 trees. I Mind Everybody to Make Sure That All Electronic Devices Are Switched Off At All Times. Our first item is to consider the higher education government in Scotland Bill at stage 2. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and her officials. Good morning and welcome to the committee. I welcome Tavish Scott, who is substituting for Liam McArthur and I welcome Jim Eady, Ian Gray, Liz Smith and Sandra White. We are also attending for this item of business. Everyone should have, with them, a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshaled list of amendments and the groupings of amendments. For each debate, I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all other amendments in the group. All other members with amendments in the group, including the Cabinet Secretary, are relevant and will then be asked to speak to them. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate that by catching the attention of either myself or the clerks. If the Cabinet Secretary has not already spoken in the group, I will invite the Cabinet Secretary to contribute to the debate just before moving to the wind-up speeches. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press it ahead, I will put that question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek approval to do so. If any member objects, the committee immediately moves to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say not moved. Please note that, of course, any other MSP may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by a show of hands. It is important that members please keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will also put a question on each section at the appropriate point. As I said before we started, we intend to go through all the amendments today. Amendment 3, in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendments 4, 4A, 4B, 21, 24, 25 and 26. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 3 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and good morning, committee and colleagues. Considering this and indeed all the groupings of amendments, it is important to bear in mind the purpose of this legislation. Essentially, this Government aims to ensure that every voice in the higher education community is heard and that through this modest and focus bill we can enable an approach to governance based on greater transparency and inclusivity, which supports continuous improvement in the operation of our higher education institutions. Providing for the election of a senior lay member on the governing body of each Scottish HE institution is key to this ambition and these amendments set out this new role and how it would interact with the statutory role of rectors where that role exists. As promised, in stage 1, the amendments seek to make provision on the face of the bill in place of the original regulation making power in section 1 for the establishment of an elected chairing member. Throughout stage 1, we listened to the views of stakeholders and the committee. In particular, I considered very carefully the views of rectors and their supporters. That has informed development of the wider provision set out chiefly in amendments 3 to 10. To avoid impinging on the statutory role of rectors and to respect their valued contribution to our institutions, the elected position provided for inner amendments is that the senior lay member of the governing body of all Scottish higher education institutions, with reference to this role, the Scottish code of good HE governance, separates it from the role of rector by talking about it as an extensive role of chair, variously called senior governor, vice convener or convener. There can be no ambiguity about the pivotal role played by the senior lay member in each higher education institution. Turning to amendment 3, those provisions oblige each Scottish higher education institution to feature the position of senior lay member on its governing body and specify his or her code functions. Those functions include a duty to preside at meetings of the governing body, a deliberative and casting vote at such meetings and a responsibility for the leadership and effectiveness of the governing body, as well as ensuring that there is an appropriate balance of authority between the governing body and the principal. A term whose ordinary meaning is understood to encompass other designations used in certain HAIs such as director. Subsection 3 enables higher education institutions to select another member of the governing body to perform those functions when the position of senior lay member is vacant or the holder is unable to attend a meeting. Crucially, subsection 4 in amendment 3 makes it clear that the functions of the senior lay member are subject to the provisions of amendment 4. Subsections 1 and 2 of amendment 4 ensure that, in relation to the ancient universities, the historical role of rector provided for a statute is protected. Mr Maxwell's amendment 4A would dilute the statutory protection in subsections 1 and 2 and effectively allow for the removal of the statutory rights of rectors by higher education institutions governing bodies. I do not think that that is an outcome that any of us would wish to see. I would hope therefore that Mr Maxwell does not press his amendment 4A. Amendment 4, as lodged in my name on 2 February, also enables the governing bodies of universities with a rector to allow the rector to make some of the role described for the senior lay members in amendment 3. That is what subsections 3 and 4 allow but only where a governing body wishes to do so. I must make it clear that those subsections do not affect the statutory protection of the role of rector in the ancient universities under subsections 1 and 2 of amendment 4. The power at subsections 3 and 4 was intended to recognise the autonomy of universities and would give the maximum flexibility within the governance requirements of the bill. However, having considered Mr Maxwell's amendment 4B effectively removing subsections 3 and 4 in my amendment 4, I am content to encourage the committee to support it as achieving the core intentions of amendment 4. Amendment 4B seeks to protect the statutory role of rectors at the ancient universities and goes no further than that. There is on balance an advantage in those provisions remaining focused on the core intention of protecting the statutory role of rectors. Turning briefly to the remaining amendments in this group, amendment 21 removes section 14 of the bill as the regulation making powers contained in sections 128 and 13 of the bill at introduction are now subject to other Government amendments removing them, so section 14 will not be required. I am mindful that many of our HE institutions perceive the extent of regulation making powers in the bill as having a detrimental impact on their autonomy. I hope that this and indeed other amendments laid at this stage remove all concerns in that regard. Amendment 24 ensures restoration of the statutory role of rector under section 4 of the University of Scotland Act 1858. That act applies to the ancient universities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, St Andrews and Aberdeen and provides that the rector is the ordinary president of the court with a deliberative and a casting vote. I felt that it was necessary to remove this provision that act introduction to section 1 of the bill proposed that regulations would make provision for the appointment of a chairing member. However, amendments 3 to 10 and amendment 12 propose to replace that regulation making power with full provision on the face of the bill, which protects the statutory role of rectors so that it would therefore be appropriate to ensure section 4 of the 1858 act continues. Likewise, amendment 25 ensures restoration of the statutory role of rector under section 5 of the University of Scotland Act 1889, which applies to the ancient universities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, St Andrews and Aberdeen and provides that the rector has the right to preside at meetings of the court and has a deliberative and casting vote. Crucially, amendment 25 also provides that the senior lay member should preside at meetings of the relevant governing body or court when the rector cannot attend or preside. Legislation from 1889 sets out that, in the absence of the rector in an ancient institution, a vice chancellor elected by the governing body can preside. As the new senior lay member would be an elected post, it is our view that the new senior lay member should preside when the rector is unable to do so. Lastly, amendment 26 is consequential on amendment 25, seeking to amend paragraph 2 to D of this bill's schedule and simply providing a definition of senior lay member in the 1889 act, which links clearly to the meaning set out in this bill. Because of amendment 25, there is now a need to define senior lay member rather than chairing member within the 1889 act. I move amendment 3 and ask the committee to support my amendments, as well as Mr Maxwell's amendment 4B. For the reasons that I have given, I ask Mr Maxwell not to move amendment 4A. If that amendment is moved, I would ask the committee to reject it. I will now speak to amendment 4A and other amendments in the group. Those amendments 4A and 4B that I have submitted to the committee this morning are on the back of discussions clearly with the sector last week in relation to amendments 3 and 4 laid by the Government. The clear view of many in the sector was that amendment 4 in particular—as the cabinet secretary said, sections 3 and 4 in particular—the view was that it may indeed be the case that amendment 4 transferred some responsibilities for the matter of the governing body, which, rather than being it for the institution to determine, would have changed the role of rectors and given the power of that change to each governing body to set the rules. That was something that was not welcomed. In an attempt to resolve amendment 4A and 4B on Thursday morning, members will remember that, on Thursday morning, we had an electronic problem that left no email or printing methods or any other methods. That was my fault. It was a rather scrambled situation on Thursday morning to attempt to solve the matter. Therefore, in trying to resolve it, I fully accept the Government's view about amendment 4A and the number of individuals that I spoke to from the sector over the weekend on Friday and again by email this morning. It is clear that amendment 4A has unintended consequences, and that was not my intention. My intention was to leave the situation in which rectors would be unaffected by the legislation, and therefore it is not my intention to move 4A. However, 4B does help with providing at least comfort, if not more than that, to the sector by removing subsections 3 and 4 and allows effectively a situation, as the cabinet secretary has described, that the rectors or the ancients would remain in place as they currently are and that they would not be impacted by the current legislation. Therefore, it is my intention when we come to the appropriate point to move amendment 4B. I wish to speak to Liz Smith, if any other members wish to speak. Amendment 3 and 4 fundamentally changes the role of the rector at universities where that role exists. That really is at odds with what the Scottish Government promised at stage 1. I just quote to the committee what the cabinet secretary said at that stage. She said, "...it is extremely important to remember that the role of the rector and that of an elected chair, who is otherwise known as the senior governor, are very distinct. Yet that is not the case with amendments 3 and 4." In universities with rectors, there would be two different yet overlapping electorates, which I am sure is not the Scottish Government's intention. It is my understanding that the University of Scotland took legal advice on the issue, which concluded that there is considerable ambiguity in the drafting and that it seems likely that the rector would take on the two specific roles of the senior governor, namely the responsibility for the leadership and effective operation of the governing body and ensuring that there is the appropriate balance of authority between the governing body and the principal. Within that institution, he would then find that there is an advertisement and an electoral process for a disempowered position. Again, I hope that that is not the Scottish Government's real intention. Just as worrying is the fact that in universities with rectors, with the exception of Edinburgh of course, the Government amendments would mean that staff would be excluded from the electorate of the position that is most empowered. Again, that is something that is not acceptable. Amendments 4A and 4B—I understand, convener, why you brought them forward. I have some sympathy for that, but the fact that they are there is an acknowledgement that amendments 3 and 4 have created a real mess in the bill. While they are an attempt to preserve the rector role, they do not do anything to address the fundamental weakness with the Scottish Government's proposals, which means that there are overlapping electorates and an unworkable system that, quite frankly, is just not acceptable to the sector. It would create the instability, and as University Scotland argued, the possibility of a considerable argument over which post has the stronger and more democratic mandate. Convener, this section of the bill is a real mess, and it is very regrettable, as we all believe, that some real effort was being made to find a consensus that was acceptable to all parties. Now, quite frankly, that has blown apart completely, and I cannot think anything will solve this other than starting again on this section. Students and staff are not at all happy about this situation, and quite properly, university courts worry about the destabilising effect on their institutions. In short, it demonstrates everything that is wrong with the bill. Indeed, I think that the last meeting that the Scottish Government had with all the stakeholders was a way back at the end of November, and I understand that there has been absolutely no consultation whatsoever between stage 1 and stage 2. That is something for the people who are actually going to have to deliver. That is just not acceptable. Thank you very much. I think that I would have to agree with a lot of what Liz Smith has said. I think that the Government will work towards a consensus around the legislation, but those amendments, particularly Lathrin IV, seem to have blown that apart. In our report, convener, at stage 1, the committee said that the role of rector, a historic and often high-profile figure in Scotland's ancient universities, should be clarified if there are to be elected chairs and elected rectors. There should be no ambiguity about their respective roles, and both figures should be able to work together for the good of the institution. Unfortunately, rather than clarifying the situation, I think that the Government has muddied the waters further with those amendments. At stage 1, the cabinet secretary said that Urim was not to change the role of the rector, but, as far as I can see, the amendments that are table 3 and 4 do exactly that. That is either a change in position from the Government or an error in the drafting. We would like to see proper consultation with the sector, which, as far as I can see, has not happened, that we would ask the Government to withdraw those amendments to work with the sector to build the consensus that seems to be coming together in advance of stage 3. I look forward to the cabinet secretary to withdraw those amendments. I am sure that you are familiar with the trials and tribulations of Loganair. I could do 10 minutes on that, because I was an hour and a half late in Dabbardine last night and I got a speeding ticket on the way down. In the best of moods to take on those amendments, the thing that strikes me most about reading all this yesterday and this morning is the assertion by the Government that they have consulted on those matters. My reading of the situation is that there may have been some consultation, as Liz Smith and others mentioned, much earlier in the process. However, when the Government brings forward fundamental changes to law, because that is what we are going to be dealing with today, fundamental changes to law should not be done as rushed amendments at the last possible stage. That is what the cabinet secretary has tabled today. Fundamental and important changes to how our universities are to operate in the future are effectively being pushed through Parliament without any real, proper, pre-legislative or any other kind of legislative scrutiny. I think that the Government should be embarrassed by that and admit that that is wrong. Mark Griffin is right. The Government should withdraw those amendments, go back to the sector and work out the right thing to do. It cannot be the right way for Parliament to operate in this way. I am told that there is nothing that could be described as the product of consultation or consensus in the Government's amendments today. The idea of electing both the rector and the senior lay member attracted no consensus in the meetings that took place during stage 1, not after stage 1 but during stage 1. The Government cannot assert that they have consulted adequately on that matter at all. It is not just universities, principals, chairs and courts who have been making those points more widely. It is also the president of the Student's Representative Council at Glasgow University. He said that I saw the other day that he was perplexed as to how the Scottish Government had managed to manage this bill so profoundly from inadvertent clauses that risked turning Scotland's universities into public bodies to utter ignorance of the relationship between the role of the rector and the role of the chair of the court. That bill, he said, has been an unmitigated disaster. I had thought that any Government should pay close attention to that by people who are, after all, knowledgeable about their sector. That verdict of disaster is one that is epitomised by the amendments that the cabinet secretary has moved this morning. I am told that the minister said that she would not seek to change the role of the rector in earlier assurances to the committee and to Parliament, yet that is precisely what those amendments today do. They also set out in extraordinarily elaborate detail the mechanism to be used for advertising and electing a senior lay member who has effectively been disempowered. I am not sure what Government wants to achieve by that kind of micro-management of the public sector, nor, as Liz Smith mentioned earlier on, for the universities with rectors, except Edinburgh, those amendments would exclude staff from voting for the person who is substantially empowered as chair of the governing body. That seems frankly extraordinary. I say to my good friend Ian Gray that it sounds like Labour's old electoral college—that one. However, those different but overlapping electorates will be asked to vote for two separate people with poorly differentiated roles on the governing body. That cannot be good policy or cannot be a good approach. I acknowledge your attempts to get the minister out of the hole that she has dug for herself in the amendments that you have moved or the amendment that you are moving today. However, that does not get round the fact that what is being put in place is an essentially unworkable system of overlapping roles and functions. What the Scottish Government is doing is to build an incentive for an effective arm wrestle between rectors and elected chairs over whose democratic mandate is the great. I cannot believe that that is a good way to conduct any kind of future reform of our university sector. If the Government's intention really is to avoid altering the role of the rector, or setting up in conflict with the senior lame member, I would urge the Government to withdraw those amendments and to seek to find some way to work constructively with the university on a solution that honours the earlier commitments that are given and certainly are not being honoured by today's amendments from the Government. I think that Labour has supported the Scottish Government in the principle of seeing chairs of courts in our university's elected. Others have not supported that principle, but we are all agreed on what was committed to by the cabinet secretary at stage 1. That is that she would bring forward amendments at this stage that would provide, firstly, clarity on the process of those elections of chairs and secondly, clarity around the relationship in the ancient universities between that position and the ancient position of rector. It seems very clear to me that the cabinet secretary has failed to do that. To bring such amendments forward would surely mean bringing them forward with some evidence of support or at least acceptance from the different interest groups within the sector—rectors themselves, the institutions, the staff trade unions and the US representing students—but the truth is, and we all know this, that, instead of bringing those amendments forward and creating clarity and consensus that they are a good way forward, what we have seen late last week is that, when those amendments came forward, they were rather added to the ambiguity and have led to bewilderment. In fact, on all sides, any possibility of a fragile consensus being created within the sector to take those proposals forward was rather shattered. Mr Scott, convener, I appreciate the attempts that you have made to try to dig the Government out of the hole in which you have put yourselves. That is not really your job, I think, and it is unfortunate