today, when our universities win much more than their fair share of UK research funding and when we publish more peer-reviewed research papers per head of population than any other country Bar 2. Yet, for eight years, this Government's vision of universities has never really stretched much beyond free tuition. Way back in 2002, when I was a minister responsible for the university sector, the fees had already been abolished in Scotland, and the debate was about the role of those universities in creating the jobs and industries of the future. Debates about how better to support that astonishing research base, how to commercialise new intellectual property into businesses and jobs, new initiatives like smart, spur, proof of concept funding, new models like the co-investment funds, the intermediary technology institutes. Indeed, every week saw us debate groundbreaking and imaginative ideas to build on the university sector of which we are so proud. Not so much now. This Government has decreed that we will debate and re-debate tuition fees until the rocks melt in the sun, even although it was a debate 31 14 years ago. So it should be welcome when finally, after eight years, they turn their mind to something else about universities. But what a mess they are making of it. Let me be clear. We support the idea of chairs of court elected by the whole university community. We support trijunion representation on those courts. We support transparency of governance and, indeed, remuneration. There is work still to be done on the format of elections. There is work to be done on finding a way to avoid losing the historic post or title of rector for those institutions for whom it is part of their tradition. We believe that there are compromises and even a consensus to be reached on those issues among stakeholders. But that is all being undermined by the drafting of the bill, which would allow ministers to exercise undefined powers for an unknown purpose through regulation. It is those powers and that lack of definition, which has raised concerns, firstly about the degree of control ministers seek and consequently the heightened risk it involves of ons reclassification, which would jeopardise the finances of the universities. And frankly, the Scottish Government needs to fix this and soon. It is not fixed through bland assertions from the minister that they will not overreach their powers of control. It is not enough for ministers not to have the intent to interfere. The legislation needs to be clear that they do not have the power to interfere. I wonder if Mr Gray would accept that there are a variety of voices in this debate. I wonder if he would accept the views of Unison Scotland, who, in evidence to the education committee, concluded that there seems therefore to be no risk of reclassification following the implementation of the bill. Is he not concerned by voting with the Tories today that he is participating in a bit of a small screen for those who, at the end of the day, just do not want trade unionists on boards or, indeed, elected chairs? Presiding Officer, I will take no lectures from Ms Constance on support for trade unions. I have been a trade unionist all my adult life and I will continue to do exactly that. The smoke screen here is the smoke screen of why ministers feel it is necessary to give themselves regulatory powers. They do not need in order to achieve those ends on which I agree with her. We have been here before. Colleges were promised that the Government would find a solution to their reclassification. No solution has ever emerged and colleges are paying the price in finance fiscal problems right now. We have been here with police reorganisation. The Government was warned again and again that its model would make Police Scotland vulnerable to VAT. Solutions were suggested and ignored. Now the Government is running around Westminster crying foul grievance, as if I suggest that that was what they were looking for all alone. The truth is that the finance committee has already examined Government officials and others' assurances on the ons point, and they have not found their performance and the evidence reassuring in any way. The cabinet secretary, and this is what the cabinet secretary should think about, is how she has managed to get herself into the completely unnecessary position of uniting those of us who support much of the bill and those who oppose, I suspect, all of the bill in our condemnation, not of those purposes but of her handling of this legislation. If she is wrong about the financial consequences for this sector so critical to our future, then the results will be disastrous. She must produce incontrovertible evidence or tell us exactly how she intends to amend the bill to remove the risk. When it comes to universities, the cabinet secretary has had one job to do. It's time that she got a grip of it. We now move to open debate. Six-minute speeches. I call on George Adam to be followed by Cara Hylton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I always welcome a debate in Scottish Education. I enjoy listening to colleagues' views on the challenges that we face ahead. However, currently, we have not completed stage 1 on the Education and Culture Committee of the Higher Education Governance Bill. I will, of course, thoroughly examine all the written evidence and listen to any constructive suggestions. At the moment, all seems a bit premature. However, with that caveat in mind, I make the following comments. The Scottish Government has made it clear that the universities are and will remain autonomous bodies. Why would anyone want to take away that, which is seen as fundamental to our university's worldwide success? The aim of the Higher Education Governance Bill is to modernise, strengthen governance, ensuring that the principles of democracy and accountability are an integral part of the higher education sector. Ferdinand von Brondinske, principal and vice chancellor of Robert Gordon University and chair of the Scottish Government's review of higher education governance, said earlier this year that universities are autonomous bodies and should be, but that their autonomy should not shield them from the legitimate expectations that they engage with staff, students and external partners or that they need to behave in an accountable manner. I have still got quite a lot to go through as well. He added that none of this is about government control, none of our recommendations and indeed none of the proposed elements of the Government's planned legislation would give any power to ministers to interfere in the running of institutions. The 2012 review is the foundation of the bill. With regards to any potential ONS reclassification of universities, I would like to say that this has been central to the Scottish Government's consideration throughout the development of the bill. While providing evidence to the Scottish Parliament's finance committee, Scottish Government officials stated the following. We deem reclassification to be a low risk. However, if as a result of wider ONS review of universities there were any risk of reclassification, ministers made it clear that that is not a policy goal. We would take that, what measures were required to ensure that universities were not reclassified. However, if as a result of wider ONS review of universities, so the Government has said that there is no intention that the bill would lead to reclassification. Unison Scotland, healthfully, pointed out that the education committee has written evidence that universities have a range of income sources and that the proposed bill will not impact on the balance of funding. The difference in borrowing powers was also said to be significant colleges. Unlike universities that require Government permission to borrow, there seems therefore no risk of real classification following the implementation of the bill. However, it is my belief that the talk of ONS reclassification is taking us away from the more fundamental point of this debate. That is about ensuring that our higher education institutions have open, transparent and modern Governments. Surely that is a good thing, Presiding Officer. I would argue that involving staff and students in the governance of their institutions, as was the view of the Von Prondonski review, would create an extremely positive and dynamic structure of culture of governance. As Mary Sr, UCU Scotland said at the Education and Culture Committee round table on 6 October, no one has questioned the Scottish universities are good. They are good. What we are saying is that they could be much better if staff, student and trade institutions were fully involved in how they operate. It is my opinion that this creates a form of collective responsibility that means that decisions can be made by all representatives of the university community. I cannot see any negatives with this, and that is why I support the elected chair of court or Senate is a way forward. It also creates an openness that is not currently there. NUS Scotland mentioned this in its briefing for the debate. It is concerned that there is a need for greater democratic culture of governing bodies. NUS Scotland states that, while many student associations are able to take part in the university court meetings, many student representatives feel that those meetings act merely as a rubber stamp, an exercise to validate decisions that have already been taken by the principal or at committee level. They believe that there is a need for greater transparency over decisions. In addition to a lack of participation in democratic culture on governing bodies, there is a distinct lack of transparency of the state over governance decisions. They provide an example of investment discussions, decisions of universities and increasing principal's pay packages of the institutions. Let us look at this further. Let us take the University of Edinburgh, although it is not alone in this with salaries. In 2005, 190 people had a salary between £70,000 and £189,000. In 2014, 440 people had a salary between £70,000 and £319,000, with the top salary being anywhere between £340,000 and £349,000. At this stage, I do not know how much the top salary is because it is not clear from the information that you can get. That does not mean that there is not an answer to that question. It means that, surely, if we had a democracy within the universities, we would have an opportunity to be able to see what is actually available there. The Scottish Government provides £1 billion of public money in our higher education institutions. It does that because the educational future of our young people is important to us all. It does that because our world-leading universities give so much back to our nation. We cannot stand back and admire this great buck and not move the universities on. It is time to make sure that we equip them for the 21st century. Thank you very much. I now call on Kara Hilton to be followed by Liam McArthur. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pleased to have the chance to speak in today's debate on Scotland's universities and the support of Scottish Labour's amendment. Scottish Labour recognises its outstanding contribution that Scotland's universities make to the academic, economic, social and cultural life of Scotland. We welcome their continued success in attracting high-quality students and staff from all around the world and in producing ground-breaking research. We value the vital role that our universities play in Scotland's economy, employing more than 42,000 people and supporting more than 144,000 jobs. However, there is no doubt that higher education institutions could benefit from being more open and accountable. The Higher Education Governance Bill provides real scope for change, and that is why Scottish Labour supports the principles of this bill. It is absolutely crucial that, when we look at reform and how our universities run, we ensure careful and thorough scrutiny. The bill, in particular, presents real opportunities to address current shortfalls in university governance, highlighted by the member—I forgot his name. Sorry. In particular, we support the measures to ensure that staff, students and trade unions are represented in the decision-making structures, that they have a real voice and a real say in the future of the universities that they learn, teach and work in. It is only right that public institutions that receive many millions of pounds from the taxpayer are running away that is open, democratic and transparent. Right now, that does not always happen, and the feedback that I have received too from students' associations is often the feel that they do not have a real say. There is the sense that decisions that are involved in our simply a rubber stamp exercise are rather than an open debate in genuine scrutiny. In US, I point out in the briefing for today's debate that the lack of transparency has affected how two key issues have been handled recently—the investment decisions of universities and the increasing principles pay packages in our higher education institutions. I know that that is not strictly covered in today's motion, but I really think that this is an important issue that should be highlighted. I have absolutely no doubt that Government boards would make better decisions if they better reflected the students and staff body and if trade unions were involved in that process. Research by NUS Scotland found that there are 88 individuals at Scottish universities who earn more than the First Minister. That is 140,000 a year. I do not think that it can be right that university principles on three-figure salaries take large pay increases while their staff are told to accept a 1 per cent pay increase, which is effectively a pay cut. I support the call being made by NUS to extend the transparency and accountability in the Government's bill, but to Government body sub-committees, particularly those dealing with senior staff pay. Given that hundreds of millions of pounds of public money goes quite well to support our universities, I think that it is only right that we see more public scrutiny over the excess wages that many in the top of our universities receive while staff at the lower end of the scale struggle to get by. I welcome some action from the Government on that issue. Turning to our amendment this afternoon, while Scottish Labour is genuinely supportive of the higher education government's bill, we are also very conscious of the need to ensure that reform does not undermine the academic autonomy of the university sector or its financial position. I am sure that I am not the only member who has received many emails on this issue from concerned constituents, raising in particular worries about the implications for academic freedom and university finances. Last month, Glasgow University rector Edward Snowden described the Government's bill as a real threat to the financial and academic independence of the university system in Scotland. A real concern about how the plans might dilute the voice of students in our ancient universities and perhaps a one-size-fits-all approach is not quite right. There has been concern, too, of the future of the role of the rector in our ancient universities and Labour's amendment calls for protection of this position. I know that Angela Constance has offered reassurance on the issue, and that is very welcome. Our amendment today also highlights the very real risk that the higher education government's bill could lead to a change in the ONS classification of universities, and Ian Gray has already outlined our serious concerns here. There are real concerns in the university sector that the proposals could lead to unintended consequences, which will ultimately undermine the university sector and cause difficulties in ensuring its future charitable status. In that respect, the Royal Society of Edinburgh has warned that the bill, as it stands, represents a level of government intervention that is entirely inappropriate for an autonomous sector, potentially damaging the university sector in terms of its global academic standing, its entrepreneurial activity and the contribution to the Scottish economy. In a briefing for today's debate, University Scotland highlights serious concerns that sections 8, 13 and 20 of the bill would, and I quote from their briefing, take an unprecedented step over the line of university autonomy. University Scotland and others believe that the increased potential for ministerial control puts Scottish higher education at heightened and significant risk of reclassification as public bodies by the Office of National Statistics. Obviously, that could have a potentially devastating effect. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has said that this is not the case, but I really do think that these concerns can't be swept under the carpet. Iain Gray highlighted the example of the fire. Iain Gray highlighted the example of the fire in police service in terms of VAT, and that is a prime example of the unintended consequences that can come back to bite later on. That is why Scottish Labour's amendment today calls for the Scottish Government to seek urgent legal and technical advice on the matter and to publish this analysis in full. That is why we also want to see a commitment to remove all clauses from the bill that could increase the risk of ons classification. That is vital to protect the independence of our universities and the financial position. I hope that the Scottish Government will listen to the very real concerns that have been expressed about the bill. I hope that we will see progress on the issues that are not currently included, such as principles pay. The future of the Scottish economy depends on a vibrant, independent and world-leading university sector. I hope that we can all work together to ensure the best possible outcome for staff, students and for our universities. Liam McArthur followed by John Mason. I start by thanking Liz Smith for allowing the debate to take place. Of course, the education committee is currently undertaking its stage 1 scrutiny of the H.E. governance bill. We will return to the subject on a number of occasions in the coming months. However, given the level of concerns that exist about the potential of this thin bill, as our committee convenio accurately described it, it could have on our world class university sector the more times we get to kick the tyres the better. The 300 more submissions received by the committee tells its own story, highlighting the strength of feeling and what is at stake. At our recent round table, there was vigorous debate and often profound disagreement, where all agreed, of course, was on the quality of our universities, with five of our institutions in the top 200 worldwide and three in the top 100. No one disputes this as an area where Scotland excels, punching well above its weight. While a source of pride, that is certainly not a state of affairs that can or should be taken for granted. Again, we have unanimity around the need for continued improvement, innovation and the constant state of change. We must be clear what any change will achieve, how it will deliver improvement, something better than what we already have and certainly how it will avoid diminishing the value of our universities to students, staff and the wider community that derives so much from their success. In that respect, as I have done before, I can't help, arising at the conclusion that much of what the government is seeking to do here looks like solutions casting around desperately for a problem to solve. I recognise that Angela Constance is dealing here with an inheritance from her predecessor who pursued this agenda with some zeal. I acknowledge too that she's hinted in again today at a willingness to ditch some of the most damaging elements and I hope she will have the courage to do just that. Fundamentally, the regulatory powers ministers are looking to take through this bill, present a real and present threat to our universities. The fact that many remain unclear and subject to secondary legislation only makes matters worse. For all the minister offers reassurance about how she would use these powers, the fact remains, as Ian Gray says, that it is the scope of the bill that matters, not the intentions of any one minister. University of Scotland has been unambiguous in the threat pose. Their legal advice shows that the cumulative provisions of this bill, notably parts 8, 13 and 20, heighten the risk of ons reclassification of higher education institutions. Anderson's return state, if ons carried out an assessment in the near future, the challenges posed to HEIs by such an exercise should appear at the level of significant risk on their risk registers. It could not be clearer. For the minister to assert in her amendment that, quote, the bill's provisions do not increase that risk is frankly not credible, nor is it right for this Parliament to be asked to support such a baseless assertion this afternoon. Mr Swinney may have his own reservations given the threat of an additional £530 million being added to Government borrowing. Very briefly. John Mason. Thank you. I don't know what evidence or base he would like. He says it's a baseless claim, but is there somebody he would like to give a comment on that, because the ONS won't? Liam McArthur. I'm not sure whether John Mason may be in his forthcoming remarks will explain his view on the strathair and legal advice that the committee and the Parliament has been privy to, but we haven't seen anything of equivalence from the Scottish Government in their assertions. The consequences of reclassification are significant and laid out in stark terms to the education and finance committees. A loss of incentive to earn around £1 billion of entrepreneurial income, restrictions on borrowing worth around £370 million, the inability to create circumstances and invest in improved facilities, putting capital programmes at risk. Hardly, I would argue, a price worth risking far less paying. As we have heard at the round table session, it is a risk that is already being felt in the reputational damage done by the perception of increased ministerial interference in our universities. All the evidence shows that the best performing universities worldwide are those exercising the highest level of responsible autonomy. They should be accountable, transparent and reflect the diversity of the communities they serve. How this is best achieved, however, should not be second guessed by ministers using the blunt instrument of legislation, particularly given the highly diverse nature of this sector. At no stage of ministers or their officials being able to point to the international comparators to which we should be aspiring. I have no difficulty accepting that our universities are excellent, though they are, could be better. However, I would like to reassure that, in terms of governance, the standard to which they are being asked to adhere has demonstrated itself somewhere, anywhere else, to deliver better results and wider benefits. On union and student representation on governing bodies, I am not necessarily convinced that this needs writing into law. Staff and student representation is an essential but existing feature of university governance. That said, I can live with those provisions if gaps need to be filled. On elected chairs, I agree with Stuart Maxwell that it is hard to see how those proposals can be squared with a minister's commitment not to diminish the role of rectors. On academic freedom, there is no evidence that this is currently curtailed. Ministers insist that you will be able to deal with that in your own intervention, Stuart. Ministers insist that it is a minor change but offers no explanation of the problems that it is aimed at addressing. This is a thin bill that has the potential to do damage. Potential to do damage should not be underestimated. Legislation is not always the answer. Some might argue that it is rarely the answer. Certainly, the perils of using such a blunt instrument to manage such a diverse sector are obvious. The SNP must accept that ministers do not always know best that one size does not fit all and that the temptation always to control should be resisted. In that context, Scottish Liberal Democrats will be supporting the motion and Ian Gray's amendment later this afternoon. We spent a fair bit of time at the Finance Committee on 16 September considering the financial memorandum for the Higher Education Governance Bill, so my comments today largely stem from evidence we heard then. The day of the committee there had been a letter in the Herald from Dr Ian Banks, president of the university and college union in Glasgow, who refers to the difficulty faced by staff and students wishing to influence a governance system that is too often focused on business rather than education or research. That is a quote out his letter. I did ask the witnesses if the ONS, Oscar and financial concerns were really just a smoke screen the universities were using to avoid democracy and transparency. Professor Anton Muscatelli assured us that this was not the case, but I still remain uncertain what the university's real agenda is. The unions are strongly supportive of the proposed governance changes and they are intelligent people who want the universities to thrive, so there is at least some disconnect here between management and staff. ONS reclassification would clearly be a major concern to all of us and we spent a considerable amount of time at committee on that point, as George Adam has referred to. I think that there is some merit to the point that Mr Mason makes, but surely the biggest disconnect here is the disconnect between the cabinet secretary's assertion that Government ministers have no desire to take more control and clauses in the bill which would allow them to do just that. If they do not want to take control, is not the easiest way to deal with this to remove those powers from the bill? I am not on the education committee, I am looking at this mainly from a financial point of view, but from my angle there is a big difference between changing the structure of how a board comes about from putting people on the board. Maybe there is some tweaking that can be done as the bill works its way through, but the principle, if we could get involved in how companies choose their boards, we would get involved in how loads of charities have to conform to lots of rules and the public sector, so it is not unusual for Government to get involved in outside organisations. To go back to reclassification, it was made clear to us by the bill team that if reclassification is triggered, it does not come into immediate effect. The colleges in England and Wales were then given a period of time in which to review their control mechanisms and make changes