that you have been put into that position. However, I have to agree with colleagues that, given the situation that we have arrived at, the only sensible way forward is for the cabinet secretary to withdraw those amendments and to recommit to what she did indeed promise at stage 1. At stage 3 is to bring forward amendments where she can demonstrate that they are indeed clear and that they have support or, at the very least, acceptance among the sector. That would be the most sensible way forward now. Thank you, Iain. I will support 4B. I made my position very clear from the beginning that, to have two individuals on the court elected by the wider franchise, I believe that they will not achieve consistency, and neither will it, in fact, will probably enhance points of conflict that are not desirable in doing so. I think that your amendment helps to alleviate if not eliminate that issue. I would also like to comment on section 33, which welcomes any member of the governing body of a higher education institution to exercise any of the functions mentioned in subsection 2, which is leadership and effectiveness and establishing an appropriate balance of authority. I welcome that, and I will support your amendment. Thank you. No other contributions, therefore. I call the cabinet secretary to wind up. Thank you very much, convener. The Government is making good on its commitments to protect the statutory provision for rectors. I have to inform and advise committee members, and I am sure that many members already know that there has been extensive consultation in November with the sector, whether that is with Universities Scotland, whether it was with rectors, whether it was with the trade unions, or whether it was with... Certainly. Cabinet secretary, tell us just how much consultation there has been with Universities Scotland and the chairs of court between stage 1 and stage 2 to try to build the consensus. There has been extensive consultation between my officials and all stakeholders. There have been workshops convened because we were pressurised instead of having regulations to give powers to the model of elected chairs. We were pressurised to remove regulation making power and to state on the face of the bill. There have been two very specific workshops on the model of elected chairs. There has been specific engagement with rectors and discussions in and around the model of elected chairs, of course, which strays into the area of ensuring that the role of senior lay person and the rector is appropriately dovetailed. I was very pleased to receive correspondence from Kathleen Stiler this morning who has welcomed my attempts to retain the statutory role of the rectors in the ancient universities. She says that she has always been throughout her discussions clear that the Scottish Government would continue to support the role of the rector and the statutory rights to preside over our university court. As I said in my opening remarks, convener, amendments 3 and 4 are very much with the view to addressing the position of the senior lay member and the interaction with the role of the rector. For clarity, in terms of subsections 3 and 4 of amendment 4, as lodged on 2 February in my name, that enables all universities with a rector should they wish to do so to allow the rector to take on some of the role that is described for senior lay members in amendment 3. There is already that flexibility that exists within ancient universities to dovetail the roles of seniorly member with rectors. Subsections 3 and 4 merely make an expression for that provision. If, in fact, the case is that the cabinet secretary implies that there has been widespread consultation and that there is widespread agreement to that approach in the sector, can I ask her what is to be lost then by withdrawing those amendments just now, taking the time to demonstrate to us that that acceptance and agreement is there and then making the change at stage 3? Nothing would be lost. Well, I think that the fundamental issue is that there is a misunderstanding of what the Government's provisions were attempted to do. There has been consultation with chairs of court, University of Scotland, Edinburgh rectors and a wider group of rectors. I have clearly stated the rationale for amendment 3. In terms of subsections 1 and 2 of amendment 4, that is about making good our commitments to protect the role of rector. I say no need to be rolling back on that here and now. I have already indicated in terms of Mr Maxwell's amendment that we could accept amendment 4B where we do not have any further than protecting the statutory role of rectors as it is. I repeat the quotation that you gave at the education committee when you said that it is extremely important to remember that the role of the rector and that of an elected chair who is otherwise known as the senior governor are very distinct. Amendments 3 and 4 do not do that. No, I have always been crystal clear either in plenary debates in chamber or indeed stage 1 evidence at this committee that the senior lay member and the rector are very distinct roles. However, it is important to recognise that amendment 4 in terms of subsections 1 and 2 where the rector has the right to preside and has a deliberative and casting vote at meetings that the amendment 4 seeks to protect those functions. Therefore, I say no need to roll back from that commitment, a commitment that we made very clear at various stages in the bill. The cabinet secretary said in her earlier remarks that there was widespread misunderstanding of the intention of those amendments. I do not doubt the cabinet secretary's good intentions to deliver what she promised at stage 1, but she herself was acknowledged that there is widespread misunderstanding as to whether, in fact, those amendments do that. What is to be lost by simply taking those amendments away, addressing that misunderstanding and coming back at stage 3 with something that everyone can sign up to? I contend that there is no dubiety with regards to amendments 3 and 4, not in terms of the Government's intentions. Indeed, as Mr Gray could perhaps have acknowledged that I have received correspondence from a colleague of his, I welcome in the Government's efforts in this area. Amendment 3 is very clear and subsections 1 and 2 of amendment 4 are very clear. I have already indicated that the Government is content with Mr Maxwell's amendment. I am clear that others might have misunderstood the intent of those amendments, but those amendments are clear. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way, and I totally take the point that she is clear about it. Could you tell the committee on what date she or her officials discussed those amendments with the university sector? Members will be aware that amendments were laid last week, but I have to stress that we have had extensive discussions with all stakeholders regarding most of the aspects of the bill. I accept that there are some people who will never be content with the bill or, indeed, some of the provisions. Amendment 3 and subsections 1 and 2 of amendment 4, I would have hoped that we could have all been agreed that that protects the intentions that we have discussed at length at the committee to protect the statutory provision of rectors in our ancient universities. All agreed, there will be a division. Will those members who wish to support amendment 3 please vote now? Those opposed, thank you, abstentions. The result on the vote on amendment 3, that amendment is agreed to, 5 in favour and 4 against. There are no abstentions. I call amendment 4 on the name of the cabinet secretary. I have already debated with amendment 3 to move formally. I call amendment 4A in my own name. I have already debated with amendment 3. I will not move amendment 4A in my own name. I have already debated with amendment 3. I will move amendment 4A. The question is that amendment 4B be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is that amendment 4 as amendment B agreed to. Are we all agreed? I ask that again. The question is that amendment 4 as amended be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you. I call amendment 5 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Groups with amendments 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 27, 28, 29, 12, 31, 13, 14 and 15. Cabinet secretary to move amendment 5 and speak to all amendments in the group, cabinet secretary. Thank you, convener. The Scottish Government amendments in this group are chiefly focused on setting out the process that Scottish higher education institutions would be required to follow in appointing their seniorly member. Throughout stage 1, we listened to the views of stakeholders and took note of the evidence gathered by committee. In addition, we engaged senior sector stakeholders in workshops related to this and other parts of the bill at the end of last year. Amendment 5 is the first in a suite of amendments that are effectively replacing section 1, as introduced with provision on the face of the bill, rather than in regulations for a single model of the appointment of the elective senior lay member of higher education institutions governing bodies. The amendment obliges an higher education institution when a vacancy for the senior lay member arises to delegate responsibility over the recruitment process to a committee featuring at least one student and one staff member drawn from the institution. Those committees are commonly known as nominations committees. However, the role of committee formed to appoint an elected senior lay member is not one of nomination, rather selection to stand for election against criteria devised by the committee. Subsection 2 of the provision allows for the committee to determine relevant criteria for the role of senior lay member, encompassing key principles of competence. The intention is to allay previously raised concerns from some stakeholders about who might be elected to lead governance of an institution. Amendment 6 would oblige higher education institutions to advertise a vacancy for the post of senior lay member to the general public through established methods to attract interests from a wide range of candidates. Subsection 2 sets out plainly the obligations required in relation to the advertisement. The intention is to advertise widely and fully inform potential applicants of the nature of the role and what the recruitment process will involve further down the line. The requirement for an application to be in a certain form and for relevant criteria to be made available will ensure a fair playing field for all applicants and that their applications are considered in a consistent way. It is worth noting that existing legislation already obliges an institution to make appointments to its governing body in a way that encourages equal opportunities and does not discriminate against any individual with characteristics protected by equalities legislation, such as race, gender or disability, to name a few. The advertisement and application stage is an important part of improving access to the position of senior lay member. Amendment 7 seeks to ensure that, if in response to the advertisement of a vacancy in the position of senior lay member, an applicant has submitted an application on the correct form and met the criteria set out for the role of senior lay member by presenting sufficient relevant evidence on the application form, the committee must invite that applicant to attend an interview for the role, in short, very much like any transparent and modern recruitment exercise. If, at the interview that applicant again satisfies the committee that they meet the criteria for the post, they will be entitled to stand for election for the role of senior lay member. Lastly, subsection 3 of the section inserted by amendment 7 requires every HE institution to offer applicants reimbursement of reasonable expenses, encouraging connection with attending an interview and keeping with the intention of the Bill to respect the autonomous nature of HE institutions. It will be for each HEI to determine what is reasonable. Turning to amendment 8, amendment 8 provides that a higher education institution will be required to convene an election for the position of senior lay member of the governing body if more than one candidate is, after an interview entitled to stand and confirms their intention to stand. If an institution fails to identify two candidates who fit the criteria for the role, the bill will require that it repeats the process from the point of advertisement. In this way, the bill ensures a real and meaningful election in keeping with the bill's overall aims to establish an open, transparent and more democratic appointment process across all higher education institutions for the role of senior lay member. Turning now to amendment 9, amendment 9 provides detail on the franchise mechanism and result of the election of senior lay member of the governing body. Specifically, it provides that the franchise must consist of the governing body and all staff and students of the HE institution. That makes clear the Government's intention to democratise the process in appointing a senior lay member and to allow everyone in the institution's community a say in who that should be. Amendment 10 sets out the final step in the recruitment process and provides that the winning candidate at the preceding election must be appointed to the position of senior lay member and that this is the only way in which such a position may be filled. On a connected note, amendment 11 will replace section 2 of the bill with provision on the face of the bill rather than in regulations for remuneration of the senior lay member. That will ensure that a senior lay member of the governing body can request and will be paid reasonable remuneration from the higher education institution, commensurate with carrying out the functions of that office. That payment will not amount to a salary, the relevant amount must be reasonable and commensurate with work that has been done. Given that amendments 3 to 11 make provision on the face of the bill for the appointment and remuneration of the senior lay member, amendments 12 and 13 remove the regulation making powers in section 1 and 2 of the bill as introduced. Furthermore, the purpose of amendment 14 is to remove section 3 of the bill as introduced, which applies Scottish ministers to consult with higher education institutions and other appropriate persons prior to making regulations under sections 1 and 2 of the bill as introduced. Amendment 15 is a consequential amendment that ensures that all Scottish HAIs must include the new elected senior lay member as a member of their governing bodies. That amendment is necessary in order to replace reference to the chairing member in section 4-1A of the bill as introduced. Taken together, I would hope that committee can support amendments 5 to 15. Turn into amendment 31 lodged by Liz Smith. I do not believe that that amendment is necessary, as it provides for a power that already exists. Higher education institutions can currently provide remuneration if they wish. Compliance with the code of good governance in that respect is also currently required. My amendment 11 will, however, ensure that a senior lay member or chair of the governing body can request and will be paid reasonable remuneration commensurate with the responsibilities of carrying out the function of that office. That is not akin to a salary or unlimited payment, but it is right for a senior lay member to request reasonable remuneration and allowances for the work that they have done and a duty on higher education institutions to make such payments where reasonable. I therefore cannot support amendment 31, which describes a discretion that HAE institutions already have, and I would ask Ms Smith not to move amendment 31 and the committee to reject it if she does. Finally, turning to amendments 27, 28 and 29 lodged by Mr MacArthur, I do not believe that those amendments will have a positive impact on the process for the appointment of the chairing member. The principle aim of the bill is to enable a framework of governance that is more modern, accountable and inclusive. I consider that Liam MacArthur's amendments would make little substantive change to current practice, effectively returning us to status quo and leaving the decision making in terms of the process for the appointment of the chairing member as act present to the governing body to create its own rules about and to restrict the electorate for the chairing member to the members of the governing body only. While Mr MacArthur's amendments include a requirement for the rules to include provision for students and staff to be represented in the process of selecting candidates for election, the amendments simply allow for rather than require an institution to undertake an election. As such, Mr MacArthur's amendments make no provision for consistency across the sector, as the amendments would allow different rules to be developed by different institutions, albeit with regard to the Scottish code of good higher education governance. The principles underpinning this bill are to enhance inclusion, participation, transparency and consistency in governance arrangements in our HCI. Unfortunately, none of Mr MacArthur's amendments would meet any of those principles on their most basic level. For that reason, I asked Mr MacArthur not to move his amendments and the committee to reject him if he does. The amendments that I have lodged in this group provide for consistency, for robust selection and fair election that we have consulted with and listened to stakeholders and responded to their concerns by setting out what should happen on the face of the bill. I would hope that they are supportive of this considered approach. I move amendment 5, and I ask the committee to support my amendments for the reasons that I have given. I would ask the committee to reject amendments 27, 28 and 29 if moved, and amendments 31 if moved by Liz Smith. Thank you very much. I call Tavish Scott to speak to amendment 27 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. It is very kind of you. First, I will observe that this does really seem a Government who wants to absolutely be on top of every detail of what goes on in our universities. I was quite taken aback by the minister's contribution to this debate this morning. I totally understand her society in moving that, but this really now is quite breathtaking in the desire to be all over every detail of what goes on across this aspect of university activity. I think that approach is wrong. I thought that she gave the game away right at the end there, where she said that Liam McArthur's amendments were not right because they allowed different universities to come up with different options. That says it all, does it not? We are all to do exactly what the Government says. Let me make the argument for the amendments 27 to 29, because instead of the unbelievably detailed and mechanistic approach taken by this Government, what those amendments seek to do is to provide a workable framework for the election of chairs of governing bodies, giving institutions appropriate discretion to set out arrangements for this. I would have thought that this committee above all committees in this Parliament should believe in the discretion in education. Those amendments require that this should be done in accordance with standards set out in the higher education governance code. The cabinet secretary rightly mentioned that although they went on to say that it did not really matter, which, unlike primary legislation, is subject to regular change as good practice evolves. I thought that that was the whole point of the higher education governance code. This is something when ministers previously appeared before this committee in relation to other pieces of legislation. I understand that they told this committee that that was right and that it was the means to achieve what was loosely described as future proofing, which strikes me as a dreadful phrase that we all use in public life these days. Those proposals would absolutely require the engagement of students and staff in the process of selecting the chairs of governing bodies. Yes, that might be different across different institutions. I would have thought that that would be a strength of that approach rather than a weakness as this Government appeared to believe, primarily through the membership of the nomination committees that select candidates. Amendments 27 to 29 have the added advantage of delivering exactly what the cabinet secretary said that she previously wanted to achieve. They leave the role of the rector untouched and allow institutions to avoid the nonsense of having student staff elections for both the rector and the senior lay member. I am sure that members who have much more experience of this committee than me will look closely at those measures, but it must be important that the committee tries to save the Government from itself here instead of allowing this hall to be dug ever deeper. That is what those amendments do. The overly detailed and interventionist approach of amendments 5 to 11 will simply store up problems for the future. Amendment 5 illustrates this perfectly, while amendment 6 seeks ministers attempting to write into primary legislation, primary law, every last detail of a job advert while removing any scope for universities to negotiate remuneration and allowances with their chair. That is an extraordinary level of influence, if not the heavy hand of the law over the practical activities of an independent institution. I urge the committee to think about that, rather than just passing it on the nod. In this context, I think that the more flexible and pragmatic