that would keep them outside the boundary. I found that quote interesting as we are not faced with some huge gamble here, and if we lose, we lose everything. Rather, there is an issue which may or may not occur, and if it does occur, we will have the chance to fix it before it becomes a reality. Liz Smith. For giving way, on the question of this gamble, Mr Mason, you were questioning Mr Sim on the committee that you referred to. You asked him about the degree of risk. Mr Sim said, I find it easier to put the risk in terms of red, amber and green. You went on to ask him what that was, and he said, I put the risk at the top of the red. John Mason. He also said that the current risk was at least amber, so what he was saying was that there is a considerable current risk. The debate is, does the bill affect that risk? Does it take it up the scale? Clearly, the universities are saying that it does. Clearly, the bill team and the Government are saying that it does not. That can be looked at in more detail, but it is certainly not a given that the risk is increased by this bill. The motion suggests that the Scottish Government should seek urgent external legal and technical advice on reclassification. That was another topic that we considered at the finance committee, and the answers were that the bill team was not aware of experts in this field who were likely to know more than the Scottish Government. In fact, it was suggested that even the ONS considers the Scottish Government to be a leading expert on reclassification. I do not know whether Liz Smith has a particular expert in mind when she wrote the motion, but I am sure that we would like to know who it is, and neither Labour nor the Lib Dems have been able to suggest that either. Secondly, it was suggested that we ask the ONS themselves about the risk, but we understand that they do not give advice in advance. In addition, it strikes me that writing to the ONS highlighting the risk might actually damage our case more than help it. Another topic that we considered at the finance committee was charitable status and what Oskar's opinion might be. I will not quote that from that. We have had that already. Basically, Oskar is saying that there is no risk as far as they are concerned. University of Scotland confirmed that it would take Oskar's view at face value. At that point, it does not appear to be in that—well, it is not in the Conservative motion at all. I assume therefore that there is a fairly widespread agreement that charitable status is not likely to be at risk. However, there is for me the question as to whether the universities have been crying wolf on charitable status, which has now been dismissed. If they were crying wolf on that issue, are they crying wolf on a number of other issues as well? Liz Smith says that she wants written evidence against something that we do not even know if it exists. If somebody asked me, did I rob a bank last night, I would say no. Have I got written evidence to prove it? No, I do not. I think that we are all agreed that we have a university sector to be proud of, but the question is, can it be improved, and in particular, can its governance be improved? Or is it like some highly delicate flower that, if we even touched it, would collapse and die? I thought the NUS briefing for the debate was particularly helpful when it gave a reason for needing more transparency and accountability, namely that we might all know, quote, how decisions are made and who makes them. I think that many of us had thought that this was a given in 2015 for almost all parts of the third and public sector, yet that universities stick out as something of a sore thumb in resisting movement in that direction. Presiding Officer, I believe that our universities are robust. They are living organisms that can and should adapt to the 21st century. I think that we may have been timid in the past for fear of upsetting organisations that have a lot of money and a lot of friends in high places. Just as governance in private business and public sector in other parts of the third sector has moved on over the years, I believe that our universities need to remember that they are servants of the public and the public expects them to be open and transparent in their governance arrangements. Thank you. Many thanks. Before we move on, I can advise the chamber to allow Mr Mason some time back for the intervention that he took. However, we are now running out of time, so I would ask members to keep to their six minutes, please. Annabelle Goldie to be followed by Gordon Macdonald. Deputy Presiding Officer, can I refer to a relevant interest? I am a graduate and honorary fellow of the University of South Clyde, and I served in the court of the university for a number of years. This debate sees this Parliament being used for proper purpose. If governance cannot be called to account for and challenged by an opposition party, then a Parliament is wanting. I am very pleased that my party has secured this debate on these highly controversial proposals to change university governance. What no one can level against my party in citing our objection to these proposals is a charge of political opportunism or political dogma or obsession with ideology, just being difficult with the SNP for the sake of it. That is because the level of opposition to this university governance bill is massive, and most of it is outwith the realm of political parties. I see that I have affected the cabinet secretary deeply, but I hope she will return. My party, Deputy Presiding Officer, is a conduit for conveying that huge anxiety on unease to this Parliament, so let me examine the Scottish Government's premise for change. The first test to be applied is what is wrong that the Scottish Government thinks needs fixing. The evidence is sparse. By general assent, as other contributors have said, our universities are doing a very good job. Some are excelling by international standards. That points to good governance, not bad. So where is the problem? This is the irony. I think that the problem is not with our universities at all, but rather with the Scottish Government, because the genesis for these proposals seems to be that when universities rightly took responsibility for their futures, requiring to focus on their strengths, let me continue for the moment, their core fields of excellence and plan accordingly some members of staff and some trade unions were hostile to that, and they took that view because there were redundancies. Now, let me be clear. It is right that staff members and their union should examine any proposals involving loss of jobs. It is right that they should ensure that the interests of their members are represented, and they should assist in discussions with the individual universities to scrutinise such proposals. And it is right that these concerns should be within the knowledge of the court. What is not right, indeed what is patently wrong, is to attempt to argue that universities are public bodies and us such should not be permitted to take such governance decisions and should have their governance regulated. And let me deal with that misconception and articulate some general principles. Just because a public body receives a part of its funding from the public purse, does not make it a public or just because a body receives a part of its funding from the public purse, does not make it a public body. Because of that with the case, Deputy Presiding Officer, private healthcare providers, most Scottish pharmacies, security companies delivering services for the Scottish Government justice system and other contractors deriving significant revenues from the Scottish Government would be public bodies and such a suggestion is ridiculous. They are not, nor are the autonomous institutions which are our universities. Indeed, if the Scottish Government argument were correct, there are hundreds of thousands of organisations a length and breadth of Scotland receiving regular sums of public money who by the Scottish Government's own logic should now be the subject of governance intervention because they are public bodies. Well, even of course by the Scottish Government standards that would be a ludicrous proposition. Universities are, of course, autonomous and independently constituted. They are not public bodies and the Scottish Government should not try to make them so. For the sake of hypothesis, let's assume that the Government analysis is correct and examine what those sparsely proposals mean in practice. They mean a shift in focus from the primary collective responsibility of a university board of governance for the whole institution to an elected chairman who then is accountable to an electorate and who has to reconcile that obligation with a parallel duty to other court members and to the institution as a whole. That creates divided loyalties and an irreconcilable conflict of interest. It also creates weak leadership and governance confusion and for the older institutions which have elected rectors which I understand the Scottish Government has confirmed will remain there is an added conflict as to who is accountable to whom and whose view prevails if there is a difference of opinion between the rector and the elected chairman. Presiding Officer, it is not surprising that you will not find such a model of governance anywhere. It is so inherently flawed, it is unworkable. Let me seek to educate the Cabinet Secretary. In 2000, the Scottish Qualifications Authority, and it is a public body, ran up against problems with delayed exam results and its governance was investigated by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee of this Parliament. The convener was Alex Neil and his SNP colleague was Fergus Ewing, and I quote from the committee report. When talking about weaknesses in governance in a board member's role, the report said this. There does appear from their evidence to be confusion in the minds of some board members about their role on the board of management. It is clear from the Government guidance that board members are appointed as individuals to bring their personal expertise and experience to the board room table. They are not appointed as representatives of other organisations, at least one board member appeared to take their latter view. This is not a position in which the committee finds it tenable. In conclusion, the bill in relation to university governance precedes on one misconception after another. Yes, develop with universities a good code of practice for Governors. Yes, encourage universities to engage in good practice, but I say to the Scottish Government, do not get mixed up in telling universities what to do. They are already running themselves more successfully than any Government can ever achieve. I say to the cabinet secretary, stop digging. Heap what this Parliament's committee found out 15 years ago and what most of Scotland is now telling her and review this misconceived, flawed and inept proposal. Many thanks. I now call Gordon MacDonald to be followed by John Pentland. Thank you very much, convener. I am fortunate in my constituency of Edinburgh Pentlands. Not only do I have two excellent universities in Harriet Wattenapier, but my two sons are graduates from those institutions. The two universities in my constituency and the other 17 institutions across Scotland employ over 42,000 staff and educate over 215,000 students. It is therefore important that their voices heard in this debate as they overwhelmingly are the university community. Universities have raised concerns about ONS reclassification due to the Higher Education Governance Bill and what effect it could have on their autonomy and revenue, but what are the views of staff and students? After all, they too would be affected if there are any changes in universities' revenue as suggested by University Scotland. In Scotland, we have some of the oldest universities in the world in St Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh, but we also have the world's oldest educational trade union in the Educational Institute for Scotland. The EIS and the written evidence in the Higher Education Governance Bill states, the bill would lead to HEIs remaining as autonomous bodies that are only accountable to themselves. University Scotland has claimed that the bill could lead to the reclassifications of HEIs as public bodies leading to the potential loss of charitable status and fewer philanthropic bequests. The EIS does not believe that the bill brings increased control to the Government that would lead to reclassification. They were also of the view that University Scotland's claims are simply supporting the personal interests of principles, some of whom may not welcome the additional scrutiny brought about by the bill. The National Union of Students and their evidence to the committee stated, while we fully recognise the need of any further regulation to fully respect the autonomy of Scotland's HEIs, we do not believe the proposal set forward in the current bill alter that autonomy in a notable way. The proposed changes would not require institutions to implement any substantive policy changes, rather, they address the process through which decisions on substantive issues are taken. We fully endorse the notion of responsible autonomy for our institutions. Where we have concerns is about the weight-length to both aspects of that and are of the view that there has not been enough responsibility in return for the significant sums of public funding that our institutions rightly receive. The SPICE briefing on main sources of funding provided to Scottish higher education institutes in 2013-14 identified total income in the sector to be £3.2 billion, with £2 billion coming from public sector grants and fees from across the EU, including £1 billion from the Scottish funding council. On ONS reclassification, the NUS concluded, that we would reject the assertion made by some in the sector that the bill poses such a threat to institutional autonomy that it places the charitable status of institutions at risk and raises the concerns of ONS reclassification. No thanks. The Office of Scottish Charity Regulator raised no concerns about the bill's provisions, set out in the original consultation. I quote, In our view, they would not affect the constitutions of higher education institutions in ways that would give ministers the power to direct or control these institutions' activities. They also raised no concerns in the response to the call for evidence issued by the Education and Culture Committee about the bill's provision. The Scottish trade union council evidence was clear in why this bill is being introduced. This bill is not about government controlling universities, it is about good governance. Good governance procedures mean that the sector will function better and, as a result, spend public money better. In this way, the autonomy of the sector would be secured in the longer term by ensuring that institutions are better able to govern themselves and can show transparent and well-adfanced evidence decisions around how they spend public funds. Better governance structures will also help the university to make the educational needs of students and better support the economic development of Scotland. As I said in my opening remarks, the quarter of a million staff and students are the university sector and their views are at least as of equal importance as those of the university courts. The university and college union is the largest trade union in the post-16 education sector representing 120,000 academic and related staff across the UK and is the largest union in the higher education sector in Scotland. Their view is that we do not wish to see any increased influence by ministers in the running of universities and do not believe that the proposals outlined in the bill would do so. The proposals do allow ministers to ensure that the sector has improved and provides for more robust governance procedures. Given that the sector currently receives over £1 billion annually, we believe that politicians and Parliament are entitled to be assured that the sector is robustly governed. The proposals do not give powers to ministers to involve themselves in the day-to-day running of institutions or in setting targets beyond the current ministerial letter of guidance to the funding council. The Finance Committee reports on the bill containing the suggestion that onS reclassification and charitable status was a smokescreen to avoid greater accountability in the sector. Having listened to the evidence of staff and students, I tend to agree. Many thanks. John Pentland, to be followed by Chick Prody. The consequences of the onS reclassification are very serious and while I support making universities more democratic, I would not want it to jeopardise their finances. Mr Pentland, could you turn your microphone round slightly? Thank you. I also don't want to see the democratic structures that are already existing in some institutions in any way diminished by a one-size-fits-all approach. The proposed changes have managed to line up an impressive array of opponents, not least the rector's past and present, who are of course already elected by students, or in the case of Edinburgh, staff and students at their representative and the chair of the University Court. The rector's with reservations include a former Prime Minister, a former Presiding Officer, a current MEP, the author of the west-loading question, the author of Monroe Baggin Without a Baird and the Legendary Archive McPherson and several more. We even have Edward Snowden tweeting from Russia about the dangers to the autonomy of universities, although it must be admitted that he is not a great advert for the importance of rectors as active participants in the university governance. So the question is, are these fears well founded? In response to the rectors, a Scottish Government spokesperson said that universities are autonomous bodies and the ministers seek no control. Apparently they just want more transparent and inclusive Governments. The same spokesperson assured us that the Scottish Government has analysed risks associated with the potential reclassification of Scottish higher education institutions by ONS. We are confident that the provisions in this bill do not advance risk and are compliant with the indicators of government control that ONS uses. I am pleased to hear that the Labour benches share our concern to make university governance more representative of the communities that they seek to govern. What I would ask him if he can clarify for me is what is it that Labour wants to put into this bill to achieve those ends? What is it that they want to put in so that we do not fall foul of the objections that the Conservatives are making on ONS and other matters? Labour has not yet given us any indication what it is that they would prefer to see in the bill other than what is there. I think that some reassurance could have been given if the Government had, can you reply more spontaneously to some of the serious questions that have been raised by the University of Scotland? I think that also what we need is for us to put up the advice and evidence that is required to take away all those concerns. Those references to this do not sound very reassured to me, not least because the Scottish Government does not have a particularly good record of being right with such matters even when or perhaps especially when there is supremely confident of being correct. As we have heard before just asked the priests and fire services about their VAT bills and sometimes it is even unclear whether they have proper legal advice so while we may accept that the Scottish Government does not intend to inflict a huge financial penalty on higher education and we might even accept that the Scottish Government genuinely believes that this bill will not compromise autonomy would we be wise to take its word particularly without external legal and technical advice and a full publication of all the analyses conducted in this manner, of course not. Particularly when others have sought and published legal advice including Universities Scotland who were told by Anderson's Pratherm that taking together with other existing Government controls the provisions in this bill would take higher education institutions into borderline territory in terms of their current ONS classification. Now I don't necessarily think that it is the final word in legal terms partly because rarely is there a final word in legal terms but at least they have set out their reasons and published them so the Scottish Government should stop saying it knows best when we know that too often it doesn't. We need a proper analysis of those so that we can decide whether they are acceptable or rather than simply be told that they are and the Scottish Government should make a formal commitment to all the clauses from the bill that could increase the risk of ONS reclassification and to protect the role of the rector at those Universities with such a tradition. Things are hard enough for higher education institutions and students without inflicting further financial disaster on them for students there would be added pressure. Information released this week by the Students Awards Agency for Scotland shows grants and bursary levels for Scotland's student down again down by £40 million since the SNP took office in 2007. Fewer students getting less support from bursaries. Those from the poorer households who already struggle most would inevitably find it harder to undertake higher education courses. Meanwhile, student debt has soared as thousands who have the qualifications and the ability but not the finance are forced to borrow more to fund their studies. The Scottish Government says trust us well. I'm quite sure everybody will remember the manifesto pledge to write off student debt. Thank you. I now call Chick Brody to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I declare an interest in that I used to be a lay member of St Andrews University Court. There are many things that borders on the unbelievable and occurs from time to time in this chamber. The motion stretches credulogy just a bit too far. After all, the committee is still in the process of considering inputs to the bill. Yet here we have today a conservative motion. I don't lay this at the doors of Mrs Scanlon and Smith, each of whom have behaved impeccably in their understandably robust questioning of witnesses at committee. Rather, it would appear at the door of the opportunistic or conservative central office. I've got news for you. We will complete the report and discuss it meaningfully, and then perhaps with that evidence have a substantive discussion. Here we have a motion with an alleged evidence riddled with ifs, with mites, with cwds which all shows a propensity for rushing the judgment, which I thought was even below the capabilities by which that office might even be judged. Presiding Officer, we accept that Scotland's universities have a longstanding reputation for academic excellence and international success, at least for some. It is a result of ability. But as the famous engineer and inventor Charles Kettering once said, if you've always done it that way then it's probably wrong. The universities, like our other institutions, have to stay ahead of the game. Change is a constant. In other universities, as elsewhere, there are limitless opportunities and where there are open minds there's always a frontier. Presiding Officer, the motion refers to Scotland's economic priorities and the need to develop there, to develop the university's research and capital assets in a way that allows them to make maximum use of the opportunities in knowledge exchange. After a detailed questioning of university representatives at committee about their international involvement, about their equity participation in the many great products and services that they and other universities produce, the eventual answer was that they hadn't developed that thinking and would take it away for review. No change there then. Here one of the great engines of our future economy are universities and their R&D capabilities and heavily publicly funded are going away are going away to think about that process and how they might generate more funding via that route for their universities. That and the further democratisation of the university codes is how we strengthen not undermine the university system in Scotland. Now, not everything is perfect in the bill but let me now, Presiding Officer, turn to the contentious issue of possible reclassification of the university from a charitable to a public sector class. While the motion says it, it does it not. It has the magic word again. If the ONS reclassification was to occur, the higher education system would lose significant sums of money. It also bases this premise on evidence. On what evidence? On evidence placed on record by University of Scotland based on the report which they had produced. Mrs Smith in our questioning, sorry, I don't have much time. Mrs Smith in our questioning of witnesses on 6 October alluded to the proposed, not the evidenced, the proposed ONS reclassification on page 19 of the official report of 6 October. The ONS reclassification accepted the OSCR ruling that the public body's proposal would probably have no effect on the university's charitable status. That was confirmed in an answer by Stephen White of the Scottish Government. The internal analysis by the Government concluded that the bill's provision complied with control indicators of ESA 10. On that subject, advice received by me from Spice indicates that on 10 and 17 September it said, and let me quote that advice. It said that the new guidance, the new European accounting guidance means that some projects that were formally classified as private sector and public sector potentially affect not a revenue issue, but capital projects financed through the NPD model. Three out of four, haven't you even looked at it yet? There are another eight to come along. However, however, the ONS does have work plans for HCI, so universities, that have been looked at. Specifically, as the Anderson and Strutham report said, the basis of that particular assessment is to review a change in policy on significant increases. Significant increases in tuition fee maxima that can be charged by universities in England and Wales. There is no specific reference in the work plans for HCIs to be assessed. I would ask Liz Smith to avoid or raise the ifs, the mites, the coulds from our proposition. Much of it, reflected in the Anderson and Strutham report. Let the committee and the Parliament pursue and finalise the questions that have been raised on all sites. I mean from all sites, so that the committee's report can then be published. In general, the world hates change, yet it is the