approach that is set out in Liz Smith's amendment 31 is more sensible. Amendment 8 feels to address the problem of the governing body being denied the opportunity to elect its own chair, which must be deeply ironic in the context of what we have decided to do with committees. As for the introduction of a measure that allows candidates to claim election expenses, that has emerged, I am told, from nowhere. It is supported by no evidence, including the costs, which will presumably be borne by the universities, and it looks to me like a smacking of understandable populism on the part of ministers. The minister's amendment 12, which removes section 1, is right, but I would certainly urge the committee to replace it with a more flexible and proportionate framework that is set out in amendments 27 to 29, along with amendment 31, rather than the unworkable prescriptions. Thank you, Mr Scott. Liz Smith spoke to amendment 31 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The amendment is required because it countermands one of the Scottish Government's amendments, which is based on payment on demand, rather than on need. Amendment 31 requires decisions about the remuneration of chairs to be made in accordance with current and evolving best practice, which is very important, set out in the higher education governance code, based on the need for remuneration or allowances to enable someone to discharge that role in the circumstances of the institutions. It also removes ministers from decision making role in relation to remuneration of chairs. I agree with every comment that has been made by Tavish Scott regarding amendments 27, 28 and 29. I think that he is absolutely right. If there is anything that has led to the success of our universities, it is their diversity and their ability to respond to increasing global competition, and so to condition that down to what the Government says is, quite frankly, not acceptable. Amendment 5, having disempowered the senior governor at institution with Rectors, the Scottish Government has now set out the criteria for the selection of the senior governor, whether or actually they actually have that meaningful role. The code of governance provides for a process that is far more competent than what is expressed in amendments, so I cannot see any reason to support that. Amendment 6, since the code already requires transparency and compliance, which I have to say is required by law, there is absolutely no need for the oversimplification in this process, in this amendment, as Tavish Scott rightly says. It is a centralisation of the worst sort. Indeed, I think that it actually makes me wonder whether the Scottish Government really knows what it is talking about when it comes to how advertisements in national newspapers actually appear and whether they would ever, ever consider setting out the full description of the post and how applicants could claim their expenses. Furthermore, the expectation that a university will pay for people to campaign, be it the senior lay governor or whoever else, is utterly ludicrous. That has never been the subject of consultation nor has the cost been addressed in the financial memorandum, a document that, as the committee knows, has already been torn apart by the Finance Committee, and it shows clearly that it has in mind a very competitive adversarial election along the lines of the election of student officers. I think that there are serious concerns about amendment 6. Amendment 7, the real worry about that amendment, is the fact that it provides the nominations committee with very little more than a tick box role for determining whether the candidate fits the criteria that are actually specified. I have to say that I believe that that has been written with ignorance about modern effective practice when it comes to selecting people for senior roles. It gives no capacity to the nominations committee to make a judgment about who among the so-called tick box candidates has the strength of skill, experience and commitment to that institution's mission. Amendment 8, the committee is well aware that University of Scotland remains wholly unconvinced of the wisdom of having an election of chairs from a body that is outwith the governing body, which is in itself inclusive of staff and students. It rightly points to examples in the outside world and indeed within the Parliament's own committee structures that are held up as good practice precisely because the governing body is the group that elects the chair. There is a good reason for that, namely the essential need to ensure that there is a full trust between the chairman and the governing body. If that trust is broken, the whole institution is undermined and that, cabinet secretary, is why there has been such an outcry from so many quarters. However, there are two other crucial failures in this amendment. In the highly possible event that there is only one willing candidate, it provides for paralysis for an indefinite period. Again, any institution operating without a chair is likely to be in a very difficult position. Secondly, and I understand that there was no consultation about this nor was it even mentioned at stage 1. It creates an absurd situation of institutions paying candidates campaign expenses. As far as I can see, that's not being costed and it's very likely to attract vexatious campaigners who do not have the institution's best interests at heart. In fact, this amendment is one of the most problematic in the whole bill and we certainly can't support it. Amendment 9 gives by far the greatest power to choose a role about long-term view of the institution to the most transient community, the students. If there is to be an election with student and staff franchise, there should be equal waiting for the electoral colleges of governing body, students and staff. Institutions would need to be able to make rules about who qualifies as members of the electorate. For example, is it acceptable that a student doing a distant learning over a short period of time overseas then becomes part of the electorate? That has not been thought through. Amendment 10 is related to amendments 3 to 9, but I asked the question again, what happens when there is only one candidate under amendment 8 and an appointment can't be made? Amendment 11 is open to abuse because it is effectively payment on demand and, as such, it would attract some of the wrong people. It restricts itself to disempowered seniorly members and not the empowered rector. We saw comments in the newspapers yesterday about that. Cabinet Secretary, I think that there are serious implications for amendments 5 to 11 and I would ask you to think again about them. I move amendment 31. I said in my previous offering that consistency is a major feature, as is reducing points of conflict. Of course, there has to be, given the momentum behind the educational institutions, the degree of flexibility. Section 6, 7, 8 and 9, if I turn to my consistency, I have made it absolutely clear in the past and I will do so again today that I am against the election of chairs on the wider franchise. I did in making my offerings suggest that there was a mechanism by which directors elected by the wider franchise could co-chair the court with the senior lay member or whatever he or she is called on the basis that the rector could chair those items on policy, which would direct the direction of the universities, but the operational, day-to-day operation, should be convened and chaired by a lay member elected by the court. One of the things that I am concerned about and why I asked my earlier question was the point in section 8. The election is to be postponed until the election can be held with more than one candidate. That could go on a very long time, particularly because those that I believe might aspire to be the senior lay member or the chair or whatever, it may not wish to go through an election process. That said, what it does make it very interesting is if that election were to be postponed, let's say for a year to get the candidate, we then have a situation where another member of the governing body of a higher education institution may be selected by the governing body. So here we have a situation where while we are waiting for the election we have someone in position who is elected by the governing body. I felt to see why that is relevant. If I may also look at section 9.5, which talks about two or more candidates, let's suggest that we have three candidates for the highest number of votes cast. Then the election is won by whichever of them is deemed to be the winner in accordance with whatever the rules are. Let's say that the person who wins actually has less votes than the aggregate of the other two. Someone mentioned the parlor with this situation, but with this Parliament, which is two in a constituency vote, but of course we use proportional representation by top-up. So what we are actually saying is that we are going to have a chair, seniorly a member, convener, whatever, elected possibly on a minority of the franchise. Not only are they elected on a minority of the franchise, they then have to persuade a body that has had no say in appointing them in gendring trust, and I'll come to issues about certainly removal of members and other amendments along those lines later. I'm actually confused by the whole process, and I repeat, I will not be supporting the issues where an election for a chair is being recommended on the basis of just these few things. I could go on about the vetting process and how good is the vetting process, do we get the candidates put forward that have the appropriate skills? I do agree with involvement of student and staff at the appropriate arrival, certainly in the election of the rectors and certainly in helping to put forward a candidate or candidates to the court for election, but I think that, having mentioned, I hope, my consistency, which I believe to be as constructive as possible, also avoids us reducing what will be, I assure you, major points of conflict. I would like to talk about amendment 8.9, which Angela Constance has already put forward. For me, it sits out the arrangements for the election of the franchise, and the heart and soul of the bill is the democratisation of the process. Us sitting here in this place, we should not fear democracy, we should not fear the idea that we actually bring people who are involved in the communities in those institutions, involved in their institutions, to push everything forward. We should not back away from that. For me, that is the heart and soul of the bill and something that we should be promoting all the time. When you look at the process that is in place in amendments 5, 6 and 7, they say that there will be a sifting process to ensure that the right candidate is put forward so that we do not have a situation where there is someone who may be going down the route in order to get publicity. I believe that, if we reject any of those amendments that I have spoken of, we take away the fundamental principle of the bill, which is to ensure that every single person who is involved in that institution gets the opportunity to be part of the institution and move things forward. That is, yes, I will. The point that I made earlier in terms of policy and having the electorate elected and on a basis elected by the wider franchise to secure their attendance to project policy, which is clearly the driver for any institution, would allow us to make sure that democratisation actually applies at the very point of policy projection. I do not understand why that is not acceptable. Mr Brody, I know that you are a man of principle, but the principle of the actual bill is to make sure that we open up the democratisation and make sure that more people get involved in the process. That is the important part here, and that is the message that we want to send out in those institutions. For far too long, that has been a closed process. That has been a process that could—I am not saying that there has been issues—but could, because of its lack of openness and transparency, could be accused of not giving the delivery. Decisions have been made quietly in secret corridors of power within our institutions. I am not saying that that is the situation, but that could be perceived by individuals. Mr Adam, irrespective of what is the democracy process, there is not a person around the table who does not want to see democracy and transparency in our universities. Would you accept that, with many of the Scottish Government's amendments, it is the process about which we are trying to achieve that is so fundamentally flawed? That is where you and I disagree, Ms Smith, because I can see the process of how it can work for the institutions to deliver what we all want to do. As I said earlier, let us not fear democracy. Let us not get to a situation where we leave the institutions and do not allow them to empower the people who are involved in the educational and institutional communities. That is an important part of the bill, and I think that it is the heart and soul of the bill. I encourage everyone to support 5, 6, 7 and particularly 8, 9. I am seeking clarity, and it follows on from what George Adam has said. George, I agree with Liz Smith that there is no one who does not want democracy and transparency and accountability in every part of public funding in Scotland. I wonder if I could drill down slightly on Tavish Scott's point, particularly in relation to amendment 6. It is really just to ask the cabinet secretary if she could clarify some points in our summing up today. Since I came here in 1999, we have passed a lot of legislation and a lot of absolutely life-changing legislation, and rightly so. We have an excellent reputation in this Parliament for doing so. However, today we are looking at our world-class universities. We have universities in this country that are within the top 100 in the whole world, not in Scotland, not in the UK and not in Europe. We have world-class universities here. I think that it is important to put that on the record. However, George's point about the secret corridors of power, I am actually shocked that those learned individuals in our world-class universities have to be told in legislation to put an advert on their website. To put an advert on their website and to tell people how they can get an application for them. Is that really what the legislation of this Scottish Parliament is about? Do those universities not know about technology? Do they not know that it is fairly regular occurrence when you have a vacancy for a seniorly member to put an advert on their website? Do they not know that it is important that people know where to get an application for them? What I am seeking from the cabinet secretary is where is the problem, where is the secret corridors of power, where is the secret deals, where is the necessity to put in primary legislation to tell our world-class universities to put an advert on their website and to tell them where to direct people for an application form. I find that quite embarrassing to be sitting here passing legislation. Democracy is one thing, but the micromanagement and arrogance of this is quite something else. I seek clarity from the cabinet secretary on that point. Thank you very much, Ms Gallant. I have no other members indicated that they wish to contribute. So, cabinet secretary, can I call you to wind up? Thank you very much, convener. It is important to put in record that the model provided for essentially what was recommended in the von Prenzinski review. Throughout this process, it is always a very alive to the objections raised by many members about the regulation making powers that were contained in the bill as introduced. Therefore, with lots of consultation and discussion with all stakeholders, what the Government has put forward today is a model in which to elect a chair on the face of the bill. It is important to recognise that the bill is discreet, the provisions are high-level and they are focused. Yes, they seek for consistency across the 18 HE institutions in Scotland. I disagree with some colleagues that the code of good governance does not go far enough either in terms of the process around appointing the chair or the issues of remuneration. Paralysis that was alluded to by Liz Smith and others. Amendment 3, as identified by Mr Brodie, allows for the business of the governing body to continue. However, it is important that when we legislate that we do so in a way that is robust and does not allow people to sidestep the issue of elections. We have to be very clear that where there are not enough candidates to have an election, the process of advertisement has to recommence. On that basis, I understand that any of us in the middle will see democracy running through it, but I am still unable to understand why, particularly if we want more candidates to stand for an election, why it is okay for the governing body to elect over a period of time, which could be a year longer, that the governing body can elect its own seniorly member, chair, convener, for that period of time. Of course, Mr Brodie, I am sure that you would be the first to point out the paralysis of boards not being able to be chaired properly. Of course, there is provision in the event of not being a timely election, but it is beholden on this Government and those who believe in democratically elected chairs that the legislation is robust to ensure that elections occur. If you first do not succeed, you have to try again. The importance of the provisions in relation to advertising, and we have to ensure that universities advertise widely to ensure that we cast the net widely in terms of candidates so that we have an election. Of course, the relevant criteria that are laid down in the Government's provisions are of course very important. There is an opportunity for the committee, which includes representatives of staff and students, to take into account the needs of the individual institutions, but it is important that they look at the skills and attributes of the candidate and that they are part of that, because the trust and confidence of the board are part of that. It is imperative that, in legislation, we set out the role and function of the committee and the entitlements of candidates who meet that criteria to go forward to an interview and an election. In relation to election expenses, is it aimed at ensuring that candidates who will have a variety of means and circumstances in their personal lives, and it is important that, if we want to cast that net widely and enable a diversity of candidates, a diversity of high-quality candidates to come forward, it is not unreasonable? Has this issue been costed? As I was going to say, it is for the individual HE institution to decide what expenses are reasonable. That is in terms of expenses for an interview or expenses in relation to carrying out the role of seniorly member or election expenses. That is a matter for the institutions themselves to decide on what is reasonable, proportionate and affordable and to commensurate with the role, so it is most certainly not micromanaging to any regard. Cabinet secretary, the question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Sorry, Liz, you do not have a vote. You cannot speak for somebody else with all due respect. Thank you, Mary. We are not agreed, therefore, to deal with your division. Can all those who wish to support amendment 5 please vote now? The result of amendment 5 is that there were seven votes in favour and two against, therefore, that amendment 5 is agreed to. I call amendment 6 in the name of the cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore, to deal with your division. Would those who wish to support amendment 6 please show? Thank you. Those against? Abstentions. The result of the vote on amendment 6 is that there were six votes in favour, two against and one abstention, but amendment 6 is agreed to. I call amendment 7 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 7. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There should be a division on amendment 7, therefore, can I ask those who wish to support amendment 7 please vote now? Thank you. Those against? Thank you. The result of the division on amendment 7 is that six votes in favour, three votes against, that amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 8 in the name of the cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed. There is a division, therefore, would those who wish to support amendment 8 please vote now? Those against? The result of the division on amendment 8 is that there were six votes in favour and three against, that amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 9 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 9. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Can all those who wish to support amendment 9 please vote now? Thank you. Those against? The result of the division on amendment 9 is that there were six votes in favour and three votes against. Amendment 9 is agreed to. I call amendment 10 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Cabinet secretary, to move. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed. There will be a division. Therefore, the question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. We are all those who wish to support amendment 10, please vote now. Thank you. Those against? Thank you. Abstentions? The result of the division on amendment 10 is that there were six votes in favour, two votes against and one abstention. Amendment 10 is agreed to. Can I call amendment 11 in the name of the cabinet secretary? Cabinet secretary, to move. Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There should be a division. Therefore, all those who wish to support amendment 11, please vote now. Those against? Thank you. Abstentions? Thank you. The result of the division on amendment 11 is that there were six votes in favour, two votes against and one abstention. Amendment 11 is agreed to. Can I call amendment 27 in the name of Liam McArthur? The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. Therefore, there should be a division. Those who wish to support amendment 27, please vote now. All those against? The result of the division on amendment 27 is that two votes in favour, six votes against and one abstention. Amendment 27 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 28 in the name of Liam McArthur? Already debated with amendment 5, Tavish Scott to move or not move. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. Therefore, all those who wish to support amendment 28, please vote now. Thank you. Those against? Abstentions? The result of the division on amendment 28 is that there were two votes in favour, six votes against and one abstention. Therefore, amendment 28 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 29 in the name of Liam McArthur? Already debated with amendment 5, Tavish Scott to move or not move. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed. Therefore, there should be a division. Can all those who wish to support amendment 29, please vote now? Thank you. All those against? Abstentions? The result of the division on amendment 29 is that there were four votes in favour and four votes against and one abstention. Therefore, I have to use my casting vote and therefore I will vote against amendment 29. The result being there is that amendment 29 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 12 in the name of the cabinet secretary? Already debated with amendment 5, Tavish Scott to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, thank you. Can I call amendment 30 in the name of Liz Smith? It is grouped with amendment 63 at Liz Smith to move amendment 30 and speak to both amendments in the group with Liz Smith. Thank you. The Scottish Government's proposal when it comes to the election of chairs, I think it risks the situation where you may end up with people who want to campaign on a single issue, which is possibly at odds with the governing body's overall policy. For example, someone who wishes to retain a particular subject at the university or a facility and that governing body regards as academically poor or financially unsustainable. I think it also risks governing body having great difficulty if the elected chair proves to be unfit for office since it makes no provision whatsoever for the removal of that person. So amendment 30 is designed to do that. It does make the necessary safeguard for a governing body to be able to remove a chair who becomes unfit for office and who, most importantly, loses the trust of the governing body. I move amendment 30. Thank you very much. I call Chick Brody to speak to amendment 63 and the other amendment in the group. Mr Brody. Thank you, convener. We talked earlier about the appointments committee. I strongly agree that those who seek to see a convener appointed should certainly include as wide a range of those people who will be affected by the talents of all the individuals in the institution. However, it seems to me that one of the points that George Adam made very effectively was that the whole business of making sure that the institution is effective. I would hesitate to use a phrase like a bug in the stern or what have you, but it is very important in that appointment process that it should be as rigorous as possible that not only do we require the skills and the talents of individuals but we also require their commitment. It seems anachronistic to have, for example, rectors who are a cannot, will not or unable to attend regular court meetings. While we look at the introduction to the court of people with those skills and talents, we must recognise that the continued improved outcomes of the universities require their robust attention from everyone. That particularly includes those who sit on the governing body. If it is found that a member of the governing body is unable to attend an input or unwilling to an input, I will go back over what we just discussed, but that is a possibility or the found to be unsuitable. In being able to help to improve the performance outcome of the university, the suggestion in my amendment is that there should be a mechanism for removing or requesting the resignation of said individuals. Thank you very much. Are there any other members who wish to contribute a stage? No, I will therefore call the cabinet secretary. Thank you, convener. I am grateful to Liz Smith and Chick Brody for explaining the intent of amendments 30 and 63. However, I do not consider these amendments to be either necessary or desirable. As far as both amendments are unnecessary, HE institutions already have powers to deal with the resignation or removal of both the chair and other members of the governing body, and they will most likely already have their own arrangements in place. However, the amendment that I have moved today will ensure the process for filling a vacancy in the position of seniorly members that is carried out efficiently and fairly. As I said, convener, the intention of the bill is to make provisions that are high-level and focused, featuring discrete measures aimed at providing a strengthened framework for governance across the entire sector, making it more modern, inclusive and accountable. This high-level framework is intended to work with existing provisions, which means that the bill will enable existing arrangements covering resignation or removal of any member of the governing body to continue. I know that some have called for the sort of detail contained in amendments 30 and 63 regarding resignation and removal and want that to be included in primary legislation. However, as I have said, if someone is not performing adequately, the institutions already have the ability to deal with that, whether in relation to the elected position or not. You might not be able to, but it would be helpful if you were to advise how many members of courts have been removed or asked to resign in the court of the tenure. I do not know the answer to that question. That is maybe one to be directed at the institutions themselves. However, the important point is that our HE institutions are currently three to finesse their current arrangements to deal with those situations if they so wish. I do not have anything further to add, convener, but, since Mr Brody and Ms Smith's amendments curtail that autonomy of institutions, I cannot support amendments 30 or 63 and would ask the committee to reject those amendments if they are pressed. Excuse me, thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Can I call Liz Smith to wind up and to indicate whether she wishes to press her with draw her amendment? Thank you, convener. I have to say that I am very confused by what the cabinet secretary has just said in terms of the—I think that I checked Brody's point—is absolutely correct. I do not see how it undermines the autonomy principle. Indeed, I think that it gives the university—it is important that we have a safeguard in place to ensure that there is the facility to remove a chair for somebody who becomes unfit for office. I come back again to the fact that the crucial thing about the person who is chairing that and also the governing body is the fact that there is the utmost trust between them. It seems to me that—I do not think that it is recognised through the whole bill, but it is certainly not recognised in those sections. I think that Brody makes a very strong point in that respect, so I will press amendment 30. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore there will be a division. With those who wish to support amendment 30, please vote now. Thank you. Those against. The result of the division on amendment 30, five votes in favour and four against, amendment 30 is agreed to. I call amendment 59 in the name of Liz Smith, grouped with amendments 60, 61 and 62. Liz Smith, to move amendment 59 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and I move amendment 59. At this stage, I have been working with Sandra White on this issue and I have great sympathy for the comments that she has made both in the chamber and, obviously, within the course of her amendment. I think that the entire Conservatoire, so I was a slip of the tongue there. I will say that again. The Conservatoire community, which I stress, is including elected staff and student governors, is opposed to the proposal to elect the chair of the board of governors by an electorate other than the board itself, for exactly the same reasons that we discussed just a while ago. The Conservatoire believes that an election will be especially divisive and disruption given its scale, which is roughly 1,000 students and 40 full-time academic staff, and its disciplinary focus. Such a process will sow the seeds of division, they believe, and I think that it will lead to a politicisation of the role of the chair. Related to the scale, the Conservatoire believes that its current system of representative democracy is very effective and much more likely to deliver a good chair than would a more widely drawn plebiscite. The Conservatoire's board of governors includes two academic staff governors, one directly elected, and the other nominated by the academic board. That is a ratio of one academic staff governor to 22 staff. The board includes two student governors—that is a ratio of one student governor to 500 students—and that is, obviously, quite different from any large university. Because of its scale and culture, elected staff and student representatives can be relied upon to reflect the views of colleagues and fellow students. That was a very strong message that we got when we had the round table at the education committee. Under its current arrangements, it would be inconceivable for the Conservatoire's board to appoint a chair in the face of opposition from elected student and staff governors. Its nomination committee already includes two staff and two student governors, which exceeds the requirements of the bill. Accordingly, clause 4 above makes explicitly the need for a chair to have the support of not only the majority of all governors but also the combined majority of staff and student governors within that overall majority. The Conservatoire believes that election by plebiscite will put good candidates off applying. The Conservatoire is as much a performing arts institution as it is an HEI. Obviously, that is an important consideration of the discreet qualities that it has. Therefore, I think that there is an unnecessary imposition of the election process that will make it very difficult. I move amendment 59. My understanding is that the Royal Conservatoire, in all capacities, staff, students, management and stakeholders have all made clear their opposition to the bill's provision, applying to their institution in the way in which Liz Smith illustrated this morning. It set that out in the context of the widest possible cross-section of its stakeholder community, a pretty decent principle given some earlier considerations that we have had this morning. I also suggest that the concerns that have been illustrated this morning illustrate the risks inherent in taking such a blunt instrument as law to something as diverse and complex as our university sector. The very nature of what is being illustrated here demonstrates that. Of course, there are others in the sector who probably have similar or differing concerns as to seeking an exemption to all or part of the bill. The UHI is certainly one in my part of Scotland. However, if the minister can reassure us in the later amendments that something can be done on that, that would be helpful and important. However, those are the right amendments in terms of the exemption that is sought in this area. I agree with what has already been said in respect of the Conservatoire and, in some cases, the Glasgow School of Art also, which I will speak to in my amendments further on, which are based on the fact that there are small specialist institutions that already adhere to the one province recommendations and criteria. Having met the Conservatoire and representatives from the Glasgow School of Art also, they feel as though the governance that is set up at the moment, which they already have, actually fits the criteria that this bill would be looking forward to. I would certainly support the amendments in Liz Smith's name. I would recommend the fact that the Conservatoire, as has already been mentioned, is a specialist institution, a worldwide institution, and it has trade union representatives on its governing board, as does the Royal School of Art. No other members have indicated that they wish to contribute at this stage, so I call the cabinet secretary. I listen carefully to Ms Smith and to other colleagues in their explanation of the intent of amendments 59, 60, 61 and 62. However, I cannot support them, principally, because they make specific arrangements for only one of our HE institutions, and that cuts across the very heart and purpose of the bill. As I have said already today, the principle aim of the bill is to enable a framework of governance that is more modern, accountable and inclusive. We welcome the diversity in our HE sector and, in particular, the value that the contribution that is made by the Royal Conservatoire to our tertiary sector. However, I have been clear convener that this is a focus bill that features discrete high-level measures aimed at strengthening governance across the entire sector and applying a consistency of approach that should apply to all institutions. We have the same ambitions for the Royal Conservatoire as we do for our other 17 institutions. I do not anticipate that any of the 18 Scottish HE institutions to which part 1 of the bill applies will be unable to meet the requirements of the bill, particularly as institutions will be able to work towards full compliance over the transitional period during which the bill is commenced. Amendment 61 makes it clear that this set of amendments is about retaining the ability of the governing body at the Royal Conservatoire to simply select its chairing member so that only members of the governing body of the conservatoire would be entitled to vote. That would exempt the Royal Conservatoire from one of the core aims and provisions of the bill. For that reason, and others, I ask the committee to reject amendments 59, 60, 61 and 62 that were put forward by Liz Smith, if they are pressed. I have listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said, but there is a fundamental point here that the cabinet secretary will know is a recommendation that came from Ferdinand von Pradinske when he made it all these months ago. He believed that there could be separate discussions to be had about the specialist institutions. It seems to me, cabinet secretary, that those discussions have not taken place. The Royal Conservatoire makes excellent recommendations about the workings that work for them. I do not think that any of us could criticise just how successful that institution has been. It was my understanding of the von Pradinske review that he said that they should be included. The von Pradinske review made it very clear that further debate would have to be taken about the workings of those. I have his quote here, cabinet secretary, if you would like it thereafter. He is very clear about that. He said that there are very special circumstances and that the review has not had time to consider those. There is an important point here, and I think that we should be careful with the facts. Secondly, I know that we will come to an amendment in the name of Mr MacArthur later on. I think that it is amendment 66, which looks at the overall possibility of exemptions, but it is back to the question about the diversity of our HEIs. They are extremely diverse. Their success lies in that diversity, and that is the reason why I think that the Royal Conservatoire makes very good points. I will press amendment 59. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore there shall be a division. I would like all those members who wish to support amendment 59 to vote now. Those against, abstentions. The result of the division on amendment 59, there were two votes in favour, seven votes against, therefore amendment 59 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 60 in the name of Liz Smith already, the debate of amendment 59, Liz Smith to move or not move? That is moved. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore there shall be a division. Would all those who wish to support amendment 60 please vote now? Those against, thank you. The result of the division on amendment 60, two votes in favour, seven votes against, the amendment 60 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 61 in the name of Liz Smith already, the debate of amendment 59, Liz Smith to move or not move? That is moved. That is moved. The question therefore is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore there shall be a division. Would all those who wish to support amendment 61 please vote now? Those against, the result of the division on amendment 61, there were two votes in favour and seven votes against, amendment 61 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 62 in the name of Liz Smith already, the debate of amendment 59, Liz Smith to move or not move? That is moved. That is moved. The question therefore is that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore there will be a division. Those who wish to support amendment 62 please vote now. Thank you. Those against, the result of the vote on amendment 62, two votes in favour, seven votes against, therefore amendment 62 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 31 in the name of Liz Smith already, the debate of amendment 5, Liz Smith to move or not move? That is moved. That is moved. Therefore the question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore there will be a division. Those who wish to support amendment 31 please vote now. Those against, abstentions, the result of the vote on amendment 31, four votes in favour, four votes against and one abstention, therefore I have to use my casting vote again and I vote against, therefore amendment 31 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 13 in the name of the cabinet secretary already, the debate of amendment 5, cabinet secretary to move formally? Moved. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Thank you. Can I call amendment 14 in the name of the cabinet secretary already, the debate of amendment 5, cabinet secretary to move formally? Moved. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Can I call amendment 15 in the name of the cabinet secretary already, the debate of amendment 5, cabinet secretary to move formally? Moved. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Aduçr i weithyddiaeth? Unrhyw ngry shadowsh barbecue offening amendment 34 pre-empts amendments 35 and 36, and amendment 42 pre-empts amendment 18. With that in mind, Liz Smith, to move amendment 32 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and can I move amendment 32? Those amendments in my name to sections 4, 5 and 6 protect the democratic nature of staff and student membership of governing bodies. On the student side, those amendments enable institutions to provide for directly elected student members, as well as or instead of nominees of the student's association, which provides for an enhanced level of democracy. Currently, the most common means of selecting student governors is for the elected sabbatical office holders of students association to fill those roles, typically one being the student president, joining explicitly ex officio and the second being by convention other elected sabbatical. However, there are also four directly elected student governors in the sector across three institutions. Any of those arrangements has a democratic element lacking from a simple nomination by students associations. On the staff side, those amendments require all staff members of governing bodies to be elected rather than simply nominated by local trade union leaders, who typically represent less than one third of staff. To retain the capacity of academic boards or senets to elect academic staff members to governing bodies, which is obviously a very important connection between the bodies responsible for the overall governance of the institution and the bodies responsible for institutions academic leadership, currently 51 per cent of staff governors, accepting senior management, come to the governing body from the academic board. That is achieved through amendments of sections 4, 1b and 5, 3b, so that academic boards or senets can elect members who count as elected staff for the purposes of the bill. The amended section 4c gives trade unions their proper place, as for instance the University of Glasgow, in running elections to the governing body, which are open to all staff rather than just a minority of staff who choose to join trade unions. Without those amendments, we will inevitably see elected members of staff of governing bodies displaced by trade union nominees. Even without the requirement for alumni governors, the new governors required by section 4 would leave six HEI governing bodies in breach, one or both of the code requirements for a, no more than 25 members and b, a majority of independent members. For example, the addition of two union appointed governors would leave Glasgow University's court at 26 members, of which 50 per cent would be independent. To comply with the code as adopted by the SFC, it would therefore be necessary to remove at least one non-independent member from the court. Although the bill does not specify how that would be done, in practice the sole point of the flexibility, especially in the case of something like Glasgow, the cohort of staff elected to the court senate on the academic board. That is a very important principle in ensuring that there is greater democracy and accountability. Thank you very much. I call Tavie Scott to speak to amendment 35 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I move amendment 35 and those others that you have mentioned, as they represent an attempt to rectify a somewhat strange and patronising assumption in the bill that characterises some staff as simply support rather than professional in their own right. I would hope that change would be supported by the committee and indeed by the Government. Amendment 39 addresses the anomaly by which the bill gives recognised trade unions the right to nominate governing body members in institutions that do not have recognised trade unions. Again, that is an attempt, convener, to ensure that this blunt bill does not take a one-size-fits-all approach to a sector as diverse as higher education and incorporates sufficient flexibility to enable that it may work as best as to fit the circumstances of each institution. In that spirit, I support the Government's amendments 16 and 17 in relation to graduate associations. Thank you very much. I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 16 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The overarching aim of section 4 of the bill is to advance the inclusivity of the governing bodies over higher education institutions, enabling every voice on campus to be heard. Amendment 16 removes the requirement for the inclusion of the two graduate members nominated by a graduates association of the institution. Although there is no doubt that a graduate of an institution would be of considerable value to many governing bodies, most governing bodies will naturally attract graduates. I have carefully examined the evidence that is provided to the committee and I acknowledge the challenge in meeting the requirement for those institutions that do not currently have a formally constituted graduates association, such as the Glasgow School of Art and Glasgow Caledonian University. I seek to remove the requirement from the bill. The amendment of the bill will reduce the number of statutory members of the governing body required by the bill from 9 to 7. As we heard in evidence, many institutions already have individuals on their governing bodies who, if they were elected or appointed under the bill's procedures, would fill five of the remaining seven statutory positions. As such, the amendment will enable institutions to more easily comply with both the requirements of the bill and the Scottish Code of Good Higher Education Governance, which suggests a maximum of 25 members as a benchmark of good practice in terms of the size of the governing body. Amendments 17 and 18 are consequential on amendment 16, removing the definition of a graduate from the bill and removing provisions for the nominations process for graduate members respectively. If amendment 16 is accepted, those provisions will no longer be necessary. I turn now to amendment 1. The amendment removes the power at section 8, enabling Scottish ministers to amend by regulations the categories of governing body membership set out in section 4, one of the bill and the number of persons to be appointed under a particular category. I have listened and given full consideration to all issues raised by all committees in respect of this bill. I have also listened and examined carefully the written evidence provided by stakeholders. Although I may not agree with their assessment that section 8 of the bill poses a risk of reclassification of higher education institutions as public bodies by the Office for National Statistics, on reflection I consider that removing this power, which is not essential, will provide further comfort in this regard. Moving now to amendments 32, 33 and 41 from Liz Smith, which seek to amend section 4 of the bill. I have listened to Liz Smith for an explanation of the rationale behind those amendments. Subsection 1b of section 4 requires that the membership of the governing body includes two staff members elected by the staff of the institution from among the staff of the institution. The amendment of this section by amendments 32 and 33 introduces an alternative option of filling those two staff positions with one person appointed by the academic board of the institution, and one person elected by the staff of the institution. That is something that I have given consideration to. Although I am not opposed to the membership of any governing body, including members drawn from another important body such as the academic board, I do not consider it necessary to provide for this in this section because of my amendment 16, because that reduces the number of members required by the bill to only seven. That means that every HE institution will remain able to fill a further 18 positions on the governing body from wherever they wish within the confines of the code. Although amendments 32 and 33 are not necessary, amendment 41 is simply too restrictive in its framing of the electorate for the staff positions. It would enable the governing body to choose to restrict the electorate and the pool of candidates for the election of staff member positions to members of the academic board. That would be to the detriment of the inclusivity that I want to support through this bill. Therefore, I ask committee to reject amendments 32, 33 and 41. My proposal convener to provide for membership on the governing body of trade union nominees is among the most far-reaching and innovative in this bill, and I am proud that it is this Government that is introducing it. Amendments 34 and 42 also from Liz Smith provide an alternative approach that I cannot support. I believe that trade unions deserve more than simply an administrative role. Furthermore, amendment 34 provides for no trade union involvement at all where there is no trade union officially recognised by the HE institution. However, through subsection 4 to B, all that is required for official recognition under the bill is that an HE institution recognises it as representative of the category of staff, and that should always happen where a trade union has members who are staff of the institution. I thank Tabish Scott for explaining the intent of amendments 35, 36 and 40. The Scottish Government considered fully and carefully the wording to be used in retrospect of the categories of staff being described throughout the bill. The terms, academic staff and support staff are well understood in the sector. They are used in various governance orders in relation to the post-1992 institutions and can take their ordinary meanings much in the same way as the terms teaching staff and non-teaching staff do in the legislation relating to colleges. I believe that issues in the bill are too important to have debates about semantics when a term is widely understood in the sector. The support staff in our institutions are essential to the smooth operation and good governance of those institutions, and they do very important work. The bill ensures that the two are given a voice on the governing body of the HE institutions. The bill is also absolutely clear about the extent of its application and introducing new overlapping terms on unnecessary definitions would not be helpful, I believe. To introduce the term professional staff would muddy the waters, as academic staff would commonly be understood to be professional staff also. However, if there have been concerns raised by unions or staff on this matter, I would be happy to discuss it further, either with Mr Scott or Mr MacArthur or others in advance of stage 3. As such, I ask the committee to reject the amendments that Mr MacArthur's name has made. Turning to amendments 37 and 38 from Liz Smith, those amendments would enable HE institutions to make a choice between filling the two mandatory student positions on their governing bodies either through the appointment by nomination process already envisaged by section 41E of the bill or by a new added election process in which students could stand and vote. As introduced, section 41E of the bill obliges HE institutions to have two student members on their governing body, nominated by a students association of the institution from among the students of the institution. Although I am not sure that institutions would welcome an attempt to require them to conduct more elections, Liz Smith's commitment to creating a democratic mandate for student members is, of course, laudable, but it does not take into account that, in most cases, members of student associations who are nominated to serve on governing bodies or other bodies have already been elected to an office of the students association by their fellow students. Whoever is nominated is already likely to have a mandate from students. A particular difficulty with amendment 37 is that it leaves it to the discretion of HE institutions whether both student places are to be nominated or elected. I am clear and comfortable with the provisions that are drafted, which leave it to the students themselves to nominate members to represent their interests. However, I am glad that we agree that student influence on the governing body of their higher education institution is essential. Amendment 38, convener, is unnecessary. Section 6 of the bill already provides for the governing body of the higher education institute to make rules and accordance with which the nomination process must be conducted, including in relation to nomination by students association under section 4a. I ask committee to support my amendments 1, 16, 17 and 18 and to reject amendments 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 50 from Liz Smith and Lee McArthur if they are pressed. Thank you very much. No other member has indicated to wish to contribute. Therefore, can I call Liz Smith to wind up and to indicate whether she wishes to press up with Proharmen? Thank you, convener. Can I first of all begin by saying how welcome it is that section 8 of the bill has been removed? That was something that should never have been in the bill in the first place and caused great angst to the entire sector, whether it was students or staff. I am very pleased that the Government has seen sense on that and sought to take that out. The cabinet secretary has referred to the fact that this is about increasing democracy. It is about increasing democracy for students, but it is also about ensuring that no democracy is diminished. That is something that would unquestionably happen in some universities who will find that elected members of staff will no longer be able to take their positions, despite the fact that the cabinet secretary she is going to look at that. Cabinet secretary, you made reference to the fact that semantics do not want to get bogged down in semantics. Semantics are a key part of any bill, and therefore it is a very important thing to look at the semantics of the drafting. May I suggest, cabinet secretary, that one of the reasons we have such considerable difficulty over this bill is because the semantics have been so unclear? I move amendment 32 in my name. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore there will be a division, but those who wish to support amendment 32 please vote now. Thank you those against. Thank you. Abstentions? The result of the division on amendment 32 are two votes in favour, five votes against and two abstentions, and therefore amendment 32 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 33 in the name of Liz Smith? I've already debated with amendment 32, Liz Smith to move or not move. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not all agreed, therefore there will be a division. Would those who wish to support amendment 33 please vote now? Thank you those against. Thank you. Abstentions? The result of the division on amendment 33, there were two votes in favour, five votes against and two abstentions, therefore amendment 33 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 34 in the name of Liz Smith? I've already debated with amendment 32, and can I remind members that amendment 34 preempts amendments 35 and 36? Liz Smith to move or not move. That's moved, therefore the question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not all agreed, therefore there will be a division. Would those members who wish to support amendment 34 please vote now? Thank you those against. Thank you. Abstentions? The result of the division on amendment 34, there were two votes in favour, five votes against and two abstentions, therefore amendment 34 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 35 in the name of Liam McArthur? I've already debated with amendment 32, and can I remind members that amendment 35 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? We're not all agreed, therefore there will be a division. Those who wish to support amendment 35 please vote now. Thank you those against. Thank you. Abstentions? The result of the division on amendment 35, there were two votes in favour, five votes against and two abstentions, therefore amendment 35 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 36 in the name of Liam McArthur? Are we all agreed? We're not all agreed, therefore there shall be a division. Would those members who wish to support amendment 36 please vote now? Thank you those against. Thank you. Abstentions? The result of the division on amendment 36, two votes in favour, five votes against and two abstentions, therefore amendment 36 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 37 in the name of Liz Smith? I've already debated with amendment 32, Liz Smith to move or not move. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We're not all agreed, therefore there's a division. Those who wish to support amendment 37 please vote now. Those against? Abstentions? The result of the division on amendment 37, there were two votes in favour, five votes against and two abstentions, therefore amendment 37 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 38 in the name of Liz Smith? I've already debated with amendment 32, Liz Smith to move or not move. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We're not all agreed, therefore there's a division. Those who wish to support amendment 38 please vote now. Thank you those against. Abstentions? The result of the division on amendment 38, there were two votes in favour, five votes against and two abstentions, therefore amendment 38 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 16 in the name of the cabinet secretary? I've already debated with amendment 32. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I've already debated with amendment 39 in the name of Liam McArthur. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We're not all agreed, therefore there's a division. Those who wish to support amendment 39 please vote now. Those against. Abstentions? The result of the division on amendment 39, two votes in favour, five votes against and two abstentions. Amendment 39 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 17 in the name of the cabinet secretary? I've already debated with amendment 32, cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to, are we all agreed? That's agreed. The question is that section 4 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 4 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Maybe it's my hearing, I don't know. Call amendment 40 in the name of Liam McArthur. I've already debated with amendment 32 of Liam McArthur to move, sorry, Travis Scott to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. I'm not agreed, therefore there's a division. Those who wish to support amendment 40 please vote now. Those against. Abstentions? The result of the division on amendment 40, two votes in favour, five votes against and two abstentions, therefore amendment 40 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 41 in the name of Liz Smith? I've already debated with amendment 32, Liz Smith to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We're not, therefore there's a division. Those who wish to support amendment 41 please vote now. Those against. Abstentions? The result of the division on amendment 41 was two votes in favour, five votes against and two abstentions, therefore amendment 41 is not agreed to. The question is that section 5 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We're agreed. Can I call amendment 63 in the name of Chick Brody? I've already debated with amendment 30, Chick Brody to move or not to move. Move. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We're not all agreed, therefore those who wish to support amendment 63 please vote now. Those against. The result of the vote on amendment 63, there were five votes in favour and four votes against and no abstentions, therefore amendment 63 is agreed to. Can I call amendment 42 in the name of Liz Smith? I've already debated with amendment 32. Can I remind members that amendment 42 preempts amendment 18, Liz Smith to move or not to move? Move. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We're not all agreed, therefore there's division. Can those who wish to support amendment 42 please vote now? Thank you. Those against. Any abstentions? The result of the division on amendment 42, there were two votes in favour and seven votes against. Amendment 42 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 18 in the name of the cabinet secretary? I've already debated with amendment 32, cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to, are we all agreed? That's agreed. Thank you. That question is that section 6 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. That question is that section 7 be agreed to, are we all agreed? That's agreed. Can I call amendment 1 in the name of the cabinet secretary? I've already debated with amendment 32, cabinet secretary to move formally. ddim yn gweld iawn, os fydd yn gweld iawn. Rydw i'n dod cychwyn i awglen y gall angrshirtslytu eu ff 밑ll, Yout G Wam Bl Rywol Fawr Sindg Rachry Cyd standard irgendwie ond rwy'n edrych i throwo rôl starting yn gylaid gyda venue o fynd ddim ynllanio gadeinizig I invite Jim Eadie to move amendment 19 and speak to other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I'm pleased to introduce and speak to amendment 19 and I speak as one of the constituency members for the University of Edinburgh. The purpose of this amendment is to remove section 9 of the bill, which states that the academic board of a higher education institution is to consist of no more than 120 members. Having already raised this matter directly with the cabinet secretary in the Scottish Parliament on 26 November last year, I am aware that she has listened to the arguments in relation to removing section 9 and that she has indicated that she is minded to support my amendment. Therefore, I welcome the cabinet secretary's willingness to take the views of the sector into consideration. The University of Edinburgh already has strong and inclusive governance arrangements as their governing body incorporates staff, students, alumni and the city, as well as external independent members, who bring a breadth and a balance of skills and are appointed through an open, transparent process. The university system of governance, which has been refined to ensure full compliance with the new Scottish code of good higher education governance introduced in July 2013, is working well and provides appropriate oversight and assurance for the university. The university also has an independent rector, popularly elected by staff and students, the only Scottish university to do so. As it stands, section 9 of the bill could undermine the University of Edinburgh's strong and inclusive governance arrangements. I do not believe that that is the intention of the bill. It would also potentially reduce the university's ability to compete effectively, could strip hundreds of its staff, indeed would strip hundreds of their staff from their current rights as senate members and provide no obvious benefit to the university. One of the strengths of our university sector is its diversity, as has already been stated by members this morning. The one-size-fits-all approach under section 9 fails to take into account the different shapes and sizes of higher education institutions across Scotland. I firmly believe that it would be inappropriate for a university as large as the University of Edinburgh, which employs 13,000 staff and has 35,000 students. Taking all of this into account, I hope that the Scottish Government will support my amendment and take on board the concerns of the University of Edinburgh. In so doing, it will allow each individual higher education institution to determine the size of its academic board. Thank you very much. I call Tavie Scott to speak to amendment 43 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Can I agree with Jim Eadie's remarks on the amendment that he has just moved in relation to academic boards? I particularly commend his approach to the code of practice and the remarks that he made about that. I commend his support of that to his own Government in that regard, given the earlier debate that we had. My understanding—you will forgive me on this one, convener—is that my amendments, or rather Leah McArthur's amendments, are in this grouping relatively minor. You will have to take my word for that. They seek to address references to specific titles and rules that, as things stand, are