only signpost of progress. Let's agree on that. Let's discuss it on the production of the report and implement that change once we have followed the process presented to us in detail. I welcome the principles of the bill, aiming to make the higher education system more modern, inclusive and accountable. I believe that it is right to rebalance the power of university governing bodies to increase transparency and accountability and to have more involvement of staff and students. To that extent, I agree with the Scottish Government and if they can preserve the position of rector, I, as a graduate of Edinburgh University, will be even more pleased. However, I agree with the Conservatives in their motion that I have grave concerns around the financial implication particularly of sections 8, 13 and 20. Of course, we know that it is a vast range of external bodies who have expressed those concerns, such as the Royal Society of Edinburgh, whom I always respect. The fact of the matter is that those sections of the bill were not in the original review of higher education governance. Their removal would not modify the central intent of the bill, so why do we need these undefined powers for undefined purposes? Why is the Scottish Government determined to take this risk when it would not actually take out the central thrust of the bill? Of course, look what we have to put at risk. All members are united today in celebrating the fact that we had five Scottish universities in the top 200 for the times higher education world rankings three, in fact, in the top 100. An innovation and improvement are central to retaining those high standards and they are dependent on financial security. Why is the Government determined to take a risk with it? I will explain why that is a serious risk because the potential for ONS reclassification puts the financial security at risk. Loads of evidence that we can summarise, a lot of it has been mentioned, the committee of Scottish chairs highlighted in their evidence to the finance committee various purposes. Let's not have the red herring of charitable status. ONS reclassification is something different. The committee of chairs would prevent universities from retaining their annual operating services. It would place severe restraint on their ability to borrow funds. It would reduce their ability to enter into commercial partnerships and would threaten their philanthropic support. Again, Professor Muscateli, whom we all respect, has evidence to the finance committee, has been described by more than one person. He described his 775 million investment programme, financed from operating services and £145 million in cash reserves. He said that he just could not use those if reclassification takes place. The Carnegie trust made the same point about its grant giving to Scottish universities. All those reputable individuals and bodies cannot just be discounted, they cannot just be accused of scaremongering or of having ulterior purposes. I think that it is incumbent on the Scottish Government to take this approach. Of course, it is worse for those universities that are less dependent on public funding. For example, Harriet Watt is only 49 per cent dependent on public funding. Probably more at risk, for example, than the University of the Highlands and Islands, which has 90 per cent from public funding. Even Gary Cuth, of course, chair of that university, gave very clear examples at the finance committee of the way in which the finances of his university would be affected by ONS reclassification. Of course, the Government will say that it is not going to happen. The essence here is, and we need to look at the Treasury guidance on the European system of accounts 2010. The essence here is, and the Treasury guidance says this, that it will look at all controls major and minor. The key thing is cumulative effect. Of course, there is already an element of public control of universities. The point is that the bill will increase significantly, and that is what the risk comes from. The Treasury guidance also says on its interpretation of the European system of accounts that the power to change a constitution of a body is an indicator of ministerial control. It is all there in black and white if the Government is willing to read it. How can their motion say that there is no increased risk? How can they say that emphatically? They cannot just sweep aside reputable law firms such as Anderson and Tristairn, who say that it will heighten the risk of reclassification. In more detail, they say that the provision in the bill would take HEIs into borderline territory in terms of their current ONS classification. What legal advice did the Scottish Government take on the bill's potential to impact on ONS classification? We have not heard. I know that they will not reveal legal advice, but they could at least allude to it in some way and perhaps also tell us concerning this matter because I think that they certainly have the right to enter into those discussions even if the ONS or the Treasury would not give any definitive view. They would at least be able to give some indication of what matters might be relevant. I really think that this is a very serious issue for universities in Scotland, and the Government cannot just put forward a motion that says, we say that there is no risk, what are you all bleeding about? That is acceptable. It is going to get worse. We are at the early stages of the bill, and we have had all those problems and issues raised at stage 1. Really, the Government has to respond in a more constructive fashion. I agree with their wish to improve transparency and accountability in decision making, but we need to balance that most fundamentally with the need to maintain funds but also to respect autonomy, so the simple solution will not satisfy the Conservatives but the simple solution that would unite today the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labourers, is to remove those three sections from the bill. Many thanks. I now call Mary Scanlon to be followed by Dennis Roberts. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was very pleased when Angela Constance's cabinet secretary said and I quote, where there is scope to alleviate concerns, we will listen and I think that this has been a constructive debate. It has been a very impressive debate from all sides and I do hope that she will listen to what is being said today. I think that we should all rightly be proud of our universities and their performance in the recent times higher education world rankings and the cabinet secretary in fact said, we really do punch above our weight and thanks are due to our hardworking staff and students that have made this possible. I agree with that. Yet in thanking the staff and students there now appears to be a proposal to burden them with punitive, unnecessary and counterproductive legislation which they do not want. If the Government cannot speak highly enough of the success of Scotland's university, why therefore does it want to meddle in the autonomy and the governance? As a member of the education committee, I have to say alongside Jocelyn Bell from the RSE and David Ross and world leading academics sat round that table and I find it quite incredible that our best in the world global academics have misunderstood the Government's intentions in this bill. I am sure that they will all be very, very grateful for a tutorial in future proofing from the Government because they are obviously not quite up to understanding the legislation that comes out of this Parliament. But University of Scotland is so concerned by the risk of onsv classification. They did commission their own legal advice from Anderson Struthern much has been said today but I'll take some quotes from it. Heightens the risk of higher education institutions being reclassified by the ons as being within the central Government category. Consider that the bill brings HEIs closer to reclassification by ons into the public sector. This borderline territory is an uncomfortable place for higher education institutions because the major ramifications that would follow any ons reclassifications of higher education institutions to the public sector. Anderson Struthern legal advice and if there is legal advice, external advice any advice to the contrary from the Government let's hear it. Maybe Anderson Struthern of misunderstood future proofing as well maybe they're needing a wee tutorial as well but I think it's important that if there's we've got one set of legal advice if there's other legal advice any advice I'm up for listening to that. Presiding Officer, the governing bodies of Scotland's universities are very diverse histories, traditions and goals St Andrew's, Aberdeen, Glasgow founded in the 15th century Edinburgh, Dundee, Stirling Struth, Clyde, Herriot, Watt all established under a royal charter and funnily enough they've all managed to rub along pretty well their world leaders and have managed succeeded and thrived for 600 years and have managed all of that without the Government interfering. It's funny that now that they're global leaders we need the Government to tell them how to run their business but Dame Jocelyn Bell Barnell of the Royal Society and Professor Tim O'Shea they have also expressed concerns from their peers abroad and elsewhere in the UK and they are already asking difficult questions as to why the Scottish Government is interfering in the running of our world leading universities and I quote Dame Jocelyn when I'm abroad I've found people saying to me what's happening to Scottish universities what's the Government they're doing the implication is that there is interference there is also a not quite articulated implication that there is a suppression of critical thought that is not the word you want to get abroad it will be devastating for the SNP and for the Scottish University universities but it's already out there and growing end quote we simply will not be able to attract the brightest and the best staff and students to Scottish universities if this is being whispered both at home and overseas Presiding Officer universities like this chamber the most valuable currency is their reputation and I hold that these reputations will be irreparably damaged if this bill goes through wherever the final terms of the bill the Government is already giving the perception that it is prepared to damage Scottish universities let alone its relationship for little or no gain just two points before I finish I'm running out of time I think that what we haven't been looking at today is the current review and I think a huge amount of progress that we all want to see has been achieved through that review it's up next year there is already a commitment to have 40 per cent of both genders on government bodies and in the last year 40 per cent of those appointed have been women I welcome that there's more to do but that's being done through the voluntary code I'll leave it there many thanks and I'll call Dennis Robertson to be followed by Hans Alam Alec thank you very much indeed Presiding Officer for me this is a strange debate to be having with members this afternoon because I'm not a member of the education committee I'm not a member of the finance committee but my understanding is that the education committee have taken one evidence session on this and we're far from having a report from the committee that we can break to stage one my understanding is I believe I was listening to the cabinet secretary and I think she was giving this chamber reassurance that yes, if there are parts within the bill that we need to look at that she was listening she said that yes, we'll give those reassurances to try and allay the fears that seem to be coming through quite often I'm amused sometimes with Mary Scanlon's remarks in this chamber but for one minute there I thought I was visiting dad's army because it sounded as if we're doomed Presiding Officer we've gone back to the 18th, 19th century that we are in the 21st century it is time to reform and it's funny, we're listening to a lot of the comments this afternoon and a lot of people are saying quotes from University of Scotland I didn't hear that many quotes from NUS and it's funny because even with the Ferdinand Wamprinsiski's report you're actually thinking wait a minute he was saying that universities are autonomous quite rightly so they are but we are looking for some degree of reform and I was delighted to hear Malcolm Chisholm Malcolm Chisholm in his opening remarks and I probably agreed with just about everything Malcolm Chisholm said apart from maybe the last couple of minutes when he started maybe questioning and it's quite right to question but I think again I heard what the Cabinet Secretary said in her opening remarks but if Labour are agreeing with the principles of this bill and only their only concern is about the reclassification with it when it's listened to what the Cabinet Secretary's assurances are coming forward let's have or stage one debate in this chamber let's have amendments being brought forward are we not a bit premature Presiding Officer in this debate this afternoon I may and again I've heard from others welcoming the fact that they are graduates from various universities I'm a graduate of none but perhaps I can listen and perhaps I do listen and I think we are in a situation where our rectors and our principals and our students and our staff are saying yes it is time for change yes we will embrace it yes we should be more democratic yes we should be more transparent what's wrong with that I don't see anything wrong with that nonetheless some of the establishments want to remain and to try and have this degree of elitism and actually keep certain people away from actually being on the boards or courts or whatever I mean, Presiding Officer what is wrong with being transparent and democratic I would have thought that was something that most of us in this chamber would actually welcome but it would appear that that's not the case we're actually throwing up a situation that the onus may reclassify we don't know if that would be right or not but what I would say is the Government and I believe what the cabinet secretary has said is look we would not use these powers we have no intention of using these powers and perhaps there is a way to find some consensus this afternoon to ensure that maybe those powers don't come forward I don't know, Presiding Officer and the reason I don't know is because this education committee have had one evidence session only one where we are in a situation in this chamber of debating something that hasn't gone through the committee stages yet and we have got a report that we can actually look at and look at all the evidence that has come from that evidence base we've had some missions, we've had briefs yes and that has enabled us to have this debate in the chamber this afternoon but Presiding Officer I look forward to the stage 1 debate in this chamber where we would have had more evidence sessions going through committee where we would have had greater scrutiny where the cabinet secretary and the Government would perhaps have gone back to the committee and maybe made some degree of reassurances that hopefully they are listening to and hopefully they can actually accept Presiding Officer I have nothing else to say thank you thank you I now call Hans Alam Alec to be followed by Stuart Maxwell for the time and hand now for the interventions thank you very much Presiding Officer and good afternoon to you first of all I want to also declare that I've spent some time at Strathclyde University's Court myself like Annabel Gould and I'm pleased to speak today on the topic of Scottish universities we can all agree that Scottish universities make a major contribution to our economy environment and society there are some issues regarding governance that need to be clarified by legislation and I have been contacted by a significant number of constituents who either study or work in Glasgow's thriving universities one constituent expressed their view very well stating that and I quote I have become increasingly concerned at the lack of independence universities senate and court bodies both of which appear to be very compliant in the face of questionable strategy decisions unquote and I would agree with some of those sentiments if not all I wholeheartedly support the national union of students Scotland the UNS Scotland and the university and college union the UCU on the calls for elected chairs in a bid to increase the transparency and accountability of decision making of governing bodies on the other hand there are sectors of the higher education governance Scotland bill I have to question the motivation for the reform as I do not understand the problems they are seeking to fix some go as far as to say that they are perhaps trying to gag universities and there may be some element of truth in that that time will tell the bill significantly raises the risk of reclarification of universities by the office of national statistics O and S from non-profit institutions servicing households to central government bodies these are additional risks to the HE institutions charitable status is one of the issues that come to light immediately therefore this legislation if we get it wrong could severely financially damage to our educational institutions and have been furthermore decisions to be made to ensure that that does not happen in these circumstances the conservative parties motion men's and universities as autonomous and independent institutions and that is a fact that this is the case there has been a lot of discussion about the autonomy of universities government bodies but little has been stated about diversity research conducted by the UNS the research conducted by UNS Scotland in 2014 highlighted that despite recommendations made through the HE code of good governance university codes are still dominated by men governing bodies also suffer from the lack of diversity in terms of wider protection characteristics such as low numbers of ethnic minority representation which I feel is a failure to properly reflect the diverse community and the population in Scotland today despite the recommendations from the code of good practice good governance that institutions should monitor and report on diversity of their governing bodies there is still no data currently held that is not being produced on a voluntary basis perhaps the parliament should consider making this a statutory requirement to ensure that that does happen I think it is absolutely vital that one be protected institutions who do so much for us in Scotland not only in terms of its economy its environment and the contribution to society but also the well being of our future education historically we have had education institutions in Scotland who have managed very well without this type of interference I generally do not understand why we need to risk fixing something that is not broken therefore I suggest to the Government that they really need to think very seriously about tampering with this situation and also in terms of reflecting the community out there in terms of their board representation thank you very much thank you very much and I know close to Max Hill thank you very much I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss a number of important issues that have arisen concerning the bill but before I get into that I have to say that I thought the speech by Dennis Robertson really hit the nail on the head here well of course the Conservatives are entirely free to bring forward any subject that we wish to debate in the chamber with some disrespect to the parliamentary system in the committee the fact is the committee has not taken the evidence has not discussed the matter has not written a report and will not have the stage 1 process yet so I think it is a bit premature as other members have said and I think Dennis Robertson was quite correct in his remarks Scotland greatly values the role that education plays in our society and we are all quite rightly proud of the success of our universities I am certain that the whole chamber is interested in wanting to see our higher education institutions rated amongst the world's best having five universities in the world's top 200 is a remarkable achievement and it seems to me that taking steps to modernise our universities so that they continue to be the world's leading universities is a worthwhile ambition the higher education governance bill has certainly received a lot of attention the education and culture committees call for evidence generate a wide variety of comment and input from across the sector that has received from a diverse range of contributors the committee undertook an oral evidence session earlier this month involving a number of expert stakeholders and government officials and of course we also look forward to welcoming the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning when she comes before committee in a couple of weeks time to give further evidence on the bill during that evidence session on the 6th of October I asked officials about the concerns expressed by the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities around widening the statutory definition of academic freedom was to say that they had not yet had the chance to review the evidence submitted by Skodjek due to the number of submissions received therefore I would be grateful to ask if the minister any summing up could address that issue I hope that after a number of weeks there will be a response forthcoming Presiding Officer there has certainly been a degree of skepticism from certain sections of the higher education sector about the bill but I welcome assurances from the Cabinet Secretary that she is working hard to address concerns and is in regular dialogue with key stakeholders on those issues the Cabinet Secretary has also offered reassurances that all evidence submitted will be looked at seriously and constructive suggestions will be listened to it's worth remembering that the bill is still in its early stages yes a number of details about the proposals still need to be addressed but I think that the overall objectives of the bill are indeed extremely commendable now like many in the chamber I have been contacted by a number of constituents about the higher education governance bill I understand that some of the universities have urged their alumni to write to MSPs raising concerns about the proposals I've seen some of those letters it appears that there has been a considerable amount of misinformation disseminated in the press and elsewhere resulting in misconceptions about parts of the bill that's not to say that correspondence from constituents has only been negative indeed just last night I received an email from an academic one of my constituents who works at one of our universities who wrote to me urging me to strongly support the proposals contained in the bill they said and I want to quote I hope that you will be able to offer your support for this bill which I believe offers a rare opportunity to make positive far-sighted reforms which will be of lasting benefit not only to Scottish universities and those who work and study in them but also to the nation itself there are individuals there are organisations there are representative bodies right across the sector who are fully behind the efforts of the Government to modernise and bring transparency and openness to the governance of our university sector at the last session of FMQs the First Minister was clear that the higher education governance bill is not about the Government taking control of universities if that was the case I would be opposing it members of this committee would be opposing it because that is not what this Government is about it is not about taking control of the university sector and it is frankly nonsensical to say so rather it is about delivering a modern system of governance that meets the highest standards of transparency and inclusiveness it is about placing the students and staff of higher education institutions at the very heart of decision making in our universities Did Mr Maxwell seriously expect us to believe that people from his side would be opposing this bill if the Government put it forward that would be a first wouldn't it Mr Maxwell Is Mr Finlay Is Mr Finlay seriously suggesting that members in this chamber do not actually think for themselves because I think that is insulting I think that is insulting it may be the way it may be the way that the Labour Party works it may be the way that the Labour Party works I have no idea because frankly we have no idea what the Labour Party does from one day to the next but the fact remains that there are members in all parts of this chamber who would not accept not accept any Government interfering to take control of our higher education institutions and that applies equally to members in these benches as in other benches and frankly it is insulting to suggest otherwise the First Minister was also very clear that the bill does not represent a threat to the charitable status of universities in Scotland the office of the Scottish Charity Regulator responded to the education and culture committee's call for evidence and did not raise any concerns about the bill's provisions in that regard this is just one example of an area of the proposed legislation that has been misinterpreted to be kind about it there had also been concerns voiced about the potential risk of the proposals to the role of rector at the ancient universities on the contrary, as we already heard that that is not going to happen the bill does not seek to abolish the position of rector but to extend the elected chair model to the governing bodies of every university across the country the Scottish Government has repeatedly said that the proposals for new elected chairs are not intended to lead to the abolition of rectors indeed when the committee wrote to the cabinet secretary ahead of its stage 1 scrutiny of the bill the cabinet secretary replied confirming that the Scottish Government would seek to minimise and even remove any features that could negatively affect the role of rector I had intended to discuss the issue of ons reclassification but others have already covered this issue in detail having listened carefully to the arguments my view is that there is really no serious risk to the financial position of Scotland's HEIs and it is indeed a smokescreen or a scare story there has undoubtedly been a degree of scaremongering about these proposals but that has distracted from what the bill sets out to achieve some have even questioned why the Scottish Government is bothering to even take such legislation forward while I accept that there has been some progress since the introduction of the core of good HE governance following the