overly uniform within the bill. In that context, I hope that the committee might consider it appropriate to support them. I also want to briefly welcome Liz Smith's amendments 45 to 47, which appear to me to put into the bill safeguards preventing ministers from legislating on matters of internal academic governance, which must surely be a sensible principle, and the minister's amendment 20, which seems to be the right approach. Finally, let me also welcome the minister's amendment 2, removing what I understand to be the controversial section 13, which is never necessary now, thankfully, on its way out of the bill, and the bill would be all the better for that. I thank Jim Eadie for outlining the purpose of amendment 19, which is to remove the requirement of HE institutions to ensure that academic boards comprise no more than 120 members. The Scottish Government has listened and, given full consideration to this issue, has set out in the evidence provided to the Education and Culture Committee. While the Scottish Government is still of the view that each academic board needs to be of a manageable size and efficiently run, we are persuaded that this can be achieved by a larger academic board. Our reflection will be considered that the size of an academic board should be for each individual HE institution to decide, and I am content to support this amendment. Amendments 43 and 44 provide for additional descriptions of the two categories of membership of the academic board of an HE institution in section 10 of the bill. The principle is intended to identify the senior executive member of staff of a higher education institution, regardless of the actual job title that they have. The principle is a term that is well understood among the education sector, and the term is also used in the code of good higher education governance, and its meaning is clear as the person who is the head of the institution. Therefore, under section 10 of the bill, high HE institutions will be clear as to the position to be covered. Similarly, I think that the term head of school is sufficiently understood within the education sector. It is explained in the explanatory notes accompanying this bill as individuals who are the most senior academics of the HE institution. It is already used in provisions in the governance instruments of some institutions setting out the membership of their academic boards. Therefore, I do not consider these amendments necessary and ask committee to reject amendments 43 and 44, moved by Mr Scott. Amendment 20 follows from amendment 19, which removes the maximum number of members of an academic board. Its purpose is to ensure that, despite the requirement to have students making up 10 per cent of the membership of the academic board, no HE institution is required to have more than 30 students on its academic board. I should point out that any board wishing to have more than 30 students can, of course, still do so. I am of the view that student representation on academic boards or senates should be significant and not token. This amendment continues to protect and enable this aspiration. The significant student representation on the academic board of an institution would still be achieved even if a larger academic board were not required to have more than 30 student members. At the moment, the amendment will only have a practical effect in relation to the Senates of the University of Glasgow and the University of Edinburgh, where senate membership currently exceeds 300, but it would still be open to those senates to have more than 30 student members, if they so wish, as I have previously indicated. I ask members to support my amendment. In relation to amendments 45, 46 and 47, proposed by Liz Smith, my view is that the removal of sections 10, 11 and 12 of the bill would be detrimental. Academic boards play an important role in our HE institutions, providing oversight of academic quality and necessary co-ordination with university governing bodies to ensure that decision making at all levels is properly informed. We must ensure therefore that academic boards are and subsequently remain representative of the main communities within their institution. Section 10 of the bill therefore sets out a minimum composition of academic boards and guarantees the participation of elected staff as well as elected student members. We would not want to see any provisions removed where that removal would diminish the intent, purpose and effect of section 10, as introduced. I therefore cannot support amendments 45, 46 and 47 and would ask committee to reject those amendments put forward by Liz Smith. The purpose of amendment 2 is to remove the power in section 13 of the bill, which enables Scottish ministers to amend by regulations the number of members on an academic board specified in section 9 and to modify the categories of membership of an academic board set out in section 10, 1 and or a number or percentage of persons to be appointed under a particular category. Again, the Scottish Government has listened and given full consideration to all the issues raised by the finance education and culture committees in respect of this bill. I have also listened to and examined carefully the written evidence provided by stakeholders and, although I may not agree with the reassessment of the risk of the reclassification of HEIs as public bodies by the Office for National Statistics posed by section 13 of the bill, I consider that the power to amend the categories of academic board membership and the number of persons to be appointed under a particular category is not essential. I therefore urge members to support amendment 2. Amendment 58, in the name of Liz Smith, which seeks to restore the provisions relating to the membership of senates at the ancient universities under section 5 of the University of Scotland Act 1858, is not desirable because this would result in inconsistencies in the rules defining the membership of the academic boards of HEIs. As already stated, a key policy aim of this bill is to embed a level of consistency and approach to governance across institutions. That applies to academic boards to improve their effectiveness and representativeness in their decision making. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 58. I would ask the committee to support amendment 19 in Jim Eady's name, and amendments 20 and 2 in my name. I would ask the committee to reject other amendments in the group, if they are pressed. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I call Liz Smith to speak to amendment 45 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I think that it was my colleague Mary Scanlon at the beginning of this morning who asked the question of the cabinet secretary if there isn't a problem, why do we need to fix anything? This is exactly what the question is when it comes to academic boards. Academic boards should be entirely a matter for self-regulation and for the autonomous institution. I do not really see why it is that we are even contemplating legislation in this regard. In that context, my amendments are designed to try and ensure that we can have as much of that autonomy as we possibly can. I think that it was von Prinsinski himself who made recommendations about academic boards at the committee stage 1, but the evidence was completely lacking. That is something that has gone through ever since stage 1. There is no evidence as to what it is that is supposed to be wrong with academic boards and senates. I am delighted that the amendment in the name of Angela Constance regarding the O&S situation, I am glad that that is going. Above all else, that was about to destroy so much of our university sector, so that is very good news that that is going. I entirely support Jim Eadie in his comments about the University of Edinburgh. I also firmly support the amendments in the name of Liam McArthur. I move amendment 426. Thank you. Any other members wish to contribute at this stage? I will make a short comment myself. Can I welcome both the amendment 19 in the name of Jim Eadie on the maximum size? I am glad that that is going. I welcome the Government's support for that amendment because, clearly, it was something that we questioned witnesses quite closely on in terms of the reasoning for the 120 figures. On behalf of the committee, can I welcome the fact that Jim Eadie has laid the amendment and, in fact, also welcome the Cabinet Secretary's support for that amendment? With that, can I call Jim Eadie to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw his amendment? Thank you very much, convener. I very much welcome the constructive approach that has been taken by the Cabinet Secretary in both listening to and acting upon the concerns that have been expressed by and on behalf of the University of Edinburgh. I also very much welcome the support from members of the committee this morning. The Government, in agreeing to remove section 9 of the bill, has, I think, quite clearly recognised the diversity of the sector. In doing so, I have introduced a degree of flexibility into the bill, which I believe will be welcomed not just by the University of Edinburgh but by the wider higher education sector in Scotland. For all those reasons, I move the amendment that has been tabled in my name. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Can I call amendment 43 in the name of Liam McArthur? Already debated with amendment 19, Tavish Scott to move or not move. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore there will be a division on amendment 43. Those who wish to support amendment 43, please vote now. Thank you. Those against? Thank you. Seeing the result of the division on amendment 43, four votes in favour and five votes against. Therefore, amendment 43 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 44 in the name of Liam McArthur? Already debated with amendment 19, Tavish Scott to move or not move. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore there is a division. Those who wish to support amendment 44, please vote now. Thank you. Those against? Thank you. The result of the division on amendment 44, there were four votes in favour and five votes against. Therefore, amendment 44 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 20 in the name of the cabinet secretary? Already debated with amendment 19, cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Can I call amendment 45 in the name of Liz Smith? Already debated with amendment 19, Liz Smith to move or not move. That is moved. Therefore, the question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, there shall be a division. Can all those who wish to support amendment 45, please vote now. Thank you. Those against? The result of the division on amendment 45, there were two votes in favour and seven votes against. Therefore, amendment 45 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 46 in the name of Liz Smith? Already debated with amendment 19, Liz Smith to move or not move. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed. Therefore, there is a division. Would those who wish to support amendment 46, please vote now. Those against? The result of the division on amendment 46, there were two votes in favour and seven votes against. Therefore, amendment 46 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 47 in the name of Liz Smith? Already debated with amendment 19, Liz Smith to move or not move. The question is that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed. Therefore, there will be a division. Those who wish to support amendment 47, please vote now. Thank you. Those against? Thank you. The result of the division on amendment 47, there were two votes in favour and seven votes against. Therefore, amendment 47 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 2 in the name of the cabinet secretary? Already debated with amendment 19, cabinet secretary to move or not move. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That's agreed. Can I call amendment 48 in the name of Sandra White, grouped with amendments 48A, 64, 65 and 49. Sandra White, to move amendment 48 and to speak to other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I speak as a local member, which I speak to in 49. Glasgow Kelvin, which is the Royal Conservatoire and the Royal School of Art, is placed in my constituency, even though they are worldwide institutions. Amendment 48 is about small specialist institutions. The Scottish ministers may, and I want to emphasise this part. I didn't specifically put it in must, I said may. The Scottish ministers may, by regulations, modify this act to exclude any or all small specialist institutions from any or all of the provisions of this act. In considering whether to make regulations under subsection 1, Scottish ministers must consult such persons, as they consider appropriate, which brings me on to amendment 48A, which Liz will speak to herself. 48A is eminently sensible, in that respect, when we are talking about looking at other institutions. That brings me on to amendment 49. In my name, it is the meaning of small specialist institutions. I name the small specialist institutions as the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland and Glasgow School of Art. The Scottish ministers may, by regulations, modify the definition in subsection 1 so as to include or exclude a particular institution. Regulations under subsection 2 are subject to affirmative procedure. I concentrate on the meaning of small specialist institutions, convener. I have already raised this to the education debate in regard to the Conservatoire and the Glasgow School of Art, both in my constituency and both worldwide institutions. It has already been said that they meet the criteria with their board of governors. I must say that, particularly in the Conservatoire, they have representations from the EIS, and in the Glasgow School of Art, they have representations from all the unions that are applied to the Glasgow School of Art, such as equity, EIS and others. However, the biggest point that I want to make is that it is really important. In that regard, I raised the issue that Jim Mediae brought up about section 9. The cabinet secretary was very good to listen to that particular debate and had agreed that there would be no cut-off in the size of the university. That is the point that I want to make and why it is so important about small specialist institutions. Jim Mediae, in his contribution, mentioned the fact that the Edinburgh University has 1,300 staff and 35,000 students. In the Glasgow School of Art, we have 40 staff and 1,000 students, and they are not so dissimilar within the Conservatoire. I wanted to put that difference there to show you exactly why we say that there is a small specialist institution and why I think that the amendments that were put forward by myself and Liz Smith, which I possibly talked to a couple of Liz Smiths, are also very important. Obviously, when you look at the situation with the von Purinske review, which has already been mentioned and the recommendation that we have not considered small specialist institutions yet, I would ask the cabinet secretary to consider looking at that part of von Purinske's recommendations and perhaps coming back at stage 3 with something along those lines about small specialist institutions. It is really important that we recognise just how important those institutions are to not just Glasgow, obviously, but my Kelvin constituency, but the whole of Scotland punch well above their way. The world renowned, in fact, the Glasgow School of Art is one of the 10th in the world of the arts institutions. That is why I put the comparisons between what Jim Eadie has said about the size of Edinburgh University and, obviously, Glasgow University and Strathclyde University, which are also there in my constituency. Basically, there is a world of difference between that institution and the small specialist institutions such as the Conservatoire and the Glasgow School of Art. I will leave it there just now, if that is all right, convener, if I can come back and speak to a couple of other amendments that Liz Smith has as well. I want to start with two quotations. First, from Ferdinand von Purinske, when he said, and I quote, we are aware that these institutions, namely the small specialist institutions, may wish to have their special status recognised in particular ways. We took the view that further consideration may need to be given to them in that context. Her predecessor, Mike Russell, said that, in the case of the small specialist institutions, the application of the terms of the governance code should pay particular attention to the principles of proportionality and the relevance to the nature of the individual institution. Those are the reasons why, when it comes to certain specialist institutions, I think that we have to be extremely careful that we are not undermining that diversity and, as I say, the success that they have. Sandra White is absolutely correct to say that those are world-leading institutions. By definition, if we try to constrain them in a way just because we want centralisation of all HEIs, we are going to end up in very considerable difficulty. The Conservatoire of Glasgow School of Art, Rural College, I think that you could argue too, and HEI, as Tavie Scott mentioned, are very small in many ways. They have a very different and artistic way when it comes to the Conservatoire and the Glasgow School of Art. They are quite different from some of the approaches of university, and I think that we need to recognise that because, as I say, that is their success. The Conservatoire, for example, also has a unique corporate structure. It is a company limited by guarantee with shareholders who include its elected staff and student governors, which is evidence of the Conservatoire's commitment, I think, to transparency and accountability. I do not think that any of us could argue that they do not have very good relationships with trade unions and with anyone who may have points that they wish to raise. We have to be very careful about what we are seeking to do in this. I think that the Scottish Government has failed to define the problem that this bill seeks to solve. Certainly, when it comes to the specialist institutions, I think that it is actually going to end up creating greater difficulty. Hence, the reason why I will be supporting Sandra White's amendments and, obviously, my own. Any other members wish to contribute? Thank you, convener. I want to thank Sandra White and Liz Smith for explaining the intent of amendments 48A, 64, 65 and 49. Having considered them very carefully, I can confirm that the Scottish Government does not support those amendments. As I said previously, the Scottish Government intends provisions in the HE Governance Bill to apply equally to all 18 Scottish higher education institutions. I have been clear that provisions in the bill are high level and focused, featuring discrete measures aimed at strengthening governance across the entire sector, making it modern, inclusive and accountable. I am satisfied that the existing provision in the Further and Higher Education Scotland Act 2005 already has the balance right in terms of duties on the Scottish Funding Council to report to the Scottish ministers on higher education institutions. I want to put in record my appreciation for the value of the role played in the HE sector and wider society by the small specialist institutions such as the Royal Conservatoire Glasgow School of Art and Scotland's Rural College, or SRUC. I am aware of the concerns expressed by the Conservatoire in relation to the provisions in the bill and board members wrote to me in December to request exemption from the bill. In their collective view, the Conservatoire's current governance arrangements, which are unique among Scottish HEIs, are already fully fit for purpose. That is a view that has been expressed on more than one occasion during the bill process and by more than one institution. Although I respect any view offered, that does not mean that I am convinced that any of our higher education institutions should be treated differently. Consistency of application in the high-level requirements in the bill is fundamental to the bill's progress. It is important to put in record, convener, that the 2013 Vaughan Prynsynski report concluded where possible that small specialist institutions should be covered by any legislation, albeit that their special status may need to be considered. However, the range of recommendations for legislation in the original Vaughan Prynsynski report was much wider than the focus content of the bill. Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable to propose that the bill's provisions are equally relevant to all 18 Scottish higher education institutions. It is important that we debate and give consideration to the special circumstances. However, I have not as yet heard a compelling argument for example for the Conservatoire to be exempt, arguments based on size, to be exempt for example from the election of chairs or having seven statutory members on its governing body. I am quite sure that the debate will continue as we move towards stage 3. The Conservatoire certainly met officials under duty meet Dr Alan imminently. However, it should be noted that the amendments proposed and supported by Liz Smith and Sandra White do not include the SRUC either. In conclusion, I anticipate that all our 18 Scottish institutions will be able to meet with requirements of the very focus bill enabling every voice on campus to be heard. Indeed, many institutions, including the Royal Conservatoire and the Glasgow School of Art, will already have achieved a level of compliance in practice and have indeed made progress, as is outlined by Sandra White. To allow those institutions an exemption would undermine the aims of the bill, and I have the same aspirations for all of our 8G institutions. I am convinced that all of our institutions are capable of achieving those aspirations. Therefore, I ask committee to reject all the amendments in this group if they are pressed. I thank the cabinet secretary for her reply to her comments. I am rather disappointed, but I must admit that the Conservatoire and the Glasgow School of Art did not put in the rural colleges and nobody contacted me from the rural colleges. Obviously, if they do not contact you, they do not raise that particular issue. I do once again look at the situation in Edinburgh with the size of staff and students and contrast that with the Conservatoire and the Glasgow School of Art. The issues that they have raised, which the cabinet secretary is very well aware of from letters that have been sent, are very worried about the fact that they will not be able to afford to put the set of legislation forward. It may cost them more money and it may lose some very good people to go on the boards. That is some of the issues that they have raised with us. I will press my amendments, convener, and I will move amendment 48. I call Liz Smith to wind up on amendment 48A to indicate whether she wishes to press or withdraw it. I think that this comes back to the democratic processes and the democracy that we all want to see. I would ask the cabinet secretary what it is about some of the smaller specialist institutions that she could point to where they have had specific problems that need to be resolved. I would argue that, in the case of the small specialist institutions, it is the reverse that they have had a success story and have worked extremely well in the existing governance that they have. The cabinet secretary has argued that she has not had any compelling evidence, and neither have we had any compelling evidence that it should be changed. I will press amendment 48A to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not, therefore, there shall be a division. Those who wish to support amendment 48A, please vote now. Those against. The result of the division on amendment 48A, four votes in favour and five votes against, therefore 48A is not agreed to. I would call amendment 64, in the name of Liz Smith, to meet with amendment 49A to be agreed to. amendment 48, please vote now. The result of the division on amendment 48, there were four votes in favour and five votes against, therefore amendment 48 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 64 in the name of Liz Smith, already debated with amendment 48, Liz Smith to move or not move? The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We're not all agreed, therefore there's division. Those members who wish to support amendment 64, please vote now. Thank you. Are those against? Thank you. The result of the division on amendment 64, there were four votes in favour and five votes against, amendment 64 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 21 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 3, cabinet secretary to move formally? Moved. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. That's agreed. Can I call amendment 65 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 68, cabinet secretary to move formally? Moved. The question is that amendment 65 in the name of Liz Smith, already debated with amendment 48, Liz Smith to move formally. The question is that amendment 65 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We're not all agreed, therefore there's division. Those who wish to support amendment 65, please vote now. Are those against? The result of the division on amendment 65, there were two votes in favour, seven votes against, amendment 65 is not agreed to and I will have words with my clerks later on. Can I call amendment 22 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendment 66? Cabinet secretary to move amendment 22 and speak to both amendments in the group. Moved. The purpose of amendment 22 is to remove the power which enables Scottish ministers by regulations to include a particular institution in the definition of a higher education institution for the purpose of part 1 of the bill. This was a suggestion made by the Delegate Powers and Law Reform Committee in its report to this committee. We have considered this and, on reflection, we consider that the power to include new institutions is not required. Our policy intention is that only fundable bodies should be covered by the new requirements in the bill. I am content that there should be no power to add additional bodies beyond those that will fall within the definition naturally. If any new institution is added to the list of fundable bodies, that institution will automatically fall within the definition of a higher education institution for the purposes of the bill. Turning to amendment 66 from Liam McArthur, which introduces a process enabling institutions to apply to the Scottish ministers for exemptions from any of the provisions set out in part 1 of the bill, the introduction of such a provision would be to the detriment of the bill, therefore I cannot support Mr McArthur's amendment 67. As I said throughout the debate, a core aspect of the bill is to introduce consistency in a small number of discrete key areas of governance over higher education institutions. This amendment undermines that by enabling the application of the bill in a manner that differs across institutions. The process set out would provide the Scottish ministers with a far-reaching discretion to determine which provisions of the bill should apply to which institutions if they were applied for exemptions. I do not think that this is a role that ministers should have. I move amendment 22 in my name and ask that the committee supports this amendment for the reasons that I have given that I respectfully ask that Mr McArthur or Mr Scott does not move amendment 66. If it is moved, I ask the committee to reject it. I call Tavish Scott to speak to amendment 66 and the other amendment in the group. First, I can ask the cabinet secretary's amendment 22, which further allows exemptions to be made for institutions and enables a greater degree of flexibility in the way that the bill operates in practice. It therefore seems consistent in that context to also support amendment 66, which is yet another attempt to ensure a degree of flexibility across the board, not just for smaller specialist institutions, despite the very able and eloquent way in which Sandra White made the case for two very important institutions in, not just in Glasgow, but I would argue in Scotland as a whole. For such institutions, although those concerns are undoubtedly most pressing, there is legitimate anxiety right across the sector more broadly about what might happen in the event that the proposals being introduced in the legislation will not lead to the outcomes that are predicted by ministers. Given what we have heard this morning, that seems quite likely to happen. For example, there is only one suitable or credible candidate for election—a subject of fairly decent debate, I thought earlier in our proceedings—as the chair of a governing body. Just how would a university be able to respond? Well, we had no answers to that today, and no answers, I suspect, will be forthcoming before this becomes law, but they will be pretty forthcoming when we all end up in court over this over such matters. I apologise, but the cabinet secretary keeps saying that this is a high-level, focused and discreet bill. I think that a lot of us would come to a different conclusion as to this being an attempt—well, not just an attempt, but clearly going to be the introduction of one-size-fits-all bill right across all aspects of higher education, and that cannot be the right approach. While amendment 66 sets in place a process that, I would argue, is proportionate, is transparent and allows decisions to be taken quickly or thought not in haste, it does, importantly, mean that ministers would be required not simply to take a decision on any exemption but to make clear the basis for that decision, and to make clear the basis for lots of things in this bill would be a step forward. Thank you very much, Mr Scott. Can I call Liz Smith? Yes, just a short comment, I agree entirely with everything that Tavish Scott has said. I think that his point, the most important one, is regards the consistency of approach. If we are to introduce flexibility as a result of the cabinet secretary's amendment 22, it is entirely logical and sensible to do exactly the same when it comes to the amendment in the name of Liam McArthur. I cannot see any reasonable argument that would suggest otherwise. No other members indicated the wish to contribute to this stage, so I call the cabinet secretary to wind up. Thanks, convener. First, to be clear for the record, my amendment 22 is to reduce Scottish ministers' powers to reduce our ability to change a definition of a higher education institution. It is simply a response to the DPLRC. My amendment 22 does not do the same or does not do what Tavish Scott and Liz Smith have suggested it does. It is not about enabling flexibility, it is only that a fundable body is automatically included. With regard to amendment 26, what it has proposed is a pretty bureaucratic process, and it is also important to point out to members that, if amendment 66 passed, there would be no limits on how often an institution could apply for exemption from the bill. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. That is agreed. That is agreed. That is agreed. That is agreed. That is agreed. That is agreed. That is agreed. That is agreed. That is agreed. I call amendment 23, in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendment 23a, cabinet secretary to move amendment 23 and speak to the other amendment in the group. The purpose of amendment 23 is to ensure that sabbatical officers of a students association of an institution are not excluded from participating fully in the governance of their institution, even where they are not technically matriculated students of the institution during their period of office. The Scottish Government has given full consideration to the issue, and I thank Gordon MacDonald for raising it at stage 1. Our policy intention has been from the outset that all students should be able to participate fully in the governance of their institution. It was never our intention to exclude sabbatical officers from provisions pertaining to the rest of the student population, and indeed I understand that the vast majority of sabbatical officers remain students during their term of office. However, I welcome the opportunity to clarify on the face of the bill that sabbatical officers are included whether or not they remain students during their term of office, as I appreciate that the situation can vary across institutions. This amendment will ensure that sabbatical officers, whether or not students through their term of office are included in provisions in the bill dealing with appointment as a member of the committee that recruits the senior lay member, participation in the election of the senior lay member, nomination as a student member of the governance body or election as a student member of the academic board. Amendment 23A is a technical amendment. Subsection 2 of the new section, asserted by amendment 23, would only have been required for the purpose of subsections 3 and 4 of the section, asserted by amendment 4. Amendment 4A, Mr Maxwell, proposes to remove the two subsections from amendment 4. As I explained earlier, I support that proposal. I move amendment 23 and ask that members support it and amendment 23A. No other member has indicated the wish to contribute. I presume that you do not need to wind up. No. Thank you. I call amendment 23A in the name of the cabinet secretary. He has already debated with amendment 23, cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 23A be agreed to, are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is therefore that amendment 23, as amended, be agreed to, are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 49 in the name of Sandra White, already debated with amendment 48. Can Sandra White to move or not move? Not moved, convener. It is not moved. I call amendment 50 in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated with amendment 32. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to, are we all agreed? It is not agreed. Therefore, there will be a division. Those who wish to support amendment 50, please vote now. Thank you. Those against? The result of the vote on amendment 50. Yes, two votes, no five votes, and there are two abstentions. Therefore, amendment 50 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 66 in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated with amendment 22? Tavis Scott to move or not move, convener. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not all agreed. Therefore, there is a division. Those who wish to support amendment 66, please vote now. Thank you. Those against? Thank you. Abstentions. The result of the division on amendment 66. Two votes in favour, five votes against, and two abstentions. Therefore, amendment 66 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 51 in the name of Liz Smith, grouped with amendments 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, and 57. Liz Smith to move amendment 51 and speak to other amendments in the group. Can I move amendment 51? I'm still confused and I really don't understand why we should be legislating in the area of academic freedom. The stage one report found no rationale for the Scottish Government to propose legislation in this area. Indeed, at the time, there was a real concern as to why we were even thinking about it, because there is, to my information, not a problem with academic freedom and it's not something about which the Scottish Government should get involved. Just to test that out, there were several emails that came into MSPs at the stage when it was first proposed, requesting changes to the definition of academic freedom. I personally had 47 such emails and I got back in touch with each of these members, usually members of staff and university, to ask for specific examples of how academic freedom was currently constrained. I'm sorry to say that only one person was able to supply an example and that was very specific to a piece of research in one particular institution. I'm really not at all sure what it is that we're trying to do. My amendments in this area have tried to ensure that we can respond to the committee's concern that academic freedom must be balanced with responsibility. It must not be exercised with malice, for instance, in the undercover of the academic freedom. A person makes defamatory or gratuitously offensive remarks and it must be based on facts and reason. Unevidence assertion by members of academic staff about things outside the professional competence should not be protected by academic freedom. I entirely accept that. Therefore, the wording in the bill can be interpreted as constraining the Government body's capacity to make the decisions about the overall academic shape of the institution. The amendments, particularly 51, 52 and 54, seek to try to ensure that that risk is avoided. I come back to the point, convener. I do not understand why academic freedom is a problem. I would be interested when the cabinet secretary speaks to those amendments as to whether she feels that there are specific examples whereby a university is, in some way, prevented from having academic freedom in the current set-up. I will speak to my own amendment 53, another amendment in the group. I think that we all agreed that academic freedom is a principle on which the strength and success of our universities is founded. I listened carefully to what Liz Smith said. I do not think that I disagreed with a lot of what she said, but I think that there is a particular point that she made, which is very important, and that there is a balance to be struck here between the rights and responsibilities of staff and indeed of others in our institutions or HEIs. Obviously, I think that Liz Smith's amendments to my amendments are slightly competing in that area. If she accepts my apology, I cannot support her amendments because I will support my own amendments in that area. However, I think that the key issue here is balance. We must ensure that academics and teaching staff can offer opinion freely and unfettered by consideration of the impact, for example, on their ability to seek or maintain their current appointment, but at the same time, we must ensure that the right to hold and to express opinion is done so strictly within the confines of the ambit of the law. Amendments 53 and 55 introduce a qualification to the duty on post-16 education bodies in comparison to what section 192 of the bill proposes. Further to the evidence presented to the committee at stage 1, I am aware that this should satisfy some of those concerned that the impact of section 19 is introduced, but perhaps not all. Some have asked that for rights around academic freedom to be extended to the student population. I think that that would be practically difficult to achieve. Given that the nature of the relationship between governing bodies and students is quite different to that between an institution and its staff, I do not think that that is a sensible option. Moreover, students, as any other person, have the right to freedom of expression under current human rights legislation. With those thoughts in mind, I consider that amendments 53 and 55 to be a proportionate response to those issues. They provide balance, and I encourage members to support them both at my amendments 53 and 55. No other member has indicated the wish to contribute, so I call the cabinet secretary. It is worth noting that there is an existing statutory definition of academic freedom in legislation from 2005. It is fair to say that the Government took the opportunity to look to strengthening that definition. However, the bill has introduced strengthening the definition in a modest way. We have certainly discussed issues in and around academic freedom as set out in the bill and in the workshops that I alluded to earlier with a range of stakeholders. On amendment 56, I am sympathetic to what the member is trying to achieve, but I would like to be crystal clear on one point. That is that academic freedom, enjoyed by those teaching and researching in our universities, must be exercised within the law, and it does not, so to speak, represent a free pass to break the law. I am also very aware of the points raised by the Scottish Council for Jews communities in their evidence offered on the bill. However, I think that there may well be legal difficulties in applying an additional and subjective test based on any malicious intent in exercising academic freedom, in addition to an explicit requirement to comply with the law when exercising academic freedom. Amendments 51, 52 and 54 alter the wording in section 19 in a way that I consider weakens the original intention of the Government to, as I said, strengthen academic freedom, and they simply reinstate the provisions that currently exist in sections 26.1 of the Further and Higher Education Scotland Act 2005. On amendment 57, I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, but given the often subjective nature of opinions held or expressed, I do not think that it is realistic to expect academics to produce hard facts to support any view or opinion that they may hold or express. For the reasons given, I cannot support amendments 51, 52, 54, 56 and 57, and I would ask the committee to reject all amendments put forward by Liz Smith. Amendments 53 and 55, in the name of Stuart Maxwell, make a minor adjustment to the duty in all post-16 education bodies to uphold the academic freedom of its staff engaged in teaching and research and to ensure that appointments and privileges of those persons engaged in teaching and research are not adversely affected by the exercise of their academic freedom. I am content to support amendments 53 and 55 so as to adjust the duty to qualify it so that fulfilling the duty of a post-16 education body acts in a way that it considers to be reasonable. To be clear, though, that does not affect the requirement on those engaged in teaching and research to exercise their academic freedom within the law. I therefore support amendments 53 and 55, and I urge members to support those amendments, but to reject other amendments in the group if they are pressed. I call Liz Smith to wind up and to indicate whether she wishes to press her with draw her mind. The cabinet secretary made the comment that there is already a definition of academic freedom. There is absolutely a definition of academic freedom. What I do not understand is why we are trying to amend that definition. The points that have been raised quite rightly by the convener himself about understanding that there has to be a balance with responsibility—I entirely accept that for that reason of supporting his two amendments, but those are backed by many—in fact, I think that the convener gave the example himself—of human rights, etc. Those are backed by law. What I think that we have got into the territory of is trying to legislate on academic freedom that relates to some of the academic issues in institutions. I come back to the point again that you find it impossible, and I notice that the cabinet secretary could not give me a list of any examples whereby institutions currently cannot do certain things within their subject areas, providing that as a say, not breaking the law. I just do not see where we are going with this, hence the reason why I lodged those amendments. I think that it is one of the sections—in fact, you could argue that all those sections of the bill are unnecessary. I do not think that we should have been changing university governance in the first instance, but that, again, is one that does not really have any logical basis to it. I will be lodging amendment 51. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, therefore, that there is a division on amendment 51, with all those who wish to support amendment 51, please vote now. The result of the division on amendment 51 is that there were two votes in favour and seven votes against it, so amendment 51 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 52 in the name of Liz Smith? The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore, that there will be a division on amendment 52, with all those members who wish to support amendment 52, please vote now. Thank you. The result of the division on amendment 52 is that there were two votes in favour and seven votes against it, so amendment 52 is therefore not agreed to. Can I call amendment 53 in my own name? I have already debated with amendment 51, so I am going to move amendment 53. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Can I call amendment 54 in the name of Liz Smith? I have already debated with amendment 51, Liz Smith to move or not move. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore, that there will be a division. Those who wish to support amendment 54, please vote now. The result of the division on amendment 54 is that there were two votes in favour and seven votes against it, so amendment 54 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 55 in my own name? I have already debated with amendment 51, and I am going to move amendment 55. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed to. Can I call amendment 56 in the name of Liz Smith? I have already debated with amendment 51, so I am going to move or not move. That is moved. Therefore, the question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed. There will be a division. Would all those who wish to support amendment 56 please vote now? The result of the division on amendment 56 is that there were two votes in favour and seven votes against it, so amendment 56 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 57 in the name of Liz Smith? I have already debated with amendment 51, so I am going to move or not move. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore, that there will be a division. Would those members who wish to support amendment 57 please vote now? Thank you. Those against? Thank you. Abstentions? The result of the division on amendment 57 is that there were two votes in favour and seven votes against it, so amendment 57 is not agreed to. The question is that section 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 67 in the name of Chick Brody in a group on its own. Chick Brody to move and speak to amendment 67. The purpose of the division goes back to what I said at a previous meeting in terms of when legislation has passed we do two things. One is invariably we set targets, which mean absolutely nothing because they are only applicable at the time that they are applied. My concern is that those who do not agree with some of the provisions force the Government into a situation of saying that we will set certain targets, which I think is a nonsense. In fact, it does not just apply to this bill, if I may say so on a personal level. It does not make sense, for example, in another area to have a target for a month, and then if you miss it then split it up into four, so when Sirgan battered around the head for once a month he battered around the head four times a month. It just does not make sense. I am sorry that the code of governance does not run its whole course, but one of the purpose behind this amendment is to suggest that all parties who may vote, whether we agree with all the provisions of the bill or not, allow a period of time. The Scottish Parliament decides that the bill should be scrutinised, but after a reasonable period of time where the bill is allowed to bed down and we can actually see whether there is an improved outcome or not. There is a suggestion that this perhaps is not the bill to introduce this. I would argue the converse of that, because we have all had it through our emails. That will not stop, in my opinion. As a consequence, it behoves us to ask all parties to recognise that we should allow the bill that we have passed to bed down and, after a suitable period of time, look at whether or not the objectives have been achieved and the outcomes in terms of the improvement of the performance of the higher education institution has in fact improved. I wholeheartedly agree with the comments from Chick Brody that post-legislative scrutiny will be required. The bill has been a bad bill because it has been badly drafted. It has been a bad bill because there has not been relevant consultation and because of the fact that some of the drafting coming back to the cabinet secretary's comments earlier this morning about semantics. Semantics have been very important and, unfortunately, they have not been adhered to in the way that we have been able to interpret this. I think that there is a case. I still maintain that there is very little that is wrong with our university sector. I think that a post-legislative scrutiny would be essential, so I will support or Mary Scanlon will support Chick Brody's amendment. That is up to Mary Scanlon, but we hear what you say. Any other members wish to make a contribution at this stage? If not, I will make a short one myself. I will not support the amendment 67 not because I disagree with the principle of post-legislative scrutiny. That is obviously an important role for committees in this Parliament to make. I think that there is a wider question about the ability of committees to undertake such activities, given the amount of work that they currently do, but that is a wider question for the Parliament rather than a specific one for this particular bill. I am slightly uncomfortable with the idea that committees will be instructed to carry out post-legislative scrutiny. I think that it is a matter for committees. I do not support the idea of binding the hand of future committees. I think that it is their decision to take post-legislative scrutiny if they think that it is the right thing to do at the time to carry out post-legislative scrutiny. On that basis, while accepting the principle and the fact that there is a question about post-legislative scrutiny, I do not think that we should support that particular amendment and, effectively, I believe that it would be an uncomfortable situation to bind the hand of future committees. It should be a matter of the committees of this Parliament to decide for themselves whether they wish to undertake post-legislative scrutiny at the appropriate time. That is why I will not be supporting this amendment. Thank you, convener. I want to thank Mr Brody for explaining the intent of amendment 67. I am, of course, supportive of this committee and, indeed, any committee's right to scrutinise any legislation or provide that scrutiny role in any manner in which they see fit on any subject. The Scottish Government does not support this particular amendment, partly because Parliament is already enfranchised in the manner that Mr Brody is seeking to achieve. I am sure that the committee will agree that the current powers of the committee are adequate to examine the impact of that or, indeed, any other piece of legislation at any point in the future. Therefore, amendment 67, in my view, is unnecessary. The Parliament does not need a statutory provision to give it permission to tell itself or its committees to carry out post-legislative scrutiny. The Parliament's committees are perfectly capable of looking into all matters. I wonder whether many of the bills that have been passed in this Parliament have been fairly consensual. I think that most of us would agree that we could see the purpose and the reason for the bill. Other bills that the ministers of Labour, Lib Dems or SNP have accepted a sunset clause because there is a convention that legislation needs to be revisited after a period of time to see whether it is working. In the case of this bill, it has been highly adversarial and it is not a university in Scotland that is in favour of it. If you do not consider post-legislative scrutiny for an adversarial bill, is it not along the lines of a sunset clause that this bill should be revisited given the height of criticism against it? With respect, Mrs Garland, I do not think that it is unusual for bills brought before this Parliament to be debated in great detail or further to be a high level of debate and difference of opinion. What I am speaking to today is the amendment as proposed by Mr Brody and that is amendment 67. It is not my role as a minister to be telling any committee or indeed Parliament how to perform their role and function is scrutiny. As I have already outlined in response to Mr Brody, Parliament is already enfranchised in this manner to do as it pleases. The important thing here is to include such a provision could set an undesirable precedent that implied such a provision was necessary before the Parliament or indeed its committees carried out its daily parliamentary business, as I think the convener intimated. I would not want to set that precedent or make that implication. However, it may be of some reassurance to committee members that there will be, as discussed in previous stages of the bill, a role for the university sector advisory forum to assess the implementation and effectiveness of the bill. However, that is secondary to the role of any committee in this Parliament and Parliament as a whole to undertake their duties to scrutinise as, when and how they see fit. Thank you very much, Mr Brody, to wind up and to indicate whether there are issues to press or withdraw. Briefly by me, and I have lost what the cabinet secretary said in terms of the forum looking at this, but at the end of the day, the bill will be passed—I do not see it as adversarial, but I certainly see it as contentious—it will be passed by the Parliament. I have a general view about bills of this nature that, as I said, should be bedded down and given the opportunity to run some of its course. With regard to the convener to your point about timetables, I have to suggest that, because of the contentious nature of this bill, it will probably spend a lot of time trying to justify or not justify comments that will be raised because of the contentious nature of the bill. I am trying to assuage all that by saying that we are going to have this scrutiny at a time to be determined by the Scottish Parliament and that it will designate. I mean that it is up to the committees, although we have petitions that will refer to committees through the public forum. However, what we have to do is to cool the jets on this now if it goes through and allow a period of time for all parties associated with this to secure, as I said, the improved outcomes. I would encourage the Government—certainly in this bill, maybe in other books—to accept the amendment. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, therefore, that there will be a division. Would all those who wish to support amendment 67 please vote now? Thank you. Those against? The result of the division on amendment 67, there were three votes in favour and six votes against. Therefore, amendment 67 is not agreed to. I call amendment 68 in the name of Liam McArthur, group with amendment 69, Tavish Scott, to move amendment 69 and speak to both amendments in the group. I apologise to Tick Brody for not catching your eye community in that last debate, because the only thing I would add to that is that when a Government introduced stage 2 amendments, which have fundamentally changed the bill and have not been consulted on as we have illustrated this morning, I think that Mr Brody's observations about post-legislative scrutiny were entirely appropriate and correct. I have a heck of a lot of sympathy for the cabinet section on this one. I have been given the same speaking notice as the former minister saying, do it for goodness sake, let that one go, but I must say that all my reflections at the same time that Mary Scanlon and I have spent in this place is that we do not do post-legislative scrutiny very well, and Tick Brody tried to do Parliament a favour there by introducing it on a measure which, I take his point, may not be adversarial, but it is certainly highly controversial. I hope that Parliament, in the context of the conveners, might reflect on that for the future given that you are one of those learned conveners. Can I very briefly speak to Mr McArthur's very learned amendment here, which I nearly understand, which is an attempt to address potential concerns of the charity regulator in relation to the way in which ministerial powers under subordinate legislation might be used? Initial misgivings about the impact of the provisions in this bill might have on charitable status of universities were allayed, as I understand, by Oscar when the focus turned to the more substantive and justified concerns about the real threat of ONS reclassification and the ministers taken actions there, which are obviously welcome and good. Nevertheless, as things now stand, ministers will still have significant powers to amend this bill through secondary legislation. I suggest that that needs to be constrained. Amendments 68 and 69 in Mr McArthur's name would achieve that, and I would ask the committee to consider those and support them. Thank you very much. No other members indicated the wish to contribute, so can I call the cabinet secretary? As a committee that regularly deals with primary legislation, you will know that this bill, as with any other bill, when it becomes a new law, could give rise to a need for a range of ancillary provisions. In section 21 of the bill, as introduced, allows Scottish ministers to make ancillary provision without further primary legislation if a need is identified or a change is considered necessary or expedient. It is necessary to proportionate it and, indeed, common place in bills to allow for that flexibility. Indeed, committee members will recall their recent consideration of the Education Scotland Bill, passed by Parliament on 2 February. That bill also contained a very similar ancillary provision. The power in section 21 is limited to the extent that it can only be exercised if it is considered necessary or expedient for the purposes of provision made by the bill. Therefore, any such regulation must be closely and directly linked to the substance of the bill. It is not a power that would allow ministers to make sweeping changes that run contrary to the underlying principles or express provisions of the bill. It is merely a quick fix for technical problems and is most certainly not a free hand. Further, if ministers were to make regulations under section 21, which amend primary legislation, those regulations would be subject to affirmative procedure and therefore subject to parliamentary approval. I am sure that committee members will agree that that allows for adequate parliamentary scrutiny of anything that may be done under the power. Therefore, I ask the committee to reject amendments 60 and 69, in Liam McArthur's name, if pressed by Mr Scott. I call Tavi Scott to wind up and indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw his amendment. I take the cabinet secretary's arguments. There is always merit in that approach, but in circumstances where a piece of legislation has been brought forward with the range of late amendments to it, I would argue—indeed, Oscar has made this observation, not in this context, but in a different context—that there is some merit and indeed great merit in restricting the role of ministers to do exactly as a future minister may wish to do in this bill. It also rather makes the case for Mr Brody's post-legislative scrutiny amendment, where that has been successful here this morning, or this afternoon rather, because the illustration of the minister's argument did not include any examples of what might be necessary. I would have hoped that any Government would embark on that route into yet further legislation, primary or secondary or otherwise, where a committee of the Parliament would have come up and reviewed the bill and suggested where there were mistakes, but we shall see on that one as well. I beg to move the amendment. Thank you very much, Mr Scott. The question therefore is that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed therefore. There's a division. Would those who wish to support amendment 68 please vote now? Thank you. Those against? The result of the division on amendment 68, there were two votes in favour and seven votes against. Therefore, amendment 68 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 69, the name of Liam McArthur, who already debated amendment 68, Tavie Scott to move or not move? Question is that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not all agreed. Therefore, there'll be a division. Would those members who wish to support amendment 69 please vote now? Thank you. Those against? The result of the division on amendment 69, there were two votes in favour and seven votes against. Amendment 69 is not agreed to. The question is that section 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That's agreed. The question is that section 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're agreed. Can I call amendment 24 in the name of the cabinet secretary? Already debated with amendment 3, cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That's agreed. Can I call amendment 58 in the name of Liz Smith? Already debated with amendment 19, Liz Smith to move or not move. Question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not all agreed. Therefore, there's a division. Those who wish to support amendment 58 please vote now. Those against? Abstentions. The result of the division on amendment 58, there were two votes in favour, five votes against and two abstentions. Amendment 58 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 25 in the name of the cabinet secretary? Already debated with amendment 3, cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That's agreed. Can I call amendment 26 in the name of the cabinet secretary? Already debated with amendment 3, cabinet secretary, to move formally. Question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That's agreed. The question is that the schedule be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That's agreed. The question is that sections 22 and 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That's agreed. The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That's agreed. That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill, and I will very briefly suspend to allow the cabinet secretary and officials to leave. The next item is to consider two pieces of subordinate legislation that are listed on the agenda. Do members have any comments on the instruments? I have spoken to a couple of local authorities who raised the issue that they were concerned about the name person that is applying to home educated children. To be fair, they ddadig oes i ddweud hynny ddim yn sefydl yn y 2nd paregai gennym. Rydyn nhw'n gwybod mwy'n teimlo i'w ddwylo, rydyn nhw'n ddwylo'n ddwylo. Rydyn nhw'n ddwylo i'w ddwylo i'w ddwylo I dinodol am hyn duellfa wedi tun Interestingly. Rydyn nhw'n ddwylo i ddweud hynny o'r ddwylo i ddwylo i ddwylo i ddwylo i ddwylo i ddwylo i ddwylo i ddwylo i ddwylo i ddwylo i With regard to the rollerpark Jacques Ewing, Mawr health is the highest school in Wales. His communities do have concerns about home educated children. Really just to ask for a little bit of clarity. They weren't aware that that was coming forward, and if it was possible to look at how this Mae Meris yn cael eu meddwl i'r yddoron ni'n clywed o'n cael ei chydydd. Mor hwn i'n cael eu dros oeithio consulting ar hyn o'r cystwil mae'r cystecffordd mewn iawn a'u gynhyrchu gyda'r cyllidol cael ei bod yn gynnwys, ac yn gyfledd y Daen ni'n gynnwys i'r cystwil. Ond, maen nhw gwybod aeth agserol yn yr ysgoliaeth yw Llyw情況ol. Mae'n pwg i'n gweithio myddi, mae'n mwy o'i dda. Felly gall ashes mwneiddoedd eich fawr. Rwy'n digwydd yn ddechrau ac mae'n ddod yn ffau ddefnyddio ddarllen gyda'r ffawr, ac mae'n ddod, mae'n ddod yn fawr ddatblygu. Rwyf wedi cael ei ddweud, a fyddai'n gwybod hyd oedd cyfnod arnynnu cyfnod. Im pwyllgor, mae'n ddod yn tomod yn y cyflwytaeth. Rwyf wedi ddod, mae'n ddod yn ddod hynny'n ddod i'r Ffwrdd. Mae'n ddod yn ddod i'r Ffwrdd. There is one more piece of the warrant legislation on this still to come, Mary, so I'm presuming that we're talking about the same piece. That will obviously come to the committee. I haven't got a date for that yet, but obviously quite soon, given that I've only got a few weeks left, if when that comes that you wish any further clarification on it, I'm more than happy if you contact myself with the clerks immediately and we'll ask the Government in advance to try and get an answer for you just before the actual day of the... It is likely to happen before dissolution, it is. That's very helpful, thank you for that. The indication is that it will be the first of March. Okay, that's very helpful, thank you. With that, therefore, does the committee agree to make no recommendation to the Parliament on the instruments? That's agreed. Thank you very much for every reason. I'll indulge us this morning, a long meeting, but with that I close the meeting. Thank you.