von Brunsinsky review that doesn't mean that there isn't still substantial room for improvement you could draw to a close I would agree our universities are a real success story but I don't accept that moves to improve their governance in excess of our universities at risk although the HE governance bill is still at an early stage it's important to remember that it's underpinned by the comprehensive research and recommendations put forward by Professor von Brunsinsky if universities don't exist to serve their students, their staff, their communities then who do they exist to serve I've yet to hear a convincing argument for what is wrong with giving staff and students a greater say in how their universities are governed it's formally right that every voice on campus is given the opportunity to be heard equally thank you very much we now turn to the closing speeches and I call on Mark Griffin six minutes please thank you I had said at the education culture committee at the start of the month that I supported the general principles of the higher education governance bill as support the inclusion of trade union reps of student reps on governing bodies I support that democratisation of higher education institute governing bodies and that support has been echoed by all of my Labour colleagues in the debate today and I think it's unfair to question our support for those principles because of the concerns that we have raised around ons classification similarly at committee I had also said that the issue around ons reclassification is quickly becoming a key issue for the Scottish Government and understandably given the potential impact given the real fears in the university sector around the financial implication of reclassification I think it's only right that we debate the issue in the chamber today George Adam and others have talked about that issue detracting from the positive measures in the bill and I would agree with Mr Adam which is why I think the government should support the motion in amendment today and make that commitment to remove those sections which increased the threat of reclassification Jennifer Craw of Robert Gordon University said at committee ons reclassification is a real risk to the sector when it comes to future investment and success as governing bodies we absolutely have to take financial accountability into account our principles are accounting officers in relation to the Scottish Funding Council and its chairs and boards we are accountable for the financial sustainability of the organisations as a whole the ons reclassification of colleges as public bodies has had a severe impact on the further education sector and it is not a risk that we can afford to take with the HE sector we are too successful we are too important to the Scottish economy to put the sector at risk I think that all parties in the motion that amendments in the contributions today in the chamber recognise the importance of the higher education sector to Scotland's economy and our international standing and so we should be listening to their views and responding to their concerns in the government amendment it states that it would always seek to avoid any risk of the reclassification of higher education institutes as public sector bodies by the ons and further notes that the bills provision do not increase that risk but provide, Presiding Officer that directly contradicts the evidence given to both the finance and education and culture committees by the Scottish Government officials Scottish Government officials stated that we deem reclassification to be a low risk granted that they have stated that they believe it to be a low risk but that is a risk all the same similar to Liam McArthur in Malcolm Chisholm I can't understand how a Parliament can support an amendment in the name of the cabinet secretary which directly contradicts the evidence given to Parliamentary committees by the cabinet secretary's own officials yep, certainly Cabinet Secretary was aware of the correspondence that I sent to the finance committee that goes through in detail the ESA-10 guidance which is essentially looking at the indicators of government control and how we assess that risk cumulatively as spoken about by Mr Chisholm and how we look to each indicator separately and that we have shared our assessment and why we have reached the conclusion that this bill does not increase the risk of UNS reclassification Mark Griffin I did ask questions at committee of your officials around the assessment and I'll come on to that in a minute as I've said Government officials do you believe that there is a risk of reclassification and I've stated that it is a serious and extremely serious issue Universities Scotland also believe that there is a risk of reclassification but in their assessment I've concluded that far from being low risk the risk of reclassification is amber to red risk and I did ask Scottish Government officials about the risk assessment process and they confirmed that the process that they have followed as the cabinet secretary is outlined would be the same one as Universities Scotland that they've looked at exactly the same materials that they've looked at the same indicators of control yet the concern that I have is that we have a radically different outcome Government coming to the conclusion that there is a low risk and others coming to the conclusion that the risk is much, much higher that's not me personally taking sides in a debate that's simply flagging up a gulf in legal opinion and when the consequences are so far reaching I think that's something that the Government has to take seriously I'm pressed for time Mr Mason I think it's of utmost importance that given the significance of the sector the Scottish Government do seriously consider the course of action suggested in the motion and our amendment in seek urgent external legal and technical advice on the matter and to publish in full all of that analysis and I would welcome a further commitment by the cabinet secretary or the minister in closing remarks of a commitment to today to remove all clauses from the bill that could increase the risk of ons reclassification I think that if the Government is serious about that they would follow that sensible and pragmatic course of action there have been other issues and other pieces of legislation which we've debated in this chamber where the Government have believed their position to be correct in relation to legal EU legal advice college reorganisation around VAT exemption for the new national police and fire services where the Government have simply been wrong in their assertions and assumptions I think that the repercussions for getting it wrong here are too serious and I would ask the Government to take a further look at that and to look at the course of action in the amendment today Many thanks and I now call on Dr Alasdair Allan in the eight minutes, please minister Thank you, Presiding Officer The Scottish Government certainly welcomes today's debate and I've noted carefully all the contributions many of them were very considered indeed and I think of the remarks of Liz Smith, Kara Hilton, Liam McArthur, John Mason, Malcolm Chisholm and many others I think there were some contributions that were predictable I think that possibly some of my friends or graduates will be surprised to learn from Ian Gray that tuition fees were abolished 14 years ago but let's not rehash that debate There were some contributions which, while thoughtful I would have to disagree with in a otherwise carefully considered contribution I do feel nonetheless that Baroness Goldie talked about the governance of our universities as if they were merely operations, I think they are a great deal more than that and I think perhaps unwittingly she failed to fully realise that when she pursued the argument that university courts should be accountable primarily to themselves and not to a wider academic community So I'm interesting Annabelle Goldie I'm very grateful for the cabinet secretary I hope cabinet secretary I was at pains by my remedy Ms Goldie could you pull your microphone up please Cabinet secretary I was at pains to refer to the SQA inquiry conducted by this very Parliament which was into governance of a public body so I would like to make clear I had no desire to conflate all this with corporate governance I gave a public body example which the committee refuted the very model the cabinet secretary wants to bring forward Minister My point is about the wider responsibility to a community and I stand by my remarks on that notwithstanding what the member has said I think there are other comments that were made today that were certainly important around issues around academic freedom which of course this legislation seeks to enshrine I have to differ with Anzala Malik I think he must be talking about a different university system if he thinks that it's subject to government gag at any time in this country on the other side of that equation or the discussion around that Mr Maxwell raised interest in questions I'm very happy to meet his constituents I suspect that some of the questions they may have although I don't want to pre-empt that may be around the part of the bill dealing with academic freedoms and certainly we want to be very clear that Dr Allan, if you turn away from the microphone it's difficult for others to hear I would certainly want to be very clear that academic freedom is not an excuse for inciting criminality or acts of racial or religious hatred and the bill will make that very clear I am happy to meet his constituents though about the concerns that they have The Tories told us their view of the bill and I will seek to respond to that in a minute but before I do though I have to admit I am still afraid a little nearer understanding that Labour stands in principle on the bill itself Labour have said and I welcome the fact that they said this throughout the debate that they are supportive of the idea that university governance is reformed to allow a greater role for staff, for students and for unions The problem with the Labour Party position today is that in joining us on that it has felt compelled to join with the Tories in their argument that pretty much anything that we have put in the bill and everything that we have put in the bill is at least in theory a threat to the ons classification of our universities and I think it's difficult for Labour I will give way in a minute but I think it's difficult for Labour and I've said this before already in this debate I think it's difficult for Labour to pursue a credible position and tell us what they would like to put into the bill so I look forward to hearing that Ian Gray The minister's position is patently absurd we support elected chairs we support greater transparency we support trade union and student representation the way in which that is to be achieved should appear in the bill so that it is then possible to remove from the bill those undefined powers for ministers which the minister and his colleague have spent the whole afternoon telling us they don't want to exercise anyway I hope that that is straightforward enough for the minister to understand I'm sure that for a moment or two Mr Gray could suspend his patronising tone long enough that this side of the chamber appreciates these points completely and also appreciates that there is a certain onus to come forward with ideas for bills that you attack in the chamber but the higher education governance bill will I believe and as far as I can tell Labour agrees with this point we're interested in seeing how they vote on it but as far as I can tell Labour agree with this point that the higher education governance bill will improve the modernity, transparency and higher education institutions the Scottish Government is investing over a billion pounds in our higher education institutions this year and we do that to advance learning and to foster inclusive economic growth the autonomy of higher education institutions helps them to be forward thinking and innovative and on that much I think we are all agreed so let me put this on the record again as the cabinet secretary already has done this government is not interested in ministers having any role in the business of running universities or in interfering in what individuals universities appoint to any post however the idea that the rules under which universities operate are incapable of improvement is a council of despair and one that I reject the implication that nothing can be done which would make the governing bodies of universities more reflective of the communities that they serve is also one that I reject and the assertion implied in the motion that any attempt to make such an improvement is inimical to academic freedom is not one I feel is substantiated or has been born out in this debate this bill aims to strengthen governance in our institutions by empowering all staff and students to play a full part in guiding our academic institutions further into the 21st century and to be clear again not of the view that the content of this bill adds to any risk of reclassification of Scottish higher education institutions as public sector bodies by the ONS I must come to a conclusion now reclassification is not an outcome that the Scottish Government would ever seek I'd like to reiterate that as we begin to plan for stage 2 of the bill's parliamentary consideration we continue to examine all of the constructive ideas and suggestions put to us and the relevant committees of this Parliament by stakeholders. The cabinet secretary, for instance, has made very clear that she is willing to do that and although at one point, for instance, in this debate section 20 was mentioned I think it is possibly worth saying that this is a section that is pretty much standard to most if not all pieces of legislation however the cabinet secretary has already given an indication around our openness to thinking about section 1 and I'm sure we'll have discussions on section 8 and 13 at stage 2 Presiding Officer, I want to conclude by emphasising the aim of this bill which is to help to enhance the reputation of our institutions institutions which are world class and which I believe this legislation will help into the future. Many thanks and I now call on Gavin Brown to wind up the debate. You have just over 5 minutes until 4.59, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Well, there was a rumour circulating at the start of the summer that the Scottish Government had been blindsided by the ONS reclassification issue. Now, not all rumours prove to be true Presiding Officer, so I was keen to hear the evidence given to both the finance committee and the education committee but as every day has gone on since the rumours first circulated it has become more apparent that the Government hasn't done anywhere near enough work on the ONS reclassification issue. Given what could be at stake that is simply unacceptable for the Government to behave in that fashion because ONS reclassification in a moment is not some kind of mythical beast, Presiding Officer. It is a real possibility and this Government and this Parliament should be extremely cautious after the Aberdeen western peripheral route. We have seen evidence in recent months of what the implications of reclassification can be and we were told in advance of that that it was very unlikely that we'd taken every precaution that we were extremely safe and it wouldn't happen and yet it did, Presiding Officer. There are other schools and hospitals up and down the country who could be reclassified next month and in December so I think it is the third position to take from the Scottish Government that we didn't worry about anything. We've seen it happen, we've been burned already and we should take absolutely every single precaution to make sure it doesn't happen again. I would give way to Mr Mason. John Mason. Thank you for giving way. Would you accept that the Scottish Government has developed considerable expertise and it is actually quite hard to find other organisations out there with more expertise? There's not been a huge amount of expertise evident in the chamber today from the SNP but what I'd say to Mr Mason because he did ask a perfectly reasonable question who could possibly give the Scottish Government advice was the tone of his questioning. Presiding Officer, there are any number of large law firms in Edinburgh and beyond in Scotland. There are any number of financial institutions who could give them advice and Mr Mason might be keen to know even when the AWRP issue came up. The Scottish Government actually did at least at times do its best to try and make that safe. John Swinney gave evidence in this chamber where he said he had taken five separate bits of legal and technical advice from external sources to try and make sure they gave it the best chance. So it is inexplicable why this part of the Scottish Government hasn't taken a single piece of external advice. Nobody outside the Scottish Government has given any technical any financial or any legal advice on an issue that could cost our universities a billion pounds a year if we get it wrong. If we get it wrong. They could review it and decide that they remain as non-profit institutions serving households but just as equally they could not. They could decide that it must be public sector and we therefore lose a billion pounds. That's why I think we have to be extremely cautious. Now let me pick up on some of the issues that have been raised. Chick Brody mentioned that it's not specifically on the ONS work plan in terms of the published calendar. Now that is true, in terms of the published work plan they have agreed to look at higher education institutions south of the border. But as we know there is every possibility that they could look at Scottish institutions particularly as legislation is going through and there is a historical precedent. When colleges and sixth form colleges were first looked at Scotland was not on the map but we all know what happened in 2010 Scottish colleges were brought into that inquiry and they were reclassified a position they have remained in ever since. So just because it's not specifically on the agenda today I think that there's every possibility that it would come up. Let me deal with the confusion that a number of members, primarily I have to say in the SNP have come up with today, they've tried to use a letter from Oscar as a crumb of comfort. Anyone who is using that is conflating to entirely separate issues. ONS reclassification is a separate issue from charitable status by Oscar. That Oscar letter is extremely helpful in terms of charitable status because it's ultimately they who would decide. So we can take some comfort from that. Although even in so doing I would point out that they say they would look at how the regulations were actually used and they could in future reach a different view but at this stage they've reached a view. That letter is of no value whatsoever when the ONS will take their decision on reclassification. So any member who thinks we can rely on that I'm afraid is severely misguided and has quite simply got it wrong. We heard that this Scottish Government doesn't want extra powers. They don't want any of those extra powers and they don't want ministerial control and we heard the suggestion that some of the powers that they've been given are just a simple tidying up exercise or just future proofing that was the exact term used. We'll read out section 8 just for the sake of the record so that it can be clear the type of powers that have been given. Section 8 gives Scottish ministers the power to modify the governing body of all of our universities. Scottish ministers may by regulations modify the categories of membership of people who can be on governing bodies and the number of persons to be appointed under a particular category in that section. Presiding Officer that is a pretty strong power. That is not just future proofing or a tidying up exercise and that is something that is causing deep concern to universities across the land. Happy to give way to the minister. I appreciate Mr Brin given way and just for the record perhaps to read some of the debate this afternoon, for the record I've already said that section 1 will be replaced when we insert the plans with the model of electing chairs. As Dr Allan has already said section 8.13 can indeed be looked at as would be the norm as part of the parliamentary process. In section 20 is indeed a fairly standard clause that is in many pieces of legislation. First minister, why on earth did they go into the bill in the first place? When the Government had a full report and then had a full consultation on what ought to be in the bill with 37 questions being asked specifically, why on earth was that not mentioned that they were intending to put those powers in the bill? If the minister can't answer that, perhaps Ian Gray will be able to answer that question. I wanted to ask Mr Brown in addition whether he thinks that passing curious that if the cabinet secretary is saying she will make some of the changes which we've been asking for in the bill, why the government amendment now tells us that the bill is in fact already perfect and has no problems. Gavin Brown? Okay, it's coming a little circle. Why the minister and indeed the SNP have taken that view but to echo the comments of a couple of others I'm genuinely perplexed by the government amendment here today because they claim to be opening and listening but they say in black and white in clear terms that they don't think the totality of the terms of this bill moves one iota the risk of ons reclassification. Now I don't know how any government can say that the bill is free and doesn't move it at all particularly when they haven't taken any external legal, technical or financial advice. We have had legal advice universities took legal advice and they took I have to say the extraordinary step, the particularly helpful step but the extraordinary step of putting that legal advice in the public domain. They gave the full legal advice to the finance committee to the education committee and anybody could have access to it. The bit that I don't quite understand is despite this legal advice being out there for all to see despite the government having a fixed view on the situation almost a month later almost a month later there has been no formal rebuttal from the Scottish Government to the legal advice given by Anderson's return and I find that remarkable that they attempted to rebut the legal advice that was given why have they not taken their own legal advice why have they not attempted to address the issues raised because they conclude that it heightens the risk they conclude that it takes us into borderline territory which is an extremely uncomfortable place for our universities to be and they say that an O&S assessment exercise should appear at the level of significant risk in their risk registers those are strong conclusions and Anderson's return lay out very clearly which documents ought to be looked at ESA 2010, MGDD 2014 and Treasury guidance of 2013 yet when the Scottish Government put their letter to the finance committee they make no mention no mention of two of those documents they make no mention of the indicator of control that looks to changes of the constitutions of those universities and they give scant regard to the indicators that they do mention particularly Government control via regulation which is one of the main complaints of this bill is simply skimmed over in the Government's response Presiding Officer we have been burned in Scotland by O&S reclassification in the past so we should be ultra cautious as we proceed we should take every single bit of advice that we possibly can and if there is any doubt whatsoever those clauses must be removed from the bill and it is incumbent on the Scottish Government to take that advice to publish that advice and to remove any doubt whatsoever because the consequences of not doing so could be dramatic on our universities and it could take many many years to fix Thank you Mr Brown that concludes the debate on Scotland's universities we now move to the next side of business which is Considered of business motion number 14620 in the name of Delford's Patrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau setting out a business programme any member wishes to speak against the motion should press a request speaker now and I call on Delford's Patrick to move motion number 14620 moved No member has asked to speak against the motion therefore I now put the question of the chamber the question is that motion number 14620 in the name of Delford's Patrick be agreed to the motion is therefore agreed to the next side of business is consideration of three business motions I would ask Delford's Patrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau to move motions number 14617 14618 and 14619 setting out timetables for various bills I propose to ask a single question to these motions if any member objects a single question being put please say so now No member has objected to a single question being put therefore I now put the question to the chamber and that is that motion number 14617 14618 and 14619 in the name of Delford's Patrick be agreed to the motions are there for agreed to the next item of business is consideration of a Parliamentary Bureau motion I would ask Delford's Patrick to move the motion the motion will be put a decision time to which we now come there are four questions to be put as a result of today's business can I remind members that in relation to debate on Scotland's universities if the amendment in the name of Angela Constance is agreed the amendment in the name of Ian Gray falls the first question then is amendment number 14596.2 in the name of Angela Constance 14596 in the name of Liz Smith on Scotland's universities be agreed to are we all agreed Parliament's not agreed we move to vote members should cast votes now the result of the vote amendment number 14596.2 in the name of Angela Constance is as follows yes 64 no 54 there were no abstentions the amendment is there for agreed to and the amendment in the name of Angela Constance 14596 in the name of Liz Smith on Scotland's universities be agreed to are we all agreed Parliament's not agreed we move to vote members should cast a vote now the result of the vote on motion number 14596 in the name of Liz Smith as amended is as follows yes 64 no 54 there were no abstentions the motion as amended is there for agreed to the next question is at motion number 14460 in the name of Dolfitt's Patrick on approval for SSI be agreed to are we all agreed the motion is there for agreed to that concludes the decision time we now move to members business members should leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly