 a hyffordd yibleb DreamGate and the impact on the wider family, particularly children. I ask all members in the swap group questions. The next item of business is Stage 3 proceedings on the land and construction transaction tax amendments Scotland bill. How you deal with the amendment, Members should have. The bill is amended at stage 2. Thatika is on About the when action and program laws turbinecu. The mar毆 list and groupings. The division variable sound and precedence will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the proceedings. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press a request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. I call group 1, replacement of only or main residence transactions involved multiple dwellings. I call amendment number 1. In the name of the Deputy First Minister, group with amendments number 2, 3, 4, 6, 12 and 15. Deputy First Minister, to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group. The group of amendments is for the situation where a chargeable transaction involves the purchase of more than one dwelling. One of those dwellings is a replacement of the main residence. Amendment 3 ensures that, when a chargeable transaction involves both the replacement of a main residence and the purchase of other dwellings, the supplement is still payable on the other dwelling's purchase. Amendment 6 ensures in this scenario that the supplement is payable on the proportion of the consideration that, on a just and reasonable basis, is a portion to the dwelling's purchase that are not the replacement residence. Amendment 1 ensures that it is the amount of consideration apportioned to those dwellings that you look at to determine if the £40,000 threshold is triggered. Amendment 4 also ensures that it is the apportioned consideration that is relevant to the £40,000 threshold in paragraph 3 cases. Amendment 15 cross-references the concept of relevant consideration into the interpretation in paragraph 15 of schedule 2A. The concept of relevant consideration includes cases where the consideration is apportioned when a replacement main residence is purchased alongside other dwellings. Amendment 12 relates to a situation where the buyer of a new home still owns the existing one at the time of the purchase, but then within 18 months sells it and claims a repayment of the supplement. In this situation, where more than one dwelling is bought as part of the transaction that involves the purchase of the new home, amendment 12 ensures that the supplement is only repaid insofar as it relates to the purchase of the new home. Amendment 2 is consequential. I move amendment 1. Thank you, Deputy First Minister, since no other member has asked to speak, do you wish to add anything further? Nothing further, please. Thank you. In which case the question is that amendment 1 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. We now turn to group 2, which is payment of additional amount grace period. I call amendment 17, in the name of Gavin Brown, in a group on its own. I ask Gavin Brown to move and speak to amendment 17, please. Thank you. Amendment 17 aims to cure what I think is a serious flaw in the bill. As it stands, if you purchase a main residence, regardless of size, but have not managed to complete the sale of your existing main residence, you have to pay the full tax up front. You become inadvertently or become known as an accidental second home owner. You had no desire to own a second home that you weren't planning to, but for any number of reasons, such as you weren't able to get the dates to line up on the same day, the person purchasing your property suddenly has to pull out, the person purchasing your property has to delay because their mortgage hasn't come through, and any number of reasons anybody in a housing transaction could end up as an accidental second home owner. If the house that you purchase is valued at say, for example, £300,000, that means stumping up overnight a sum of £13,000. If your house is £125,000, comfortably below the LBTT threshold, nowhere near the LBTT threshold, you have to stump up £4,050. I ask simply that if £125,000 is a limit that you are able to get to in terms of purchasing a house, where are you suddenly going to find £4,050? The policy memorandum says very clearly that it doesn't intend to bring this group into the tax. It's aimed at genuine second homeowners, but that is exactly what would happen in practice. I think that this is very punitive on the individual or the family. You're hitting them at a time when they're genuinely under pressure, their sale has fallen through, they're scrabbling around trying to work out how they're going to fund the purchase of the house, and we've hit them with a bill of potentially thousands of pounds. It creates an almighty bureaucracy. Ultimately, I think that it has a very negative impact on the Scottish housing market, because people will become ultra cautious and only sell before they buy. They won't want to buy a home until they've already sold to make absolutely sure they don't have to pay this tax. That, of course, could lead to having to rent in the interim period, to store all their belongings and furniture, and a whole host of other complications and bureaucracies. That could be pretty widespread. That is unlikely to be just a handful of cases each year. It could potentially be a significant number of cases that creates an almighty bureaucracy and a detrimental impact on the housing market. The amendment is formally supported by the Law Society of Scotland in its written submission that it put round MSPs earlier today or late yesterday. It was suggested by almost all those who gave evidence to the Finance Committee, and it was supported, too, by all members of the Finance Committee. All of us concluded at paragraph 79 of our report. The committee recommends that the bill is amended at stage 2 to provide for a grace period. That didn't happen at stage 2, but I want it now to happen at stage 3. On that basis, I move amendment 17. Many thanks. I have two members' requests to speak. If the comments are brief, then I'll call both. Malcolm Chisholm, to be followed by Jackie Baillie. Yes, I'll be very brief. I'm not now required for the open debate, which is short, and so I can say I do support this bill. But when I was looking at the detail of it, it did strike me as rather odd that there wasn't a grace period being allowed, particularly since this was a recommendation of the Finance Committee. The cabinet secretary did take up most of those recommendations made by the committee. It certainly seems very unfair that someone should be in the position of having to stump up a large sum of money, just because there may be a few days later before the transaction of selling their house is complete. I'll obviously listen very carefully. I'm with interest in what the cabinet secretary says, but having read previous speeches he's made about this, I don't see why he has to wait for six months to see what happens. I think we can all anticipate what is likely to happen. Gavin Brown has outlined that, and I think it's not just unfair to individuals, but may have a negative and detrimental effect on the housing market more generally. Thank you, Jackie Baillie. Presiding Officer, my apologies for my late arrival. Topical questions finished earlier than anticipated. I rise to support amendment 17 in the name of Gavin Brown. He's right to point out that the issue was first raised by the Law Society in evidence to the Finance Committee and the Committee agreed. There is genuine concern about the grace period, because there are occasions when a purchaser has no intention of owning two properties simultaneously, but for whatever reason the transaction in selling one home and purchasing another can in effect be delayed. I think that we all accept the principle of a grace period. The debate lies around whether sufficient time has been allowed. I think that the cabinet secretary's amendment at stage 2 was helpful but a bit tight, because it effectively gives a grace period of only three to six days. I think that Gavin Brown's at 14 days is the more sensible option. Frankly, the fact that the Law Society believes that this is a better and workable option and given their experience in conveyancing, it's a view that we should take heed of. It does avoid unintended consequences, something that I know the cabinet secretary is keen to do. I hope that he, too, will support amendment 17. Many thanks. Stage 1 and 2, as colleagues have said, a major topic of debate was the question of a so-called grace period. This is relevant to cases where a buyer has failed to sell their previous residence by the effective date of the new purchase in Scotland. A grace period would be a period following the effective date where the buyer could pay any ordinary amount of land and buildings transaction tax due and obtain registration of title without paying the subsequent supplement at that point. Members should be aware, considering Gavin Brown's amendments, that it has always been in the bill that a person who sells their previous residence within 18 months of the effective date will be entitled to repayment of the supplement together with interest. In addition to that, I lodged an amendment at stage 2 to clarify that where the previous residence can be sold before sending in the land and buildings transaction tax return that no supplement would be payable in those cases. That will help where there is a short delay in completing the sale of the previous residence. A scenario that has been put to the Scottish Government is where a couple buy it on a Friday and sell it on a Monday so they can flip over the weekend. A couple in that situation would not pay the supplement as it is proposed in this legislation. I have also given the commitment to Parliament to keep the matter under review and ministers have the power under the bill to introduce an appropriate relief by order if it is considered necessary in the future. Gavin Brown's amendment is the same amendment that he lodged at stage 2, except that instead of proposing a 60-day grace period, he now proposes a 14-day one. The objections that I outlined at stage 2 remain valid. The amendment does not make clear the administrative requirements for taxpayers, their agents or Revenue Scotland, and the amendment applies even where no attempt has been made to sell a previous residence. It seems to shift the tax point forward in all cases. I wish to emphasise, Presiding Officer, what all of this could mean for the Scottish budget. Gavin Brown's amendment undermines the important features of land and buildings transaction tax that registration of title is only permitted when arrangements for the tax payable have been put in place. Gavin Brown's amendment would allow registration of title to be obtained without paying the supplement, which could burden Revenue Scotland with chasing sums that buyers are reluctant to part with. Those buyers will include buyers from outside of Scotland, indeed potentially from outside the United Kingdom, making it all the harder to secure payment. I do accept, as Gavin Brown argued at stage 2, that Scottish solicitors can be expected to help with informing their clients about their legal duties and facilitating payments and paperwork. However, I do not consider that to be a complete protection for the Scottish budget since the ultimate decision as to whether or not to pay the supplement and when to pay the supplement will rest with the client. I am very grateful to the Deputy First Minister for a given way. I should draw attention to the register of interests that I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland. In my days in legal practice, I do recall situations often arising where people had hoped to buy and sell on the same day or within a day or two, but there might be circumstances where the purchase of the property might have difficulty getting their mortgage funds. There might be an inadvertent delay. Gavin Brown has set out circumstances where people caught in those circumstances might face a very hefty additional sum of money. Where does the Deputy First Minister think people will find that money from? I think that Mr Fraser made my point in the example that he cited. He said that people might have a difficulty of a matter of a day or two. My amendment that I put at stage 2 addresses that issue. It does address that. Jackie Baillie accepted in her contribution a moment ago that I had been helpful at stage 2 by extending that period to create those circumstances. What I am simply placing on record are the practical issues that arise following the amendment that Mr Brown has put forward, which will essentially shift forward the tax point in all cases. That would undermine the fundamental premise of land and buildings transaction tax legislation that Parliament has previously enacted. I do not believe that it is desirable to make provision in this bill that may give rise to a higher debtor list in Revenue Scotland at such an early stage of the operations of Revenue Scotland. I have not closed my mind entirely on this matter, but I cannot support an amendment that is fundamentally unclear in its operation that will place an additional burden on Revenue Scotland and is liable to have negative implications for the Scottish budget. The statistics collected by Revenue Scotland will enable ministers and the Parliament to determine to what extent delayed sales are a significant issue and the remedy if that arises can be taken by ministers given the powers that ministers have in terms of the ability to introduce an appropriate relief by order at some stage in the future. I invite Gavin Brown not to press amendment 17 and should he decide to press the amendment, I urge Parliament not to support the amendment. I call Gavin Brown to wind up and indicate if you intend to press her with draw, please. John Swinney does not want to burden Revenue Scotland, but he is perfectly happy to burden potentially thousands upon thousands of people purchasing houses in Scotland year on year. LBTT legislation relied heavily on input from the law society in its original form and indeed in the bill that we face today. They were quite clear that a grace period ought to be included both in their written evidence, in their oral evidence and in the submission that they have given in advance of today, quite clearly supporting that amendment. I do not think that the Law Society of Scotland is looking to undermine the fundamental premise of the land and buildings transaction touch-up. I will give way to Mark McDonald. Mark McDonald. Thank Gavin Brown for giving way. He cited two examples in his submission to Parliament today. The first is somebody who requires a day or two after the sale because of perhaps difficulties in getting the dates to match up. The Deputy First Minister has already indicated his amendment at stage 2 addresses that. The second is where a sale falls through. Can Gavin Brown explain in a situation where a sale falls through, how his 14-day grace period would be of assistance to people who are going to have to go through the sales process all over again? I wished it could be far longer than 14 days, but it was pretty apparent at stage 2 that the Government would not support a longer period. It may help if you have a day or two, but this may be news to Mark McDonald, but sometimes it is not possible to get things to line up within a day or two. Sometimes it can take longer than that. If it falls through because a mortgage was not in place in time, that may well be cured within a week or 10 days or so, in which case my amendment would allow that to happen. That is why I think everyone who gave evidence to the Finance Committee said that very clearly. That is why I think Mark McDonald, Presiding Officer, signed up to the committee report that the committee recommends that the bill is amended at stage 2 to provide for a grace period. Mark McDonald or nobody else on the committee had any objection to that whatsoever. They looked carefully at the evidence and formed that view very, very clearly. It is regrettable, I think, if members change their view under duress a week or two after it is put forward. Of course I will go away to the First Minister. We are back to the same point that I raised with Mr Fraser. Mr Brown has read out the excerpt from the Finance Committee report that argued for a grace period to be put in place at stage 2. That is precisely what the Government has done. Jackie Baillie just said that a grace period has been put in at stage 2. It just does not happen to be the grace period that Mr Brown thinks should be appropriate. We responded positively. Mr Brown accepted that the amendment was put in place to address the Finance Committee recommendations thereby undermining the fundamental point that he is making. I am sure that that was what Mr Swinney was attempting to do, but it is pretty clear to me and indeed to a number of solicitors and indeed to the Law Society that it does not sufficiently do that. They say quite clearly in the report which I am sure Mr Swinney has welcomed that they welcomed it. They said that it does not create a sufficiently long grace period. They know that in practice returns are submitted instantly because they do not hold back because they do not think that it is reasonable to ask solicitors to delay the registration of title. That is the key to the ownership of property and if they do not do that, if they hold on, there is a risk of exposure to things such as inhibitions. That is why they support my amendment here today. I am genuinely disappointed that Mr Swinney, who in the past on working with him on a number of bills has been open minded, but here we have a bill that has been rushed through. There was no full consultation. There was no impact assessment. The finance committee did its best and from all of the evidence that we saw to a person on that committee, we suggested there ought to be a grace period for the fact that it is unfair and also for the fact that a huge number of transactions could be affected by this. He may shake his head but, when the bill was drafted, that was an unforeseen consequence. It is now pretty obviously a foreseen consequence. Something that we can do something about here today, something that we can do to prevent this from happening instead of waiting to see what happens after six months when we are pretty clear what could happen. I would like to say to the Deputy First Minister respond to people who are trapped in the situation that they will be saying that he did not want to bring in a change because it might put a bit of a burden on revenue Scotland. Very disappointing and I will be pressing that amendment. Thank you very much. In which case question is that amendment 17 be agreed to or are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. This is the first division of this stage. I suspend for five minutes. Order. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 17. This is the 32nd division and members should please cast their votes now. Order. Order. We had a problem, I'm afraid, with voting councils that were not working and therefore I'm going to call that vote again. So this is a 32nd Order please. Order. This is a 32nd amendment. The vote is on amendment 17. Please vote now. The vote on amendment 17 is yes 44. No 66. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendments 2, 3 and 4 all in the name of the Deputy First Minister and all previously debated. I invite the Deputy First Minister to move amendments 2, 3 and 4 on block please. Move for me. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 2, 3 and 4? Since no member objects, the question is that amendments 2, 3 and 4 are agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. We are now turned to group 3, trusts and life events. I call amendment 5 in the name of the Deputy First Minister group with amendments 7 to 11, 13 and 16. I invite the Deputy First Minister to move amendment 5 and speak to all amendments in the group please. This group of amendments makes small changes to the rules on ownership of dwellings purchased by trustees. In certain circumstances beneficiaries are treated as being the buyer of dwellings purchased by trustees. Amendments 5 and 11 clarify that only the dwelling or dwellings being purchased are relevant in considering the rules on beneficial ownership in a chargeable transaction. Amendment 16 similarly ensures the dwelling or dwellings being purchased are considered in the definition of relevant interest in the interpretation's paragraph of the bill. Amendment 9 is in recognition of the fact that there can be more than one beneficiary with a relevant interest in a dwelling purchased by trustees. Amendment 10 recognises that relevant interest may come into being after the date of a chargeable transaction. Amendment 13 ensures that when a dwelling is deemed to be owned by a beneficiary under certain trusts or by a life renter in a proper life rent, the market value of the dwelling rather than the market value of the ownership interest in that dwelling is relevant to the schedule. Amendments 7 and 8 are consequential to other amendments made at stage 2. Amendment 5 Thank you. Since no one else has requested to speak, Deputy First Minister, do you wish to add anything else? No, for the comments. Many thanks. The question then is that Amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. All in the name of the Deputy First Minister and all previously debated. I invite the Deputy First Minister to move amendment 6 to 13 on block, please. Moved on block. Amendment 6 to 13. Since no member objects, the question is that amendment 6 to 13 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 4. Power to modify part 2 of schedule 2A and to call amendment 14 in the name of the Deputy First Minister in a group on its own. I invite the Deputy First Minister to move and speak to amendment 14, please. Presiding Officer, we've seen in the previous groups the types of technical scenarios that land and buildings transaction tax legislation needs to be capable of addressing. In order to ensure that appropriate adjustments can be made to the detailed rules for the land and buildings tax supplement, the bill includes a balanced range of delegated powers, all of which are now subject to a form of affirmative procedure. Those have all been influenced by existing delegated powers within the Land and Buildings Transactions Scotland Act 2013. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee have each scrutinised those powers and I welcome the committee's support for the principle of ministers having appropriate powers to react to changing circumstances without the need for a further bill. At stage 2, the committee supported a new power allowing ministers to amend part 4 of proposed schedule 2A as regards partnerships and trusts. As I said at stage 2, partnership and trust arrangements can be very complex and give rise to some of the most difficult aspects of the Land and Buildings Transactions policy and practice. In the vast majority of cases, residential properties will be bought and sold without the use of partnerships or trusts. On reflection, I consider it appropriate that the power I have described should allow for the amendment of part 2 of schedule 2A, as well as part 4, since part 2 now includes important provisions concerning trusts and partnerships. Amendment 14 extends the delegated power in paragraph 143A accordingly. The intention to bring forward this amendment was signalled in the Scottish Government's supplementary delegated powers memorandum that was posted on the Parliament's website on 3 March. I hope that I have the Parliament's support in proposing this extension to delegated powers to ensure that the legislation for the Land and Buildings Transactions tax supplement is flexible and proofed for future use and capable of reacting to any tax avoidance arrangements that may emerge in the future. Amendment 14 Many thanks. No other member has requested to speak. Do you wish to add anything? In which case the question is that amendment 14 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 15, in the name of the Deputy First Minister already debated with amendment 1 and I invite the Deputy First Minister to move formally please. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. That then ends consideration of amendments. If members are leaving the chamber, could they do so quietly please? The next item of business is a debate on motion number 15837 in the name of John Swinney on the Land and Buildings Transactions tax amendment Scotland bill. Could members who wish to speak in this debate in the name of John Swinney in the name of John Swinney in the name of John Swinney in the name of John Swinney in the name of John Swinney could members who wish to speak please press the request to speak buttons now and I call on John Swinney to speak, and move the motion. maximam Eight Minutes Annabelle E 약간 Please to opening this stage 3 debate transaction tax amendments Scotland Bill. I thank members of the finance committee and the delegated powers and law reform committee not only for the scrutiny of this bill but also for their willingness to work with the government to enable this bill to progress expeditiously through the parliament to achieve a 1 April 2016 commencement date. I would like to thank the organisations and individuals who provided written and oral evidence to the finance committee during the committee's stage 1 scrutiny of the bill. I also appreciate the input from a range of stakeholders who met with the bill team, often at short notice, which has helped to shape the bill before Parliament today. I am grateful to the work undertaken by Revenue Scotland to ensure from an operational standpoint that they are ready to hit the ground running when the land and buildings transaction supplement comes into force on 1 April. This bill introduces a 3 per cent land and buildings transaction tax supplement that is payable on the purchase of additional dwellings, such as by-to-let or second homes. Subject to parliamentary approval, that means that from 1 April 2016 anyone buying a residential property in Scotland of £40,000 and above who already owns a residential property here or anywhere in the world will pay an additional 3 per cent land and buildings transaction tax on the whole purchase price of the property unless they are simply replaced in their existing main residence. The bill provides that individuals or couples who concluded missives on their purchase before 28 January 2016 will not be the subject of the supplement. The UK Government announced in November last year that it intended to introduce a stamp duty land tax higher rate on the purchase of additional residential properties in the UK effective from 1 April 2016. As I said last December during my draft Scottish budget statement, following careful consideration of matters, I concluded that the absence of a similar land and buildings transaction tax supplement in Scotland could adversely impact on the opportunities for first-time buyers to get a foot on the property ladder. Of course. The cabinet secretary is admitting that the legislation was in response to what the UK Government has done. How would the Scottish Government react if the UK Government either delayed or substantially changed its proposals? The issue that I have had to face on this particular situation is the scenario opening up of the UK Government acting in this fashion. Given the proper consideration that is available for this Parliament over taxation matters, the Government has to respond to ensure that its policy objectives can be protected in that legislative scenario. What I was concerned about, and it is the point that I have just made, is that the opportunity for first-time buyers to get access to property purchase in Scotland could be undermined if we did not have similar provision in place. I quite understand the point that Mr Chisholm is making, that the UK Government is free to change its mind on this question and it may well do so. However, I have to act on the basis of the legislative scenario that I see opening up in front of me and the need to protect the policy objectives of the Scottish Government, which have been supported by the way in which land and buildings transaction tax has been implemented and the benefits that it has given to strengthening the market for first-time buyers. Without a land and buildings transaction tax supplement in Scotland, it could be more attractive to invest in additional residential properties in Scotland compared to the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly at the lower end of the market where the issue will be most prevalent, making it more difficult for first-time buyers in Scotland to buy a property. That would be contrary to the Scottish Government's policy of maximising opportunities for first-time buyers to buy their first home. However, I appreciate that the private rented sector has a key role to play in providing good quality accommodation for those who live in rented accommodation. The Scottish Government has been supporting the purpose-built private rented sector since 2013, funding both the building the rented sector study and a dedicated private rented sector champion, tasked with ensuring that action is taken to boost the supply of high-quality private rented sector homes at scale. I recognise the need to balance support for home ownership and first-time buyers without discouraging significant and beneficial investment in residential property for rent. After reflecting on the stage 1 evidence, I was pleased to positively respond to the Finance Committee's stage 1 report recommendation that provision should be made within the bill for a 100 per cent relief from the land and buildings transaction tax supplement for buyers, purchasing six or more residential properties in one transaction. The Scottish Government brought forward a stage 2 amendment to give effect to this decision. The supplement is estimated to raise between £17 and £29 million in 2016-17, after taking account of behavioural effects, including any impact on underlying LBTT revenues. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has endorsed the estimate as reasonable, recognising the uncertainties posed by the lack of Scottish data on these types of transactions. The cost of the relief from the supplement for buyers who purchase six or more residential properties in one transaction has not been factored into the aforementioned revenue estimate, as outlined in the supplementary financial memorandum lodged with Parliament on 3 March, the Scottish Government has estimated the cost of this relief to be in the region of £2 million in 2016-17 and annually thereafter. There have been numerous calls for various reliefs in the land and buildings transaction tax supplement. I am firmly with the view that a period of time will be required to enable the land and transaction tax supplement to become embedded and for sufficient financial and statistical data to be collected to enable informed policy decisions to be made in the future. The position on reliefs, with particular reference to the land and buildings transaction tax supplement, will be kept under review as part of the on-going process of devolved tax planning and management. I turn now to the subject of a grace period, which is discussed by the finance committee and discussed also in the course of the discussion today. The Scottish Government tabled a stage 2 amendment, which is agreed to by the finance committee, which allows for the possibility that a person could claim exemption from the supplement in their initial land and buildings transaction tax return. This may be possible if the sale of the previous main residence is completed before the land and buildings transaction tax return for the acquisition of the new main residence has to be submitted. In such circumstances, no supplement would be paid. I acknowledge that that does not provide a solution for all instances where the purchase of a new dwelling takes place before the sale of an old one because the purchaser will need to submit their tax return in order to register the title to the property. The approach that I have decided to take here is to ask revenue Scotland to monitor the position from the land and buildings transaction tax supplement provisions coming into force on the 30th of October. The data collected will enable the Scottish Government to take an… Yes, sir. Is Scottish Government advice to solicitors to hold off for a few extra days before submitting that return or holding off for as long as it takes before submitting that return? No, that is not the Government's advice. The Government's advice is for solicitors to comply with the legislation, as I would expect them to do so, but we will monitor the evidence as it emerges in the handling of the issue. It is important that we review the impact of land and buildings transaction tax supplement. I am aware of a number of calls for an early review to be carried out. I certainly agree with the comments made by the France Committee in its stage 1 report that developing an understanding of the impact of the supplement will be complex and take time. To ensure a meaningful and constructive review, I firmly believe that reviewing the impact of the supplement will require at least one complete year of data given the seasonality of housing transactions, the likely for stalling behaviours and the longer-term trends in the housing market. The Scottish Government intends to update Parliament on the outcome of that review in the 2018-19 draft budget, in accordance with our undertaking in the written agreement on the budget process. I move that the Parliament agrees that the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax Amendment Scotland will be passed. Presiding Officer, it seems like no time at all since we were having the stage 1 debate on the land and building transaction tax supplement, because in fact it was just two weeks ago. I think that we have approached this bill at literally breakneck speed, and I do want to acknowledge the effort that this has been for the Cabinet Secretary, for his officials, the committee, the clerks and to those who contributed to our deliberations by giving evidence. We have proceeded with a degree of haste that is not usual for bills in this Parliament. I have said before on a couple of occasions and I will say so again that I think that we need to think very carefully about our parliamentary process for scrutinising tax changes. I accept absolutely that there will be occasions when we need to act quickly to implement a new tax or indeed to vary a rate. We will want, as a matter of course, to avoid behavioural responses where people might seek to avoid any new or changed tax, but we will equally want to make sure that we have time to consider any revised legislation and get that legislation right. No one in this chamber wants to see unintended consequences from rushed legislation. The speed also has implications for stakeholders as consultation will, by its very nature, need to be done entirely differently. Never mind the scrutiny process of this Parliament and indeed the Law Society of Scotland, KPMG, Chartered Institute of Taxation all express concerns to the committee about the lack of consultation that was undertaken. I know that the convener of the finance committee himself agrees, and that will undoubtedly feature in the committee's legacy paper. I hope that perhaps the speed of acting initially is balanced by a greater degree of post-legislative scrutiny so that we can at least fix those aspects of legislation that are not working as intended. However, that debate will be for another day in another Parliament. Let me turn to the substance of the debate before us today. The land and building transaction tax was levied for the first time last year. The bill to introduce the supplement before us today is in reaction to the Chancellor's decision to implement a 3 per cent stamp duty tax supplement, which he announced in his autumn statement. We are essentially copying a proposal from the UK Government in order to safeguard the housing market in Scotland, and I think that we all get that. However, the House of Commons Treasury Committee believes that the proposal on which we have based ours from the Chancellor is flawed. It believes that it will have a negative effect on the buy-to-let market, which we consider to be important, and the Deputy First Minister said so in his opening comments. It also believes that it will have an impact on labour market mobility. Indeed, it thinks that the whole thing is unduly complex and that it will have unintended consequences. Therefore, it is pushing for a delay, it is pushing for a period of calm reflection. I am not sure how successful it will be and how persuadable George Osborne is, but the cabinet secretary has made clear to me previously that he will proceed regardless. Irrespective of any delay, I think that the cabinet secretary or indeed his successor needs to keep the legislation under close review. Let us not be slow to amend it if we feel that it is having a negative impact on areas of our housing market. There is considerable and increasing reliance on the private sector rental market. If the availability of properties diminishes, then there will be a knock-on effect on the social rented sector, where a number of new housing developments have been in decline. The cabinet secretary said that he would come back at stage 2 with areas for exemption, and he has done that to an extent. However, I still think that there is a continuing concern about labour market mobility on two counts. First, any contraction in the private sector rental market has a consequence for people moving around the country for work. They will be unable to access the range of housing that is currently available. That is the concern. Secondly, it has an effect on economic migration, as incoming workers will be charged an additional 3 per cent if they retain their home abroad. It might not affect that many people, but I do not think that we want to send out a message that Scotland is a less desirable place to move to do business. We need skills from out with our borders, such as doctors, nurses and teachers, so we need to be very cautious that we do not do anything that puts them off. So, again, I would ask the cabinet secretary or his successor to monitor the impact on labour mobility. Finally, let me look at the income that is likely to be generated. As I have said before, the amount generated by residential LBTT is much less than anticipated. The forecast for 2015-16 was £235 million, which is likely to be some way short, despite £20 million coming from the Treasury for forstalling effects. The forecast for LBTT supplement is much less ambitious. From a yield of £45 million to £70 million, it has been reduced to £17 million and £29 million, and the cabinet secretary has touched on some of the reasons why. It has undoubtedly benefited from a much more detailed assessment and an attempt to consider behavioural factors. It is still however limited in the availability of data, a point that has been made quite robustly by the Scottish Fiscal Commission. I would ask the cabinet secretary what action is being taken to improve the data. The cabinet secretary has indicated that this bill is about ensuring that the opportunities for first-time buyers to enter the housing market remain as strong as they possibly can. That is something that we can agree on. However, I hope that he has not had a negative impact on the private buy-to-let market, which is an increasingly important element of the housing market in Scotland. We gave careful thought at all stages about whether or not to support the bill, because I think that there are some pretty strong arguments from across the sectors about some of the flaws and some of the dangers. On balance, I certainly take the view that the risk of inaction is marginally greater than the risk of action. On that basis, we supported it at stage 1, and we will support it at decision time today. I think that Malcolm Chisholm raised a particularly interesting question, as he often does, in those debates. He asked what would happen if the UK Government, for whatever reason, decided to delay implementation of its similar tax and its bill. I have no inside information, but if that were to be the case, should there be a delay of any sort by the UK Government with its stamped duty supplement legislation, I would certainly argue that we ought to do the same in Scotland. The primary reason for the bill would be removed, at least for a temporary period, until such time as it was implemented south of the border. If that happens—and I think that it is unlikely—the Scottish Government ought to at least remain open to that possibility and to act accordingly. There are calls from any number of constituents and organisations looking for as much guidance and advice as possible, both from the Scottish Government directly but from Revenue Scotland too. That will go live in a couple of weeks, but there are huge numbers of people wondering about the detail and certain scenarios, all except for some of the most basic scenarios. I urge the Government, once the bill has been passed, to publish as quickly as possible all guidance, all extra regulations—everything that they possibly can—to give the public and those acting on behalf of the public as their agents as much advanced notice as possible of how things will work in practice. Some of the risks have been pointed out by Jackie Baillie. If that does affect the buy to let market too savagely, that could have an impact on the number of properties available to rent. Some people do not want to purchase. If that has a negative impact on that, particularly if it leads to an increase in rents, we ought to be very careful. It could have some impact on smaller house builders. They are more reliant on selling some of the houses that they build or some of the flats that they build, what is called off-plan in advance of it being built. It is very difficult for first-time buyers—it is not impossible—but much more difficult and less likely for a first-time buyer to purchase something off-plan long before it is built. That is much more likely to be done by somebody who is involved in a buy to let. If that starts to damage smaller house builders, I would hope that the Scottish Government would take action and take very careful recognition of what is going on out there. My biggest concern was outlined in the stage 1 debate and indeed stage 2, and indeed when we discussed my amendment here today. I still urge at this late stage the Scottish Government to give careful consideration of a grace period. There are a whole host of organisations who have argued for it, not least those who have advised the minister on this bill and on the previous tax bill in relation to LBTT. I think that it will create a genuine unfairness for those bank houses in a way that none of us wants to happen, but it is pretty obvious that it will happen in a huge number of cases. The cabinet secretary said that he was not close minded about this, but I think that thus far he appears to have been so. I urge him not to keep that mind open to lize very closely with stakeholders, in particular the law society and those who will have to implement the legislation on the ground, because it is pretty obvious to me that we will have to revisit this pretty quickly, certainly long before six months given the number of transactions involved. On that basis, I ask him to say something further about that today in his closing. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate, the short debate and speeches of a maximum of four minutes. Please, Mark McDonald, to be followed by Leslie Brennan. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and it's good to know that, as opposed to the stage 1 debate, where I was the only open debate speaker, I will have some company this time round. I was contemplating, as we were discussing the amendments, and a group of schoolchildren came in and had to sit through the discussion of all the amendments, how fine a job we were doing in teaching those young people that politics wasn't in any way dry and boring and dull, as we discussed the finer merits of technical amendments to a taxation policy. At the same time, it would be fair to say that Gavin Brown at very least did his best to try and inject a little bit of heat into the debate. Although I do think that he was a little bit uncharitable in his description of how the finance committee approached the issue of a grace period, particularly at stage 2. There was very clearly stated by the Deputy First Minister and indeed agreed to by Jackie Baillie and her remarks that a grace period was included at stage 2. The finance committee only made the recommendation for a grace period and specifically made no recommendation as to the time period for any grace period that was inserted into the bill. Gavin Brown will recall that we had a long discussion in relation to that at committee. It was felt that, on balance, the best thing to do was to recommend a grace period and allow the Scottish Government to assess what it felt was the most appropriate period for that to apply. Gavin Brown is perfectly entitled to disagree with that length of grace period and perfectly entitled to advocate the points that he wishes to do so, but, at the same time, he must accept firstly that the committee merely recommended a grace period, secondly that the Deputy First Minister put forward a grace period that was voted on at committee and accepted, and thirdly that there was no due rest applied in terms of how the committee members voted. Committee members assessed the options that were in front of them at committee and voted accordingly. Does he genuinely think that the amendment that the cabinet secretary lodged at stage 2 was actually a grace period? Does he think that it is a wise idea for solicitors to hold off submitting that land return in the interim? I would make a couple of observations. First, the Deputy First Minister has outlined that the amendment that he put forward deals with part 1 of Gavin Brown's two-pronged problem in relation to the LBTT amendment. Gavin Brown's secondary problem that he highlighted around those where the sale collapses because the buyer withdraws would not be dealt with by a 14-day grace period is put forward at stage 2. I hear that Gavin Brown saying that he put forward the 60-day grace period at stage 2, and we went through at committee the reasons why that was inappropriate given the 30-day requirement for LBTT returns to be submitted. That would have meant a significant issue arising, in particular because Gavin Brown's amendment did not specify any particular sales that would be captured. Instead, it would have covered all transactions and would have allowed anybody to delay their transaction by 60 days irrespective of whether or not a transaction had been completed in terms of their sale or whether they were selling in the first place at all. It would have given carte blanche for a 60-day grace period in the same way as his 14-day grace period did not make any specifics around who was to be captured by that. It would simply have applied to all sales. However, I think that the comfort that Gavin Brown should draw, and I think that the reason why he is supporting the bill at stage 3, is that the Deputy First Minister has highlighted that there will be a possibility of repayment after an 18-month period should transactions go through. Secondly, data will be captured to inform the possibility of future order-making powers to make an amendment should that be the case. On that basis, I think that we should all be grateful that the bill is going to receive support at decision time. The housing market is a key component of our economy, and as such, changes to it ought to be considered very carefully. According to the registers of Scotland, a total of around 90,000 properties were submitted for registration in the last financial year. With the Fraser Allander Institute's warning last week that growth in Scotland is set to slow further, I think that, with this fragility in mind, I strongly urge the Deputy First Minister to reconsider implementing an explicit grace period for accidental home owners. One of the finance committee's recommendations was that the Scottish Fiscal Commission provides commentary in November after the six-month outturn data for the supplement are released. In correspondence that we received yesterday from Lady Susan Rice on behalf of the Scottish Fiscal Commission, she states that, as with the other devolves taxes, the SFC plans to analyse outturn data relative to the forecast. A complication when conducting such an exercise for LBTT supplement using part-year outturn is that there are no historical data with which to identify a typical seasonal pattern in tax receipts from the supplement. I welcome the Deputy First Minister's comments today about reviewing after 12 months to make sure that you pick up seasonality. However, how do we then unpick people who are captured because there is no explicit grace period? It makes it difficult to assess whether or not there is any discrepancymys between the forecast and the outturn is due to an underlying forecast error or an unknown seasonal pattern in the sub-part of the market. Nevertheless, we shall attempt to shed as much light on the operation of the supplement as the outturn data is released. Moreover, the SFC states that, uncertainty in assessing the impact of its tax due to the lack of data is a small part of the housing market. The Scottish part is a small part of the housing market, and the bitally and the accidental second home owners. Those uncertainties stem from the lack of available data, specific to the relatively small section of the market. In addition, the Council of Mortgage Lenders stated in correspondence to me that it does not collect any data or have any information on the bridging finance market. Thus, given the posity of data and the fragility of the economy, a fail and explicit grace period ought to have been implemented. Lastly, it is not explicit in the bill that RSLs and local authorities purchasing less than six properties would be exempt. I urge for this exemption. While it supports the supplement in the bill, I have concerns regarding the rapid role light of the measure and its unintended consequences, and specifically regarding the lack of precision with the two points that I highlighted today. Thank you. Can I address some of the comments that have been made? Obviously, there has been a debate in principle about the whole question of the supplement provision that has been enacted by the legislation, and, as Gavin Brown characterised it correctly, that is a matter of judgment. Everybody can see that there is a potential of risk to the objectives that the Government has in the housing market within Scotland, particularly one of the key objectives of our approach to land and buildings transaction tax in the original legislation being to try to enable first-time buyers to have better prospects of progressing on the property ladder. That objective could be undermined by the legislative changes that are being put in place south of the border and the implications that that could have for the property market here in Scotland. The decision in principle is undoubtedly a decision on balance, but, for my part, I have been anxious to ensure that the policy objectives of the Government that have been reinforced by the steps that we have taken in relation to land and buildings transaction tax were in no way jeopardised by that proposal from the United Kingdom Government. The comments that Jackie Baillie made in the debate were an explicit acknowledgement of one of the challenges that we now face in our parliamentary budgeting and financial processes around the need to respond at greater speed than our core long-standing budget process provides for. That is a very helpful recognition of the issues that arise out of the devolution of additional tax-raising powers that the Parliament has, the need for tax decisions to be taken and the acknowledgement that sometimes tax decisions have to be taken within a smaller window than expenditure decisions given the fact that there can be behavioural implications that arise out of that. Those are not issues that will resolve this afternoon, but, in the course of the discussion of the legislation and, indeed, the scrutiny that the French Committee has undertaken around the measures within the fiscal framework and, indeed, and also within the fiscal commission bill to which we will come later on this week and the wider agenda that we have looked at in relation to the budget process, I think that all of those questions are now very live questions to be reflected upon by Parliament, and I am sure that they will be reflected on by the French Committee in the legacy paper that it provides. I simply would want to put on the record today the Government's willingness to engage constructively with Parliament on that question, because I think that all of us need to understand the parameters and the processes within which we are working on what is now a very different scenario to the one that was envisaged when some of the veterans of Parliament were involved in the production of the public finance and accountability act in 1999 of which I consider myself to be one. The other major issue in the debate was around the issue of the grace period, and we touched on some of this detail in the course of the stage 3 amendments, when we discussed it at stage 2. Mr MacDonald fairly characterised the recommendation of the France Committee, which it argued for a grace period to be provided for in the legislation. I responded constructively to that in stage 2 and provided for a grace period that would not have the effect of undermining the central tenant of the land and buildings transaction tax legislation. It is important that the transaction is registered with Revenue Scotland to enable all of the appropriate tax to be collected and for there to be no diminiation of that important principle. I will, however, continue to reflect on those issues as we see the development of the implementation of the legislation. If I consider that there is any requirement for that issue to be addressed, then appropriate provisions will be drawn to the attention of Parliament in that respect. I acknowledge that the legislation has been taken through Parliament at some speed. I am grateful to everyone who has participated in that process to enable it to be the case. In the context of that, I give reassurance that the Government will reflect carefully on the implementation of the legislation and ensure that its central purpose is delivered as part of the legislative process. That concludes the debate on the land and buildings transaction tax amendment Scotland Bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is stage 3 proceedings on the higher education governance Scotland Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, that is SP Bill 74A, the marshaled list and the groupings. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the proceedings. The period of voting for the first division will then be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group, and I would now be grateful if members could refer to their marshaled list of amendments. I call group 1, role of rector, and I call amendment 27 in the name of Chick Brody, which is grouped with amendment 31, and I invite Chick Brody to move amendment 27 and to speak to both amendments in the group. Mr Brody, please. I move amendment 27 and 31 in my name. Presiding Officer, the bill, which I hope will receive full scrutiny after some years of enactment, has as its base democratic accountability. The purpose of those amendments is very simple. It is to underpin that and to align the important role of the rector as a function, equivalent to that of the proposed senior lay member in terms of respective roles and functions. Presiding Officer, I fully accept and acknowledge the historic relevance of our ancient universities. I was lucky enough to attend one in St Andrews and was privileged to be appointed later as a lay member of its court. I also accept and acknowledge the major contribution and significant relevance of the ancients, which is globally recognised. I also acknowledge the role played by many, if not all, rectors past and present. However, in my opinion, we cannot set about rightly demanding the overall democratic accountability that we seek and accountability that requires a consistent application of recruitment process and so on across the sector, facing an increasing globally competitive future. In that consistency, I agree to disobey a perception of elitism in the sector. Part of that perception, together with further amendments, will be curtailed by my amendments 27 and 31, which are designed to ensure rectors or senior lay members, or whatever they are called, play a consistent, active, not remote and immediate role to which they have been elected. The franchises for rectors would be broadened to include all staff, as well as the current student franchise, to which I will return on future amendments. I have two members' questions to speak. I call Liz Smith to be followed by Liam McArthur. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Mr Brody at stage 2, and also this afternoon, is outlined that there are present very clear divisions and also clear lines of responsibility between the senior lay governor and the rector in the five institutions that have that position. He is also very correct to go on to say that the clarity of purpose is essential when it comes to good governance. The fact that the bill is creating an overlapping franchise and its overlapping responsibilities is a serious issue, which the Scottish Government must surely recognise. Notwithstanding our political differences on this, I hope that the Scottish Government can see fit, even at this late stage, to undo what is a muddle, because there is significant difference between opposing an element of the bill for reasons of policy and opposing the element because it creates confusion, and that is exactly what has happened here. I want to emphasise very strongly that the task before us at stage 3 is about addressing the practical implications of the bill rather than the principles and ensuring that what we are voting for at decision time is both workable and acceptable to the very diverse institutions that make up our HE sector. I think that we owe them that at the very least in the point that Mr Brody has made. I think that that point was actually fully recognised at stage 2 by SNP members, Sandra White, Jim Eadie, George Adam and Chick Brody, not least because they reported that they had been lobbed by the various institutions with their own constituencies, and it is also apparent that Labour and the Green parties agree with that, too. It is absolutely essential that a governing body is chaired by the person in whom the governing body has the greatest degree of confidence, something that is a key principle of good governance in any institution, never mind a university, and there must be, obviously, absolute clarity of purpose. We are happy to support Mr Brody's amendments 27 and 31. During stage 1 evidence, the cabinet secretary made clear to the committee that it was not her intention with this bill to affect the role of the rector at the five institutions where such a role exists. It was always difficult to see how that could be achieved, and, sadly, after the amendments passed at stage 2 regarding elected chairs, it is now beyond the cabinet secretary to be able to honour that commitment. That is a source of real regret. However, the priority at this stage has to be to provide what clarity we can to the respective roles of rector and senior lay governor. At present, there is still too much of an overlap and duplication, as Liz Smith said, giving rise to the potential for confusion and potentially even conflict. That is not a concern confined to Opposition members. I think that Chick Brody deserves credit for his work in committee to highlight these problems and, more importantly, his efforts in trying to help the minister out of the hole that she has dug for herself. Those amendments might not entirely address the problem, but that is hardly the fault of Mr Brody, who, quite rightly, is seeking to properly distinguish the respective roles and ensure that anyone chairing a governing body has the confidence and support of that body's members. On that basis, I am happy to confirm our support for amendments 27 and 31. As he set out, amendment 27 removes the requirement for the universities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeenys and Andrews to include the position of senior lay member in their governing body. Amendment 31 amends section A22 of the bill in order to give all the functions of the senior lay member set out in that section of the bill to the rector. Section A22 of the bill currently provides that certain provisions of the bill relating to the senior lay member have no effect in relation to institutions that have a rector with the functions set out in section A21, namely the universities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeenys and Andrews. Those provisions relate to the duty of the senior lay member to preside at meetings of the governing body and to have a deliberative and casting vote at such meetings. Secondly, the provision that allows another member of the governing body of a higher education institution to be selected in the absence of the senior lay member or while the position is vacant. Those duties in those institutions would always be exercised by the rector. The purpose of section A22 in the bill is to preserve the current statutory functions of the rector in those ancient institutions. However, amendment 31 seeks to give additional functions to the rector in the ancient universities. If the amendment were to be included in the bill, the rector would continue to have the functions to preside at meetings of the governing body and to have a deliberative and casting vote at such meetings. Crucially, those functions, which in the bill are amended, are reserved for the senior lay member, namely the responsibility for the leadership and effectiveness of the governing body and for ensuring that there is an appropriate balance of authority between the governing body and the principle of the institution, would be given to the rector in the ancient universities. That is a substantial change in the role of rector. That is what those amendments do in isolation. However, as we progress to consider the group 2 amendments, it will become clear that they are also part of a wider group of amendments that provide for a new position the elected co-chair in all 18 HEIs. The new role of elected chair would share certain responsibilities with the rector in the ancient institutions and with the senior lay member in the other 14 HEIs. I do not consider that either in isolation or combination with Mr Brodie's amendments in group 2 that those amendments will benefit this bill or the institutions themselves. She said many times herself that the diversity of the higher education sector is absolutely crucial, which is one of the reasons why we have different positions. Is she really comfortable with a bill that has overlapping franchises for the senior positions and where there are not clear lines of responsibility and who is carrying out which role? I am concerned that Mr Brodie's amendments, as I have put forward today, confuse the role of rector and the co-chair and confuse the role of co-chair with the senior... Just one moment, let me finish and confuse the role of senior lay member. Moving the balance of power from the co-chair that is only elected by the governing body and with respect, I think that what Mr Brodie has proposed today has far less clarity than what is proposed by the Government. I will wait until Mr Brodie... Thank you, cabinet secretary, for taking the intervention. Of course, we have not reached the detailed discussion of the further proposal that is attached to that. There is no question that I think of this proposal. If the Government puts forward this proposal, it is a recipe for conflict because of the two franchises, the lack of clarity as to who is doing what, because that will change because of the potential conflict. Will she not agree? I hear what she says about the proposal, but hopefully, as I say, there will be further clarity when we come to my further amendments, that this franchise confusion will result in a diminishing performance by the institutes in which they apply. It is time to have some consistency across the whole higher education institution. With respect, I do not actually believe what Mr Brodie has proposed and will lead to any actual consistency. What the Government has sought to do in the bill, as it currently stands, is to reflect the code of good governance in higher education, which is very clear about the very clear differences in role between the role of seniorly member and that of the rector. Those are two very distinct roles. That is reflected in the code of good guidance and that is what the Government has sought to reflect in the bill to date. I give way to Ms Smith. Cabinet Secretary, the code of governance is in the process of being reviewed. Would it not have been sensible to await what the results of that review were before those changes were proposed? Cabinet Secretary? No, it is important that the code of governance is indeed reviewed as appropriate, but the bill is high-level and discrete in its proposition. I refute the suggestion that there is any franchise confusion. I believe that staff and students in the wider electorate on campus are actually well able to understand the difference between a rector and the seniorly member. One of the key principles underpinning the bill is to enable an approach to governance based on greater transparency, accountability and inclusivity, which supports continuous improvement in the operation of our higher education institutions and which crucially creates a consistency of approach to governance matters for all of our institutions. Providing for the election of a seniorly member on the governing body of each Scottish HEI is key to making those principles real. The seniorly member is a powerful role that is central to the governance of the institution and must be elected by a franchise of staff, students and members of the governing body. Perhaps in a moment removing that requirement for a seniorly member in the ancient institutions would not be transparent nor inclusive as it would remove the right of staff to take part in that decision-making process with the exception of Edinburgh, where the rector is elected by staff and students. I seem to be one of the few members of this Parliament who served in a university court, and I am listening with care to what the cabinet secretary is saying. I have to tell her that I am unclear how an elected rector with an accountable mandate to voters in the institution and an elected seniorly member with an accountable mandate to other voters in the institution reconcile their views if they disagree about an issue. I am unclear as to where the rest of the governing body is to get or take leadership from. I am deeply concerned about the question still remaining unanswered at stage 3 of the bill. Of course, the questions are not unanswered with all the greatest respect, Ms Goldie. You do not need to be a member of a university governing body to understand these issues or indeed to have an interest in the wellbeing of the institution. As happens now in the ancient universities themselves, each governing body or institution decides how the role of the rector and the seniorly member dovetail. That is how things happen just now. The role of the rector and the seniorly member is very well differentiated in the code of good governance. In all four ancient universities, it would also fully transfer the duties of the seniorly member to the rector, resulting in the rector having substantially enhanced functions in the governing body, where the governing body would have no ability to undertake any form of selection prior to the election of the rector. That would give these institutions different governance arrangements, different than all others, creating inconsistency. We have worked hard to ensure that the current role of rectors is maintained and preserved, but it has never been the aim of the bill to give it any additional functions. Taken in the round with Mr Brody's amendments 28, 29, 30 and 40, those amendments seek to introduce a co-chair model for the chairing of the governing bodies of all our HAIs, which I will address in greater detail as we move on to group 2. I can say here and now that I do not consider what the benefit of the bill will be or indeed our institutions. For those reasons, I have described that I cannot support amendments 27 and 31. If Mr Brody presses those amendments, I would ask members to reject them. I thank you, and I call on Tric Brody to wind up and indicate if you intend to press or withdraw, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am being more confused now on the basis of what the senior lay member is about to do vis-a-vis the rector in the ancients. Who speaks or who will speak for the students? There will be absolute confusion in terms of the determination of the function to be exercised by A, the rector or B, the senior lay member. What I am trying to do is to eradicate any possibility of confusion so that the students and the wider franchise of the staff, which would have to happen, know who clearly represents them as their elected representative on the body of the university. The cabinet secretary says that that creates greater transparency. I have to suggest that it does the very opposite, because we will not be clear as to who is making decisions and in what context. Therefore, I cannot accept that and therefore I propose to move amendments 27 and 31. In which case the question is that amendment 27 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and as this is the first division of this stage, I now suspend for five minutes. Order. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 27. This is a 32nd division. Members should cast their votes now, please. The result of the vote on amendment 27 is yes, 20, no, 91. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. That brings us to group 2, role of chairing member and co-chair. I call amendment 28, in the name of Chick Brody, group with amendments 29, 1, 30 and 40. I invite Chick Brody to move amendment 28 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. I move the amendments 28 and the subsequent amendments in my name. All of those reflect the proposed roles of the chairing members, as I referred to earlier, and the co-chairs and embrace the changes that were proposed in amendments 27 and 31. Amendment 28 reflects the responsibility of the senior lay member, or rector, or whatever she or he is called, when chairing the governing body, namely on matters of policy, thus reflecting the views, the aspirations and the needs, hopefully, of the incumbent's electorate. The elected chair, elected by the governing body, would then have the responsibility when chairing the governing body for matters of administration, finance and operations. I will return to that when we discuss amendment 40. On the elected determination of the role of rector or senior lay member, or whatever they are called, it is my contention that she or he filling that position should chair the governing body when issues of policy affect the instruction and when these are to be discussed. The guarantee of the wider franchise then supports the role in stealing matters of policy through the governing body via that member. Amendment 28 and 29 together propose that prospectus. It is also my contention that, on day-to-day matters of finance, operations and admin, the governing body should elect one of its own. It could be indeed an elected member of staff, member of a student member, one of its own to be that co-chair. Those amendments provide a supportive and a discussive partnership between the co-chairs in their respective responsibilities. As I said, the senior lay member or rector with policy supported by the wider franchise and the elected chair of the governing body supported by that body. I believe that that combination balances the clear authority to provide guidance and direction to the principles of the institutions on clearly defined matters and areas of operation and policy. It is somehow paradoxical that section A13 of the bill as it stands promotes the possibility of appointing pro tem another member of the governing body being appointed to an elected position and elected position in the absence of the senior lay member or rector while the position is vacant. That is a paradox. The co-chair proposal largely negates that need, although provision is made, as I said, in amendment 40 to which we will come. Sections A8, A9 and A9 regarding appointment, remuneration or resignation or indeed removal will be equally applied with respect to the position of the elected co-chair of the governing body. I now call on Liz Smith to speak to amendment 1 and other amendments in the group. Amendment 1, in my name, is a very simple amendment that is intended to make clear that list of duties set out in A12 is not, in any way, an exhaustive list of functions that would be carried out by the senior lay member who, through the general statutes of their own institution, may carry out many other roles. Again, I return to the issue of respecting the diversity of any institution. The amendment also removes A12C2 because that responsibility belongs to the governing body on a corporate basis, not to its individual co-chair. We are also happy to support Mr Brodie's amendments in this group. I repeat myself safely to say that we will be supporting the ones in this grouping as well. Briefly, with regard to Liz Smith's amendment 1, I would make the following observations. The diversity within the RHE sector is something that we will have an opportunity to discuss in some detail later. It is a feature within as well as across the different institutions. Indeed, it is that diversity that we wish to see reflected in the way in which our universities are governed. However, there are real risks in adopting legislation that is overly prescriptive and detailed. A one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate and we should be looking where possible to build in flexibility where we can. That, in essence, is what amendment 1 aims to do. It does not try to second guess to the end's degree every aspect of the role performed by the senior lay member of a governing body. It recognises that each institution will vary and therefore the functions of the senior lay member may vary accordingly. Moreover, ensuring that there is a proper balance of authority between the governing body and the principle of an institution is a corporate responsibility of the governing body as a whole. It cannot be personalised to the Rhector or the senior lay member alone. In that respect, amendment 1 helps to better reflect what actually happens and should continue to happen. Turning out amendments 28, 29, 30 and 40 from Chick Brody and amendment 1 from Liz Smith. The role of senior lay member of the governing body is central to the ambitions of the bill to ensure that every voice in the higher education community is heard and to enable an approach to governance based on greater transparency, accountability and inclusivity that supports continuous improvement in the operation of our higher education institutions and which creates consistency across institutions to underpin governance arrangements. We have already heard from Mr Brody in respect of his amendments 27 and 31, those amendments combined with amendments 28, 29, 30 and 40, which he has just described, have a substantial impact on the role of the senior lay member, disempowering that central and powerful role. In addition, they also introduce the position of elected co-chair. Together, those amendments provide that the senior lay member would have a duty to preside at meetings of the governing body only when issues of policy affecting the institution are being considered and would have a deliberative and casting vote at such meetings again only when issues of policy affecting the institution are being considered. Issues of policy for which we have no definition so it is not clear what exactly is envisaged for the role of senior lay member in this new model. On all other matters, those duties would fall to the co-chair, that is to be elected in a manner to be determined by the governing body. So this enables the governing body to simply appoint the co-chair without opening out the electorate any wider than its own membership. Yes. I thank her for doing so. Is it not the case that the bill, as it stands just now, has very considerable confusion over the respective roles of the electorate and the co-chair, and hence the reason why we have a considerable problem about this particular group? No, we do not have a considerable problem because, as I replied to Ms Smith or other colleagues earlier, the difference in the role between the electorate and the senior lay member is laid out very clearly in the code of good governance, which is reflected in the approach that this Government has taken throughout this bill. The defining difference between the position of Ms Smith and this Government is that, with regard to the co-chair—I quote Mr Rowdy—that he believes that the co-chair should be one of their own from the governing body. That is an approach that I do not accept. I think that the senior lay member should be elected by staff students as well as the governing body. The senior lay member's responsibility for the leadership and effectiveness of the governing body and for ensuring that there is an appropriate balance of authority between the governing body and the principle of the institution becomes a joint responsibility shared with the co-chair. The combination of those provisions enables governing bodies, in many respects, to retain the status quo whereby the balance of power in the governing body of the institution sits with a member appointed by the governing body. The senior lay member, where it exists, would have limited powers and responsibilities. That fundamentally goes against the core aims of the bill. It diminishes the impact of the bill, undermines our ambition to achieve consistency and creates a two-tier system. For the reasons that I have described, I urge members to reject amendments 28, 29, 30 and 40. Moving on to amendment 1 from Ms Smith, having considered it carefully, I cannot support this amendment. Section A12C of the bill as amended sets out the functions of the senior lay member which are intended to reflect existing practice. The responsibility for the appropriate balance of authority between the governing body and the principle of the institution is a widely recognised key function of a chairing member of the governing body and is recognised in the Scottish Code of Good Governance and Higher Education Governance. I thank her for doing so. Is it not the case that the 18 higher education institutions have very different structures? The whole point about that is to allow them to have that diversity and to carry out what are very different roles because of the institution's statutes? As has been repeated a few times, the bill does indeed acknowledge the diversity of our institutions that should be valued, but we want to have a high level of consistency across the sector when it comes to governance and when it comes to good governance. Where Liz Smith and I fundamentally disagree is that she wishes to reduce the senior lay member, which in my view should be an elected position. She wishes to reduce that very powerful and influential role to a quasi-rector and wishes to downgrade the role of senior lay member and that is not in keeping with the bill or indeed the position of this Government. Amendment 1 seeks to remove the central function from the senior lay member, as I have indicated, and in doing so removes one of the clear distinctions between the role of senior lay member and that of the rector. Amendment 1 also qualifies the senior lay member's responsibility for the leadership and effectiveness of the governing body by making it subject to functions of the senior lay member provided any enactment or in accordance with the governing instruments of the institution. That means that the governing body would be able to make its own rules above the functions of the senior lay member, even allowing it to remove from the senior lay member the responsibility for the leadership and effectiveness of the governing body. As I have said, that responsibility is widely recognised as a key function of the senior lay member and is recognised in the code as the main role of the chair of a governing body. That provision could allow the governing body to potentially render the role of the senior lay member meaningless. As the amendments put forward by Mr Brody, amendment 1 limits the powers and responsibilities of the senior lay member and enables the functions of that powerful role to be passed on to a member of the governing body who is appointed by the governing body. It undermines the aim of creating a consistent approach within institutions to governance and enables the status quo to be retained. I therefore cannot support amendment 1 and I urge members to reject amendment 1 as well as amendments 28, 29, 30 and 40. If Mr Brody and Ms Smith press their amendments, I would ask members to reject them. Thank you. Thank you very much. I now call on Chuck Brody to wind up and press a withdrawal of his amendments. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I had several words thrown around, like diversity, consistency, accountability, flexibility and the proposals in my amendments are indeed to simplify the rationale. I think that it is quite wrong and I never did suggest that the senior lay member or rector or whatever they are called, elected by the staff and the students, should be disenfranchised or disempowered simply because they go from co-chairing to sitting on the body of the court. I said that they would be co-chairing and be responsible for all policy matters, which in fact provides a bulwark against any idea that they might be removed at the whim of the governing body, which we would recognise within the constitution the role of that particular person. The co-chair elected by the body, as I said, would handle day-to-day matters of finance, admin and operation. Therefore, the quite clear division allows them to work together across the body corporate of the university. I think that either I did not explain myself clearly enough or we seem to be hell bent on delivering what is in the bill without looking at the consequences and the points of conflict that will arrive. I ask the question again who speaks for the students. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will therefore be a division. This will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote in amendment 28 is yes, 17. No, 94. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 29 in the name of Chick Brody, already debated with amendment 28. Mr Brody, to move or not? Move. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. The result of the vote in amendment 29 is yes, 19. No, 94. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 1 in the name of Liz Smith, already debated with amendment 28. Liz Smith, to move or not? Move. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. The result of the vote in amendment 1 is yes, 19. No, 93. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 30 in the name of Chick Brody, Mr Brody, to move or not? No. Thank you. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. The result of the vote in amendment 30 is yes, 19. No, 94. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 31 in the name of Chick Brody, Mr Brody, to move or not? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 31 is yes, 18. No, 92. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now move to group 3 and call amendment 32 in the name of Chick Brody, group 3 amendments 2, 33, 34, 35, 3, 4 and 11. Chick Brody, to move amendment 32 and speak to all the amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 32 in the other amendments in group 3 in my name. I believe, Presiding Officer, in securing a robust basis for the election and appointment and the ultimate support of the governing body in which the senior lay member, Rector or whatever there to be called, plays a pivotal part as a leader and co-chair, then the committee that will design the process and the criteria must be appointed and that each member of that committee should be appointed by it as a delegated authority of the governing body. It is also as proposed in my amendment 33 to ensure the availability of the elected senior lay member stroke rector. It is critical that, in response to the demands of the electorate, that availability is propagated and reflects the aspirations of those that elected him or her. We in this chamber would get short-shift if we said to electors that we cannot pursue that argument or reflect their input if we were ensconced in Moscow, for example. Amendment 34 suggests that such a committee should be limited in size and should include representatives that are wider franchised electorate, hence the proposal for only six members of that committee. Thank you. I move amendment 2 in my name. This is designed to place the responsibility for the details of the role of the nominations committee, where it should be, which is with the Scottish Code of Good Governance, which is due to be reviewed very shortly, as I mentioned earlier. I think that it is a pity that the Scottish Government could not have permitted that review to be concluded before it embarked on this aspect of the bill. Amendments 3 and 4 are designed to ensure that there is absolute clarity when it comes to the fact that staff and student members of the nominations committee should also be members of the governing body. I am happy to support Mr Brodie's amendments 32 and 33. I have to say that I am not comfortable with amendment 34 on the basis that we must respect, once again, the diversity of the sector for which the average size of nominations committee members is greater than six. I am happy to support the cabinet secretary's amendment 11. Thank you. I now call on Clare Adamson to speak to amendment 35 and other amendments in the group, please. I am pleased to be able to speak to amendment 35 in my name, especially on International Women's Day, a day in which we celebrate equality, diversity and fairness. That provision would require the committee tasked with recruiting candidates for the position of senior lay member to report publicly on that process. Specifically, the report would state the number of candidates who have applied and information about the protected characteristics of those candidates listed in section 1497 of the Quality Act 2010. Age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. The provision also makes clear that those status should only be included in the report should the applicant allow them to be. That is in line with good employment practice and ensures that all candidates have control over what information might be released about them. Moreover, the provision ensures that data protection law is to be explicitly applied so that there can be no doubt that individuals should be identified or have confidential information that can be matched to them shared publicly. Those are important safeguards for anyone putting themselves forward to be considered for a role of senior lay member. I note and welcome the support of NUS Scotland and the First Minister for this amendment. The First Minister has suggested that the report could be made public before elections are held. It could, of course, also be made after an election has been held, providing an audit of the purpose process and to show what works well and what might be done differently in the future. The amendment is deliberately silent on this to give governing bodies and their recruitment committees the maximum flexibility to determine what might best suit their circumstances in any given appointment process. The provisions in this amendment encapsulate a number of key principles and values underpinning the bill. Fundamentally, I believe that we should wish to encourage greater diversity in those who chair our higher education institutions. While significant progress has been made in appointing more women chairs, only four years ago there were no women chairing any of our institutions. Our universities should seek to mirror in their governance not just the demographics of society but the demographic of their communities. Requiring recruitment committees to report publicly on their success or otherwise of attracting a diverse pool of candidates, how many reach the interview stage and then the election itself will focus minds and ensure that they do their very best to be seen to be inclusive in their approach to the whole process. That level of transparency and accountability is absolutely appropriate. Finally, the requirement to report publicly will apply to all institutions, ensuring consistency across the sector. If it also indirectly encourages those serving on recruitment processes to be mindful of the importance of attracting as wide and as diverse a pool of candidates to the role of senior lay members so that universities have vibrant dynamic elections for those vital positions, there can then be a very good thing. Amendment 32, 33 and 34, in the name of Chick Brody, would make small but potentially impactful changes to section A3 of the bill, which requires the governing body of a higher education institution to delegate certain duties to a committee, including developing the relevant criteria in respect of the position of senior lay member. In attempting to limit the membership of the committee tasked with selecting candidates for an election for the senior lay member to six, amendment 34 impinges on the ability of an HEI to select the appropriate number of members to meet its interests for selection of a senior lay member. It is unnecessarily an unhelpfully constrained institution and therefore I cannot support it. Amendment 32 makes it explicit on the face of the bill that the committee itself must be appointed by the governing body. Nothing in the bill actually prohibits governing bodies from appointing the members of the committee and that function is currently implied, so this amendment is simply not required. With reference to Mr Brody's amendment 33, the criteria listed in A3 were not intended to be exhaustive. Principles in the Scottish Code of Good HE Governance already cover availability of the chair and will continue to do so. Also, HEIs could include a requirement in relation to availability as part of the relevant criteria in respect of the position of senior lay members should they wish to do so. However, the Scottish Government would not object to availability being referred to on the face of the bill as part of the relevant criteria and is content to support amendment 33. I therefore ask Mr Brody not to move his amendments 32 or 34 and for members to reject them if he does. Turning now to amendment 35 in the name of Clare Adamson, this amendment provides for a publicly available statistical report prepared by the committee and relevant to the various stages of the appointment process that focuses on equalities information where consent has been received from the applicant to disclose that information. I agree with Clare Adamson's arguments that, in the interests of transparency and accountability, HEIs should be disclosing any protected characteristics of applicants as long as they have the consent of the individual applicants to do so. I therefore support amendment 35 and encourage members to do so. I understand that there have been differing interpretations as to when the report should be published that is prior to an election or after the entire appointment process has ended. I think that this should be a matter for each HEI to decide that this is a sort of issue that the new mandatory student staff and union members on all governing bodies can influence. Turning to amendments 2, 3 and 4 in the name of Liz Smith, I do not believe that those amendments are necessary. Section A3 already obliges the HEI 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. Amendment 2 introduces a requirement for an HEI to have regard to the code in its delegation to a committee of the responsibility for ensuring the fairness and efficiency of the process for fulfilling the position of senior lay member. That is unnecessary, as HEIs, as part of the terms and conditions of funding already must comply with the code. Amendment 3 and 4 requires staff and student members of the committee to be drawn from the governing body membership. They are unnecessary, as HEIs already have the power to select members of the committee from the members of the governing body, and they do not need to be compelled to do so. The amendments would narrow the autonomy of institutions and restrict its ability to carry out functions. I am sure that Liz Smith might agree that that would be unhelpful. Therefore, I ask Liz Smith not to move her amendments and members to reject them if she does. Turning finally to amendment 11 in my name, this is a minor technical amendment to ensure consistency between the wording in section A3 and the wording in the rest of the bill, if amendment 24 is accepted. I urge members to support amendments 11, 33 and 35 in respect of amendments 2, 3, 4, 32 and 34. I ask members for the reasons that I have stated to reject those amendments. I recognise that for our universities to be genuinely world-class, they must be transparent, representative and accountable in the way in which they are governed. How this has achieved maybe the subject of some debate, but it is ultimately objective that we all share. In that respect, I am happy to support amendment 35 in clear Adamson's name. To me, it seems to accord with the intentions behind inequality duty and benefits that come with greater transparency. Similarly, I am supportive of Liz Smith's amendments 2, 3 and 4. I still have misgivings about the Government's determination to use legislation to achieve its objectives. Amendment 2 quite sensibly leaves the responsibility for defining the role of nominations committees with the code of good governance. Meanwhile, amendments 3 and 4 reasonably require that staff and student members of that committee should also be members of the governing body. That, to me, achieves the aim of ensuring appropriate staff and student representation in the process while ensuring the place of the governing body is respected. Finally, while supportive of the other amendments in the group, there is one exception. I am not clear what is to be gained by restricting the membership of nominations committees to six members and of concerns that such a requirement again goes against the grain of the diversity that there is within the sector. On the basis of what the cabinet secretary has just said, and in the hope of the security of a robust system for election and appointment, I will not be moving amendments 32 or 34 in group 3. Thank you. Mr Brody seeks to withdraw amendment 32. Does any member object? There are no member objects. We will move on to the next amendment and call amendment 2 in the name of Liz Smith. We are ready to debate it with amendment 32. Will Ms Smith move or not move? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. This will be a 60-second division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 2 is, yes, 21, no, 91. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 33 in the name of Chick Brody. Are we ready to debate with amendment 32? Mr Brody, to move or not move? Moved. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Many thanks. Now call amendment 34 in the name of Chick Brody. Are we ready to debate with amendment 32? Mr Brody, to move or not? Not moved. Many thanks. Which takes us to amendment 35 in the name of Claire Adamson. Ms Adamson, to move or not? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Many thanks. Now call amendment 3 in the name of Liz Smith. Ms Smith, to move or not? Moved. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 3 is yes. 17, no, 95. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Now call amendment 4 in the name of Liz Smith. Are we ready to debate with amendment 32? Liz Smith, to move or not? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will therefore be an amendment. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 4 is yes. 17, no, 95. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 11 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Are we ready to debate with amendment 32? Cabinet secretary, to move formally please. Moved. Thank you. So the question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Many thanks. We now move to group 4. I call amendment 36 in the name of Gordon MacDonald, group with amendments 12, 37, 13, 38, 14 and 15. I would point out that if amendment 36 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 12 and 17. I also point out that if amendment 12 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 37 because of a preemption. Furthermore, I point out that if amendment 13 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 38, 14 and 15 because of preemptions. Gordon MacDonald, to move amendment 36 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As an MSP representing two universities, Heret, Watt and Napier, and with a significant number of students living in my constituency, I am pleased to be able to move amendment 36. This amendment concerns the advertising of a vacancy for the position of senior lay member of a governing body of a higher education institution. It removes the requirements currently in the bill at section A41A and B that the vacancy must be advertised on the institution's website and in a print or online version of at least one national newspaper in Scotland and inserts a new, less detailed and prescriptive requirement. It requires that the vacancy is simply advertised widely in a manner which will bring the vacancy to the attention of a broad range of people. I consider this amendment and it ensures that the advertisement for this vacancy is circulated widely and is in a manner suitable for bringing it to the attention of a broad range of people, while also enabling institutions to advertise the vacancy as they see fit within those parameters. While the aim is to create a consistent approach to governance with this bill, it is also important to create room for manoeuvre. That is in keeping with our higher education institutions being autonomous and having differing local and academic circumstances. They may wish to consider it in taking forward their duty to advertise. I move amendment 36. I referred earlier to the overly prescriptive and dramatic approach that the Government has taken in relation to aspects of the bill. Nowhere has that been more in evidence than with regard to the proposed arrangements for advertising and interviewing applicants for the position of senior lay member of the governing body. Ministers have come forward with a system, micromanaged to the nth degree. The level of detail is wholly disproportionate and betrays an unjustified lack of trust or confidence in our universities. Amendments 12 and 13 in my name remove most of this wholly unnecessary interference and prescription. Instead, the advertisement and application process would be required to comply with good governance principles of transparency and inclusiveness. The funding council will have a role in determining the good governance, satisfying the desire of ministers for some level of external oversight. The alternative is that ministers are left to determine what is an operational matter for universities, and that is, I think, unhealthy. Finally, with regard to the other amendments in the grouping, I welcome the Cabinet Secretary's changes in 14 and 15, which move us in the right direction. Similarly, Gordon MacDonald and Chick Brody seem to be seeking to achieve much the same outcome to the one that I am pursuing, namely an inclusive but not overly prescriptive process. However, my preference, particularly given that Gordon MacDonald's amendment pre-empts my own, is for Parliament to adopt the clearer approach in amendments 12 and 13. Those are the advantage of being linked to good governance over which the funding council would have sight. That, I believe, will deliver the transparency and inclusiveness that we are looking to achieve. I now call on Chick Brody to speak to amendment 37 on other amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My amendment 37 was designed to secure and underpin the wider franchise of staff and students particularly, but I am happy to support the Mr MacDonald's amendment 36 and will not press mine. With regard to amendment 38, I confess that I do not know why an application form for a very senior position would be necessary, particularly given that the bill has already delegated to an appointed committee the relevant criteria to include the skills and knowledge and, in my view, also the availability to be necessary or desirable. I would have thought that any serious applicant for a very senior position in the education hierarchy would simply address those in a letter. I would then expect a very full due diligence to be done on such a serious application for a very senior position before interviews even took part. Indeed, Mr MacDonald's amendment deserves some serious consideration. I now call on the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 14 and other amendments in the group, please. I am grateful to Gordon MacDonald for outlining the purpose of amendment 36. I have continued to listen to stakeholders and given full consideration to this matter. I am persuaded that the requirement to advertise could be more general so long as the vacancies advertise widely and reaches a broad range of people. I am therefore content to support Gordon MacDonald's amendment 36, but consider that, apart from my amendments 14 and 15, the other amendments proposed to section A4 would impact significantly and negatively on the aim of the provision in seeking to improve the accessibility of the role of seniorly member to a potentially wider pool of candidates and ensure a more consistently transparent and fair recruitment process across the sector for the appointment of seniorly members. I do not believe that amendments 12 and 13 in the name of Liam McArthur are necessary. Amendment 12 would introduce a requirement for higher education institutions to have regard to the code of good HE governance, which, of course, they are already required to do as a condition of their funding. The limiting of the requirement to advertise to require advertisement within and outside the institution is too permissive and could potentially limit the reach of the requirement to advertise. It should also be noted that the code can currently be revised without approval of the Scottish Parliament. Any reference to it in the bill would allow the application of the bill to develop in ways that the Parliament has not sanctioned and will not be able to scrutinise, for example, through secondary legislation. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. I hear the concerns that she is expressing about the potential approach that universities will take, but in light of the legislation that we are passing here, does she not think that it is inconceivable that universities, not least because of the pressure that they would come under from staff and student representatives, would be extending the net as wide as they possibly could in searching for potential applicants? Given the remarks made by Ms Smith earlier, the purpose of legislation stage 3 is to focus on the workability. As I have outlined earlier in my contribution, I just feel and fear that the amendments that are proposed by Mr MacArthur are just too permissive and would not reach the broader requirements of a fair process that aims to widen the reach and scope of the potential candidates that we are trying to reach. I am surprised that, given that Mr MacArthur tends to be very focused and interested in the role of Parliament and the scrutiny of Parliament, his proposals are connected with the Code of Good Governance, as is practice, but he wants to put reference to the code into legislation when Parliament can actually have a role to scrutinise at a future date. The provisions on advertisement and applications in section A4 of the bill, as inserted at stage 2, are to ensure a clear and level playing field for all applicants. For example, a single application for means that all applicants are obliged to present evidence of their suitability in the same way. I do not share the view of some members that those are overly prescriptive provisions. There is no requirement on the level of detail that the advert must contain when explaining the matters in sections A4 to C. Decisions on that rightly remain with the HEI. The matters that the bill requires an advert to explain basic parameters to ensure transparency and fairness in the recruitment process. The principles underpinning the bill are to enhance inclusion, participation, transparency and consistency in governance arrangements in our HEIs. Unfortunately, as I have already indicated, none of Mr MacArthur's amendments would meet those principles. For that reason, with respect, I ask Mr MacArthur not to press his amendments and members to reject them if he does. Amendments 37 and 38, in the name of Chick Brody, introduce a requirement for institutions to advertise through media outlets, which are particularly relevant to students and staff, and remove the requirement for the advert to include details on how the application form in relation to the position can be obtained. I believe that it is important that applicants know that they must apply in a specific way so that all applicants are obliged to present evidence of their suitability in the same way. That will ensure a level playing field. I also believe that, if the vacancy is advertised widely and brought to the attention of a broader range of people, part of the intention of Chick Brody's amendment 37 can be more appropriately met through Gordon MacDonald's amendment 36. Amendments 14 and 15, in my name, are minor technical amendments to section A4, subsection 2, C3 and 4. Those provisions oblige HEIs and any advertisement to explain what reimbursement or remuneration is offered to cover expenses linked to attending an interview, campaigning in an election or carrying out the functions of a seniorly member position. Advertising the availability of such payment, I believe, will encourage a broader pool of candidates to apply for the position of seniorly member at Scottish HEIs. This can only be good for the diversity and range of skills and knowledge in HEI Government bodies. The purpose of those minor amendments is to provide clarity. That is the availability of reimbursement or remuneration that should be set out in the advertisement, rather than a monetary value. I move amendments 14 and 15 and ask that members support those, as well as amendment 36, in Gordon MacDonald's name. I would ask members to reject other amendments in the group if they are pressed. I am willing to accept amendment 36 in the name of Gordon MacDonald and the count of the fact that it removes some of the overly prescriptive nature of the advertisement procedure and the fact that the Scottish Government is willing to support that tells the story that it was originally far too over prescriptive, most especially that that is true to the principle of ensuring that there is as wide a pool of applicants as possible without any micro-management. Liam McArthur's amendments 12 and 13 pursue that principle to a much greater degree, and I welcome that because I ensure that the application process is completely compliant with the code of good governance when it comes to transparency and inclusivity. They allow a very important role for the Scottish funding council, which is, after all, the responsible broker between the Scottish Government and each institution. I was happy to support Mr Brodie's amendment 38, even if I believe that amendments 12, 13 and 36 will probably work a bit better. I cannot support amendment 37, which I think creates some complications. I will support the amendments in the name of the cabinet secretary 14 and 15, which I think seek to reduce the ridiculous over-specification of some aspects of the advertisement process. Thank you. I was the member on the committee who raised concerns about telling our world-class universities that they had to advertise on the internet and our world-class universities how to tell people where to get an application form. I thought that it was quite important and appropriate today that I welcomed Gordon MacDonald and indeed Liam McArthur's amendments, because I think that it does reduce the prescriptive content that I am amazed to see on the face of a bill. Given that telling our universities how to advertise was not in the committee report, it was not mentioned by any member of this Parliament at stage 1, and it was never raised at any time within the stage 2 debate that it was an issue, can I just ask the cabinet secretary who did the government consult prior to including those measures on the face of a bill at stage 2 and who did they consult following stage 2 in order to bring forward the amendments today that are very welcome in watering down those specifications? That is a listening government, and we listen to all members and all stakeholders. As I set out in my amendment 36, it seeks to enable a compromise, a less exacting requirement, that still meets the aims of the bill to ensure that the position of senior lay member is advertised in a manner that enables it to reach a broad range of people. We heard from Liam McArthur and Chick Brodie in respect to their amendments 12 and 37 respectively, which offer their alternative approaches to these provisions. Liam McArthur is requiring institutions to advertise a vacancy in a manner that he fit having regard to the Scottish code of good governance, and Chick Brodie is requiring institutions to advertise immediate outlets, which are particularly relevant to students and staff, and I welcome Chick Brodie's intention not to press amendment 37. I ask that Liam McArthur does not press amendment 12 and that, if pressed, I ask members to reject and to support my amendment 36, and I press my amendment. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. I now call amendment 13, in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated amendment 36. Remind members that if amendment 13 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 38, 14 and 15, because of preemption. Liam McArthur, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. This will be a 60-second division. The result of the vote on amendment 13 is, yes, 23, no 89. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 38, in the name of Chick Brodie, already debated with amendment 36. Minister Brodie, to move or not move. I now call amendment 14, in the name of the cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. I now call amendment 15, in the name of the cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. We now move to group 5. I call amendment 16, in the name of Liam McArthur, group with amendment 17. Mr McArthur, to move amendment 16, and to speak to both amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As things stand, this bill would allow little or no discretion to nominations committees to determine who should or should not be invited to an interview for the position of chair. Little or no discretion either over who is then allowed to go forward for election. While no one should be unreasonably excluded, a meaningful process of sifting candidates is not unreasonable. Indeed, many would argue that it is necessary and in the interests of universities and candidates themselves. That, presumably, is why Professor von Parnzinski appeared to favour such an approach. Amendment 16 and 17, which have been a pleasure in moving, depart from what currently appears to be essentially a tick-box exercise. Instead, it would allow nominations committees to assess how well each prospective candidate meets the requirements of the demanding role of chair. We have already taken steps to ensure that the nominations committee itself is representative in acts in a transparent manner. We can therefore feel reasonably confident that, in exercising discretion, the committees will do so in a way that reflects the widest possible interests of student staff and the university as a whole. The sift process would allow the committee to consider all relevant information contained in an application before drawing up a short list for interview. Those invited to interview would then be assessed as to their suitability to hold the position of chair, allowing members of the nominations committee an opportunity to determine whether or not a given candidate was likely to be committed to the strategic interests of the university. The concern at present is that the bill leaves nomination committees with no ability to respond appropriately to an application from a single-issue candidate. However important such an issue might be, and however legitimate it may be to see that issue debated, it is questionable whether having a chair elected on the basis of a single issue will give them the necessary mandate or legitimacy in overseeing the work of the governing body as a whole. That would run the risk of diminishing the governing body and the university itself. On that basis, I ask Parliament to support these important amendments and to move amendment 16, in my name. Liam McArthur is absolutely right to bring forward these amendments so that everything possible is done to ensure that there is absolutely no weakening in the quality and the professionalism of the chair and to ensure that it minimises the risk of single-issue candidates who have specific agendas, which may or may not be contrary to the best strategic interests of the institution. Therefore, the Conservatives give their whole-hearted support to amendments 16 and 17. I am grateful to Mr McArthur for outlining the purpose of amendments 16 and 17. Both amendments seek to give the committee that selects candidates to stand for election, increase vetting powers beyond being satisfied that an applicant meets the criteria and the committee has itself set. The point of the democratic process provided for in this bill is that beyond meeting those criteria, any further qualitative judgment on the candidates should properly be for the electorate. The fact that the committee devises those criteria according to what it considers necessary or desirable to exercise the functions of the senior lay member and command the trust and respect of staff and students, the academic board and the governing body means that the committee sets the competence bar for candidates and already has a certain amount of discretion in assessing whether or not applicants cross that bar. Section A5 of the bill already requires the assessing committee to be satisfied that the candidate meets the relevant criteria for the position of senior lay member. All candidates should be assessed fairly against the same criteria and not as Mr McArthur suggests in amendments 16, together with other relevant information contained within their application. Nothing else should be relevant other than whether the candidate appears in their application to meet the criteria for the position and further satisfies the committee at interview that they do so. Any further qualitative judgment should rightly be for the electorate of student staff and members of the governing body. In short, the bill provides for a recruitment process that stands up against modern standards for a fair and transparent recruitment exercise. It ensures that credible and competent candidates are presented to the electorate and that it is the electorate that can make the final determination as to who the strongest of those candidates is. Mr McArthur's amendments 16 and 17 are unnecessary because of the role the committee already has in determining the relevant criteria and assessing candidates against those criteria and, most worryingly, undesirable. They seek to undermine the democratisation process around the appointment of a senior lay member, which is at the heart of the bill. Quite simply, the committee should not be able to arbitrarily vet who stands in the election if a candidate can otherwise satisfy the committee that it meets the criteria that the committee has itself set. Therefore, I strongly urge members to reject amendments 16 and 17, moved by Liam McArthur. I thank the cabinet secretary for his contributions. I listened with interest particularly to what Angela Constance says. She is right in that the nominations committee can set the competence for candidates. It is absolutely right that candidates should be judged fairly, but I do not think necessarily that providing the nominations committee with an opportunity to sift those applications more thoroughly than is present in the case in the bill would undermine that. Indeed, the undermining of the democratisation process could arguably be said to have already happened through what we have put in place in relation to rectors and senior lay members. Therefore, I think that the modest provisions that are being made in 16 and 17 provide an additional safeguard without undermining the democratisation process on the way, and I would move amendment 16 in my name. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. This will be a second division. Please vote now. Result of the vote, and amendment 16 is, yes, 17, no, 95. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Amendment 17, in the name of Liam McArthur, is already debated with amendment 16. Mr McArthur, to move or not? Not moved. We now move to group 6. Amendment 18, in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendment 5, 6, 7, 8, 39 and 19. I draw members' attention to the note on the groupings. Amendments 18 and 5 are direct alternatives. That means that I can call both amendments. If amendment 18 is agreed to, the Parliament can then still decide whether to agree to amendment 5. If it did so, amendment 5 would replace amendment 18. I also point out that, if amendment 39 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 19 because of pre-enition. I hope that that is clear. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 18 and speak to all amendment in the groups. Sign of the amendment 18, in my name, is a minor but important finessing of subsection 1 of section A6 of the bill, which compels an HEI to arrange an election for the position of senior lay member. The amendment makes it explicit in statute that it is for the governing body of the HEI to arrange the election for the position of senior lay member. Clearly, this is what section A6, subsection 1 in 10s, implies, but it is important to make this absolutely clear. I move amendment 18 and ask members to support it. I turn now to amendments 5, 6 and 7 lodged by Liz Smith. Those would have a negative impact on the process for the appointment of the senior lay member. Amendment 5 is unnecessary and my amendment 18 makes fuller provision in this area by also making it clear that it is the duty of the governing body to arrange an election. Section A6 of the bill provides that an institution is required to organise 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. I am confident that provisions elsewhere in the bill will result in a wide range of suitable candidates, not only presenting themselves but also making it through to the election stage. However, should for any reason this not be achieved, sections A6, 1 and A6, 2A and B make provision to ensure that an election for the position of senior lay member will not be held with only one candidate standing. In this way, the bill ensures a real and meaningful election in keeping with the bill's overall aim to establish an open, transparent and more democratic appointment process across all HCIs for the role of senior lay member. Amendment 6 and 7 from Liz Smith remove this, enabling elections involving one candidate with no meaningful vote for staff, student or the members of the governing body to be held. For this reason, I cannot support them. The electorate must be presented with a choice or the election could become a coronation of a pre-selected candidate. Therefore, urge members to protect the democratic ideals of the bill and reject amendments 5, 6 and 7 from Liz Smith. Turning to amendment 8, lodged by Liz Smith, amendment 8 is unhelpful as it seeks to limit and effectively water down the requirement on institutions to meet campaign expenses. Unlike section A6, Liz Smith's provision would not require an HCI to reimburse reasonable campaign expenses, rather it would provide for the status quo, which is that HCIs can provide campaign expenses if they wish. There is a risk that should an institution refuse to meet campaign expenses, that would put those who can afford to run an election campaign off from standing. I am absolutely clear in my attention with this bill to achieve a broader pool of potential senior lay member candidates that income in Wales should not be a pre-determinant of that process. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 8 and would ask members to reject it. With regard to Mr Brody's amendment 39, I know that Mr Brody highlighted his view at stage 2 that if proportional representation was suitable for elections to this Parliament, similarly should operate in elections for the senior lay member of the governing body of a higher education institution. I have some sympathy with his view but cannot support this amendment. Rectorial elections relevant to the appointment of one person rather than a representative body are not conducted in that way. I do not support the introduction of a single-transferable vote approach for senior lay member elections. Essentially, a simple majority system is more proportionate to a focused campus election of this sort, which may have a relatively small number of candidates. Obliging HCIs to conduct elections via a single-transferable vote system without having the option to consider any other form of proportional representation would impose a greater administrative and financial cost on our institutions. Further, I understand that NUS Scotland, although sympathetic, does not support this amendment. Perhaps, if the member had been keen to explore the matter at stage 2, it may have allowed some time to examine the case with stakeholders. However, in the current context, I would ask the member not to press that amendment. If he does, I would ask that members do not support amendment 39. Amendment 19 from Liam McArthur seeks to remove what I consider to be the fundamental right of each student, staff member and governing body member to cast a vote of equal weight in the election of the senior lay member and to introduce a process that would enable institutions to make rules to establish an electoral college for voting in that election. Quite simply, the introduction of an electoral college would cut across the core intention to democratise the process for electing senior lay members to chair university governing bodies. It has been central to the narrative of this bill that I see a real benefit in enabling every voice on campus to be heard. Section A7 of the bill, as inserted at stage 2, enables a system in which each vote cast in the election carries equal weight. The election is won by the candidate who secures a simple majority of the total number of votes cast. An electoral college would enable institutions to apply whatever weight they so choose to each of the three constituencies of staff, students and the members of the governing body. They could give the members of the governing body 80 per cent weighting staff 10 per cent and students 10 per cent. It would be open to each institution to establish that for themselves. A key policy aim of this bill, as I have already said, is to enable every voice on campus to be heard. That is not achieved by an electoral college that would result in some voices on campus being more equal than others. I want all voices to be equal and, in particular, I want to make sure that voices of staff and students can be heard in the election process. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 19 and ask that members reject it. I move amendment 18. I now call on Liz Smith to speak to amendment 5 and other amendments to the group, please. I move amendment 5 in my name, which I believe is preferable alternative to amendment 18. From a more of a semantic perspective, I do not disagree with the principle of what the cabinet secretary is trying to do, but amendment 5 expresses that better. Amendment 6 is designed to enable an election to occur in any circumstance when there is. Actually, only one candidate, which I may say is highly possible. It is maybe not desirable, but it is a possibility, and so we have to take very seriously. Amendment 7 is designed to counter the problem left by the bill, which would mean that any university could be left without a chair for a significant length of time, and therefore encounter the very unwelcome instability that would follow. It is extremely important for the sake of our institutions that we avoid that situation. Amendment 8 is intended to replace the existing provisions with a section requiring an election to be held to select which of the candidates for election identified the previous section should be chosen as a seniorly member. Those amendments remove the requirement for multiple candidates before an appointment can be made. They also make clear that the governing body is responsible for the running of the election. I add that we are happy to support amendment 19, but not amendment 39. I was not sure if I misheard the cabinet secretary when she said that I should have consulted more after stage 2. I am afraid that I have consulted quite widely. I am not sure whether that has been reflected elsewhere. My consultation has been weighed down by experience. On the basis rightly that the institution seeks the election of a seniorly member, and it should seek that election, if, as is outlined in section A75, it says, in the event of a tie between two or more candidates for the highest number of votes cast, the election is won by whichever of them is deemed to be the winner, there could be nothing, nothing worse than an election like this consisting of three members. Let's say with a franchise of 1,000 electors that the winner gets 400 votes, the other two get 300 votes each, in total 600 votes, and so we send a seniorly member to the governing body with less than 50 per cent support of the electorate which he or she sought to get support from. That would hardly give the elected member a such and is proposed in the bill a strong voice in the governing body. I suggest that my amendment should be accepted. Thank you. Let me start by confirming my support for the other amendments in this group except for 39, but that is solely due to the preemption. My own amendment 19 is perhaps a little more complex, but it is aimed at ensuring greater fairness in the way in which chairs are elective. Whatever the system used for electing seniorly members, as STV or first pass the post, numbers still matter. In that respect, it seems inevitable that the view of students will be better reflected than those of staff. When one considers that most students will leave the university once their course is complete, unlike staff whose career at a university may last significantly longer, that seems anomalous. My amendment 19 would seek to balance the vote of students, staff and the governing body in any contest by introducing an electoral college arrangement. The cabinet secretary says that she wants to see everyone's voice heard on campus, but surely she can see that some voices are going to be heard more loudly than others as a result. How the college system would work in practice could quite reasonably be left to individual institutions to determine, again reflecting the diversity that is within the sector. Possibly slightly more complex to operate, the benefit of such an approach is the mandate that it would give the seniorly member. She or he would very legitimately argue that their success represents a fair reflection of the views of all stakeholders within the university. A little like Chick Brody, I have to say the accusations from the cabinet secretary about a lack of consultation, given what we saw at stage 3 in terms of the provisions relating to elected chairs and rectors is somewhat staggering. On that basis, I therefore ask Parliament to support my amendment 19. I now ask the cabinet secretary to wind up, please. I have listened to the explanations given by Liz Smith, Chick Brody and Liam McArthur for their amendments. I still remain convinced that they are unnecessary or undesirable. Amendment 5 is unnecessary as my amendment 18 makes fuller provision in this area by also making it clear that it is the duty of the governing body to arrange an election. Amendment 6 and 7 from Liz Smith enable elections involving one candidate with no meaningful vote for staff, students or the members of the governing body. The electorate must be presented with a choice, not an installation, and I therefore urge members to protect the democratic ideals of the bill and reject amendments 5, 6 and 7 from Liz Smith. Similarly, amendment 8, also lodged by Liz Smith, is undesirable as it seeks to dilute a power and responsibility that I think is important in terms of enabling a broader and more diverse pool of potential seniorly member candidates. Liz Smith, I thank her for doing so. Would she list the members and stakeholders with whom she consulted over this section of the bill? Cabinet secretary, let me put in perhaps very undiplomatic way. I have consulted on this bill until I am blue in the face, and my officials have been involved in extensive discussions with a range of stakeholders and an extensive effort from myself. Indeed, the Government was made into co-design efforts to co-design propositions between stage 1 and stage 2, irrespective of what people's views are of the bill. I reject and refute utterly that there has been a lack of meaningful dialogue over the bill, because it is quite simply not true. Falling on from my earlier point before Liz Smith's interjection, it is important to return matters to the current position and what she is proposing would be a retrograde step. I will not be supporting amendment 8 and would ask members to reject it. I have listened to everything that Mr Brody has said about amendment 39. However, in the case of the election of a seniorly member across 18 HAIs, I think that on balance, a simple majority system is more suitable. Therefore, although I am sympathetic in general terms, I would ask that members do not support amendment 39. Amendment 19 from Liam McArthur could deny students and staff the right to cast a vote of equal weight in the election of the seniorly member. That is just quite simply not acceptable. Mr McArthur and his remarks seem to touch on the notion that students are transient, because they may only study for three or four years. However, I contend that what other group has such a major interest in the good governance and the well-running of their institution than students is imperative, whether they are a member of staff, a student or indeed a member of the Government body, that your vote has equal weight to everyone else. The bill is about inclusivity. I am just finishing and achieving clear parity of esteem for the entire campus community. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 19 and ask that members reject it. Thank you. The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 5, in the name of Liz Smith, who is already debated with amendment 18, and I ask Liz Smith to move or not move. In that case, the question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Palmont is not agreed. There will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 5 is yes, 19, no, 93. There were no abstentions, amendments therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 6, in the name of Liz Smith, who is already debated with amendment 18, and I ask Liz Smith to move or not to move. Question 9. Is it amendment 6 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? Palmont is not agreed. There will be a 30-second division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 6 is yes, 18, no, 94. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 7, in the name of Liz Smith, who is already debated with amendment 18, and I ask Liz Smith to move or not to move. The question then is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Palmont is not agreed. There will be a 30-second division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 7 is yes, 18, no, 93. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 8, in the name of Liz Smith, who is already debated with amendment 18, and I ask Liz Smith to move or not to move. I now call amendment 39, in the name of Chick Brody, who is already debated with amendment 18, and I remind members that, if amendment 39 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 19, as there is a preemption. I ask Chick Brody to move or not to move. The question then is, that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Palmont is not agreed. There will be a division. 30 seconds. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 39 is yes, 5, no, 107. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 19, in the name of Liam McArthur, who is already debated with amendment 18, and I ask Liam McArthur to move or not to move. In which case the question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Palmont is not agreed. There will be a division. This is a 30-second division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 19 is yes, 22, no, 87. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. That then brings us to group number 7, senior lay member remuneration, and I call amendment 20, in the name of the cabinet secretary, which is grouped with amendments 21 and 9. I ask the cabinet secretary to move amendment 20 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. Amendment 20 is a minor amendment to subsection 1 of section A9 of the bill, which ensures that a senior lay member of the governing body can request and will be paid reasonable remuneration and allowances from the HCI commensurate with the work done in carrying out functions of that office. It has been suggested that, as HCIs must pay reasonable remuneration in response to requests from the senior lay member, that provision could be misinterpreted as allowing senior lay member to dictate what is reasonable in the request. While I do not agree with that interpretation, I have listened to stakeholders and brought forward this minor amendment, which makes it absolutely clear that it is for the governing body of an HCI to decide what is reasonable remuneration and allowances for the work carried out by a senior lay member. I turn now to amendment 21. Again, this is a minor technical amendment to subsection 1 of section A9, which is consequential on amendment 20 and simply adds clarity. Following the addition of texts by amendment 20, that reasonable remuneration and allowances are to be paid if commensurate with the work done by the person in their capacity as a senior lay member. Amendment 9 is substantially the same amendment lodged by Liz Smith at stage 2. I did not consider it to be necessary then and still not necessary now. This amendment simply provides for a power that already exists. HCIs can currently provide remuneration if they wish. Compliance with the code of good HCI governance is also currently expected and I see no reason why that would not continue. As I have already said, section A9 ensures 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 functions of that office. That is not akin to a salary or unlimited payment, but it is right for a senior lay member upon request to be paid reasonable remuneration and allowances for the work that they have undertaken. It is also a duty of HCIs to make such payments where reasonable. In recognition of the important work done by the senior lay member, I do not think that many HCIs would object to this. I am clear that this will encourage a broader pool of candidates to apply for the position of senior lay member at Scottish HCIs, which can only be good for the diversity and range of skills and knowledge in the HCI governing bodies. Furthermore, in removing subsections 2 and 3 of section A9, amendment 9 removes the safeguard in the bill for the senior lay member to be independent rather than a student or member of university staff and removes the provision that ensures that HCIs remain able to control the terms and conditions of the senior lay member position. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 9, which merely describes discretion that HCIs already have, and I would ask members to reject amendment 9, but to support my amendments 20 and 21, which bring clarity to the existing provision. I move amendment 20 in my name. I invite Liz Smith to speak to amendment 9 and the other amendments in the group. The Conservatives will support amendments 20 and 21 on the grounds that they place responsibility for remuneration with the governing body, but I move amendment 9, which requires decisions about the remuneration of chairs to be made in accordance with current and evolving best practice in the code of good governance, something that the University of Scotland is rightly concerned about. We have seen some serious misunderstandings in the early stages of the bill about exactly what it is that chairs do. Indeed, the myth pertain that they only had to turn up for six meetings a year, claim some expenses and share the agenda when, in reality, the situation is completely different. Through compliance with the code, it allows for payment based on compensation for additional costs incurred, or income foregone by the senior lay member, or payment to the senior lay member's employer in compensation for their time. The amendments in the group offer an opportunity to address another problem created by the Government through its approach at stage 2, credit where it is due to the Cabinet Secretary appears to have recognised that our earlier proposals with regard to remuneration and allowances for elected chairs was not workable. Our amendments 20 and 21 are certainly an improvement in that regard. That said, I believe that the approach set out in Liz Smith's amendment 9 is preferable leaving those decisions to be determined by the governing body of each institution, but also in line with what the funding council considers to be the principles of good practice across the sector. NUS makes a fair point in arguing that, without some form of appropriate remuneration, we run the risk of making the post of elected chair the preserve of those who are financially secure. Nevertheless, the more discretion we can leave open for governing bodies of individual universities to decide the most appropriate arrangements for their institution and the individuals taking on that role the better. I am grateful to Mr MacArthur and Ms Smith for their support of amendments 20 and 21. I reiterate my objection to amendment 9 in the name of Ms Smith for all the reasons that I referred to earlier. I would ask members to reject amendment 9, but support amendments 20 and 21. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 21 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 20. I invite the cabinet secretary to move formally, please. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I now call amendment 9 in the name of Liz Smith already debated with amendment 20, and I ask Liz Smith to move or not to move. Thank you. The question then is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. This is a one-minute division. Please vote now. Yes, 13. No, 92. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. That brings us to group 8, resignation and removal of chairing member and ordinary members of governing body. I call amendment 22 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Group with amendments 23 and 24. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 22 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. It is important during any bill process for ministers to listen to the views of members, particularly when they are expressed by supporting amendments at stage 2. Sections 1A and 5A were introduced to the bill at stage 2 through amendments from Liz Smith and Chick Brody, respectively. Although I did not agree at stage 2 that those provisions were either necessary or desirable, committee members across the parliamentary groups clearly considered otherwise, and I and the Government have listened to that. Thus, I am not seeking to remove those provisions in their entirety from the bill, but through amendment 24 to introduce a new provision based on sections 1A and 5A that is workable in the context of the bill as amended at stage 2. Amendment 24 provides for a similar safeguard to that that was introduced through sections 1A and 5A without impinging on the powers that higher education institutions already have to manage the resignation or to remove any member of the governing body, including the chair. HEIs can already manage removal and resignation of governing body members and do that through their own governing instruments. Broadly, the process for the resignation and removal of the seniorly member and any other member of the governing body of an institution is one that should be left largely to universities as autonomous institutions to determine. Both sections 1A and 5A impinge on the autonomy of HEIs in an unacceptable way by prescribing detail such as notice periods and who notice must be given to. In my view, that is unnecessary and an unhelpful level of prescription. Amendment 24 seeks to introduce measures that introduce a more proportionate response. It simply provides a statutory safeguard that an elected seniorly member and any other member, including the newly elected and nominated members of the governing body, may resign and be removed, as can be done at present in relation to a chair or any other matter. I hope that that provides Mr Smith and Mr Brody with some assurances in terms of what was being pursued through sections 1A and 5A, that the intent of their amendments has been carried forward through amendment 24 and provides wider assurances to members and the HE sector that this bill seeks to introduce a like-touch approach to the detail of governance matters where that is warranted. As a consequence of the new provision inserted into the bill by amendment 24 sections 1A and 5A agreed at stage 2, I now superseded and as such I now seek to remove them from the bill through amendments 22 and 23 and I encourage members to support amendments 22, 23, 24 and I move amendment 22. Many thanks. No other member has requested to speak cabinet secretary. Do you wish to add anything further? In which case the question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 40 in the name of Chick Brody, already debated with amendment 28, and I invite Chick Brody to move or not to move. The member has moved. The question therefore is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. This is a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 40 is yes, 19, no, 91. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. That brings us to group 9, composition of governing body trade union involvement, and I call amendment 41 in the name of George Adam, which is group with amendments 42, 44, 45, 46 and 47. I ask George Adam to move amendment 41 and speak to all of the amendments in the group. I am pleased to be able to speak in move amendments 41, 42 and 44 through to 47. As with much else in life, these rather innocuous looking technical changes that I propose have the potential for a much larger impact. Such has been the storm in fury over practically every single aspect of the bill and its provisions during its earlier stages. I spent some time looking for potential loopholes and unintended consequences in its precision between stages 2 and 3. That might suggest that I need to get out more and you would probably be correct if you came to that conclusion. However, it was actually time well spent because I found some pertaining to the provision for trade union representation and its rights to nominate two members on to institutions governing bodies. I welcome those provisions. It is clear to me and indeed the cabinet secretary has also made clear that trade unions and their members have a role to play in the governance of our higher education institutions, particularly if we are to ensure that every voice on campus is indeed heard. Trade unions and their members have not just their own interests at heart, but also the wider wellbeing of the agencies, organisations and institutions that employ their members. However, my understanding of how section 4 is currently drafted is that, if an institution does not recognise a trade union, a trade union with members on a particular institution will not then be able to nominate members to sit on the governing body, that would be an unhelpful outcome. However, the bigger concern for me is that, at some point in the future, an institution might decide to dereconnise a trade union in order to prevent the nomination of members on to the governing body. In all honesty, I cannot imagine any of our existing institutions who would wish to thwart the objectives of the legislation in such a way. However, legislation must be future proofed where it can and prevent such unintended and extremely unhelpful consequences. Those amendments aim to shut that door before anyone else is minded to prize it open. They seek to make it clearer that, where an institution has staff who are trade union members, where that institution does not recognise that trade union, it cannot then argue that there is no trade union for the purpose of nominating trade union members on to the governing body under sections 4, 1, C and D. By removing the requirement for recognition, as amendment 45 does to section 4, 2, we will ensure that all trade union members can have representation on the governing body. Amendments 46 and 47 make clearer the definition of a trade union for the purposes of the legislation. Those amendments seek to give the fullest possible effect to the spirit, intent and purpose of the legislation, and I hope that all members can support them. I thank Mr Adam for explaining the intent of amendments 41, 42, 44 and 47. It has been clear that I am committed through this bill to enable in every voice on campus to be heard. As part of that, I have ensured that trade unions have entitled to nominate two members on to the governing bodies of all HEIs. The inclusion of union members on the governing bodies of each Scottish HEI was a core recommendation of the 2012 review. I have been clear throughout this bill process that this was a very important provision. Those amendments, as described by Mr Adam, represent a technical clarification and I welcome the closure of the potential loophole that he identifies. It is important to ensure that all unions are considered in terms of those positions and that all union members have a say in this regard. Mr Adam's amendment helps to achieve that aim. For that reason, I ask members to support amendments 41, 42, 44, 45, 46 and 47. I am not a paranoid man or a paranoid individual, but I believe that we have to make sure that there is not the temptation in the future for individuals to possibly abuse the situation, and that is the reason why I am pressing those amendments. In which case the question is, that amendment 41 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 42 in the name of George Adam, I am already debated with amendment 41, and I ask George Adam to move or not move. Thank you. The question is, that amendment 42 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. That brings us to group 10, remuneration committee, and I call amendment 43 in the name of Mark Griffin, group with amendment 49. I ask Mark Griffin to move amendment 43 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 43 in my name and speak in support of amendment 49 in the name of Alison Johnson. My amendment in this group seeks to ensure that the trade union and student association nominees sit on the university's remuneration committee. The principles of this bill, which we support, are trying to ensure greater transparency and representation in university decision making. That principle should be reflected in the processes which lead to the governing body to take decisions. In view of that, students and staff reps should sit on sub-government body committees such as remuneration committees. Decisions made at the government body have often gone through a lengthy process in order to give advice and make recommendations to the board. Ensuring that our universities remain transparent and accountable, at every level it is important that the university's two main stakeholders, the staff and students, are key participants in all decision making bodies. Recently, the University of Scotland has submitted Fy requests to all Scottish institutions in autumn last year, asking for the details of their principles of remuneration and how it was set up. Two institutions did not respond, two used exemptions not to supply the information requested and six redacted the remuneration committee minutes or the other information related. That amounts to over half of higher education institutions not being fully transparent over principles pay. For bodies who spend over £1 billion of public money annually, we believe that that is not acceptable and it is time that we had more transparency on that issue. I think that the government should pay heed to recent scandals in the paying packages that have affected the further education sector and support this move. Having staff and students representatives as full members on remuneration committee would result in a greater diversity, balancing opinions and stakeholders and that was something that was also recommended by the Hutton report of fair pay. That report found that university principles have the highest pay ratio in the entire public sector, 15.35 to 1. That was followed up by research by NUS Scotland that found that in Scotland that ratio goes up to 16 to 1. There are 88 individuals in Scottish universities who earn more than the First Minister and only one university principle who earns less than that. It is clear from those figures and given the backdrop of tight financial circumstances across the public sector that the higher education sector needs to take strong action and be more accountable on senior pay. Our amendment combined with that of Alison Johnson in this group, which, as I said, has our support, our measures, which we believe will help curtail unreasonable management, pay increases and keep pay more in line with those at the bottom of the pay scale. I hope that members will support us on this issue. Mr Griffin, can I confirm that you have moved to that amendment? I call Alison Johnson to speak to amendment 49 and other amendments in the group. Amendment 49 is designed to allow universities to set senior pay in a fairer and more equitable manner. It could work in tandem with Mark Griffin's amendment in this group, which I support. Principles pay has hit the headlines many times. Last year, saw people at the top end of the pay scale in universities receive pay increases of 8%, 13% and even 15%. At the same time, staff had to take industrial action and therefore lost pay to get a 2% increase. Others were pushed into insecure zero-hour contracts. UCU has described this pay inequality in their briefing today as ludicrous and more reminiscent of pre-crash investment banking than public service institutions. NUS Scotland's report in its briefing and my colleague Mark Griffin has highlighted this is that university principles have the highest pay ratio in the entire public sector and that the ratio in Scotland is even higher than the UK average. I think that after years of pay restraint in the public sector, people find these vast levels of wage inequality harder and harder to stomach. There are concerns over the arbitrary nature of pay rises and has been highlighted the lack of transparency. Each and every member of staff plays a part in the success that is recognised in our universities. However, as NUS President Gordon Maloney has highlighted, figures show that just 17 people earned more than £4 million between them. Amendment 49 would help to link the decisions on principles and senior managers to pay for lecturing staff. It also recognises the need to bring down the wage ratios in universities and requires remuneration committees to have regard to the desirability of reducing the ratio between the remuneration of the highest paid and lowest paid employee within the institution. Remuneration committees should, of course, have regard to the overall financial health of the institution. My final point is that this is a non-exhaustive list. Committees would be free to consider anything else that they deemed relevant or important to their decisions. I hope that the cabinet secretary can respond positively to the issue, and we will, of course, work with any and all parties who support the same. However, there is a clear case for acting now. It is time to legislate to ensure future pay rises for principles are in step with wider pay increases. We cannot support either amendment 43 or 49 on the basis that we do not feel that there has been sufficient consultation with all the stakeholders about how it would work in practice, so we will not be supporting either of those amendments. I thank Mr Griffin and Ms Johnson for their substantial contributions this afternoon and for their explanation of the intention behind their respective amendments. I want to make clear my considerable sympathy for the intent of their proposals this afternoon. It is disappointing that there continues to be a considerable gender pay gap in many of our institutions, particularly in more senior roles. I think that we are all shocked to see double figure percentage increases in some remuneration packages for principles in the last year, with what would appear to be little consideration more generally of applying increases in principles pay that broadly reflect recent comparable public sector pay settlements. That said, HE institutions are autonomous, not public bodies, and while it is the view of this Government that every HEI employee deserves fair pay and conditions, it is for each autonomous HEI to ensure that paying conditions are fair and justifiable for every employee up to and including the principle. Although there are discussions to be had with the sector to encourage them to do more around those issues, it is not for Scottish ministers to intervene statutorily in how paying conditions are set by autonomous bodies. It may well be appropriate for the forthcoming review of the code of good HE governance to consider and address this important issue of inclusivity and transparency in the setting of pay and conditions in our HEIs, including who sits on remuneration committees. We are, of course, also limited in what we can do under the Terms of the Scotland Act, which reserves employment rights, duties and industrial relations. We consider Mr Jordan's amendment 49 to be outwith legislative competence and, for that reason alone, I cannot support it. The bill aims to establish consistent yet discreet provisions. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. I was interested that the minister said that the Government cannot accept the amendment for the reason of competence alone. Is it the explicit view of the Government that this policy objective should be achieved? If not by this means, then how? I would hope that Mr Harvie would accept that the intentions and, indeed, the policy objective of everything that this Government has done in relation to the matter and across a portfolio of interests—I am still answering Mr Harvie, if you do not mind—we have a strong track record on endeavours to close the pay gap and, in terms of the living wage and equal pay. It is with regret that, in terms of the powers that we currently have and, even with the additional powers, we are not able to accept Ms Johnstone's amendment 49. As I have already said, it is, for that reason alone, that I cannot support her amendment. The amendment was not competent by reason of reservation. It would not have been accepted by the chamber. No, Mr Gray. I did ask that very question myself, and that is not the case. There are some other issues with Mr Griffin's amendment that I would like to come to, but, before I do so, I want to make it clear that the bill aims to establish consistent yet discrete provisions on the overarching governance of institutions to improve transparency, inclusion and accountability more generally by making provision in the bill. By making provision in the bill for an elected senior lay member and the mandatory elected staff members, as well as student and trade union members nominated by the representative bodies on our institution, Government bodies, those bodies will have a wider and more diverse representation that allows for a wider and more diverse representation of the whole community of the institution to be represented on all the committees set up by a Government body to carry out and oversee particular functions. I am happy to give way to Jenny Marra. I want to ask the cabinet secretary if she has taken legal advice on the regulation of principles pay. Of course, the member has been a member of this chamber long enough to know the protocols and conventions around what Governments say and do not say around given legal advice, but I am confident that the Government is on strong legal footing on this matter in terms of our understanding of what we can currently do and what we currently can't do. The influence that Mr Griffin's amendment 43 seeks to secure for trade union and student members over paying conditions is, of course, already catered for by the bill, but in a way that recognises the autonomy of higher education institutions. I am unclear on the intention here. Amendment 43 makes no provision for inclusion of the new mandatory staff members on the HCI Government bodies, some of whom will be in a union, while some will not. I think that there is also a risk with amendment 43 of an unintended consequence. The amendment supposes that HCIs will also form remuneration committees, and indeed they do currently feature in the code. However, there is no fixed statutory requirement in that respect. Neither does the amendment itself oblige HCIs to form such committees. However, HCIs might give the task of setting pay and conditions to another committee, therefore potentially avoiding the terms of amendment 43 altogether. However much I empathise with the effect that those amendments are trying to achieve, I cannot support amendment 49 for Ms Johnson's, because it is outwith the Parliament's legislative competence, and I cannot support Mr Griffin's amendment 43, because it steps beyond what we consider proportionate in terms of governance arrangements for autonomous bodies. I have also indicated clearly what I believe is a real risk of an unintended consequence. However, I would hope that the forthcoming review of the code of good governance explores the issue thoroughly, and if pressed I would urge members similarly to reject both amendments. The amendment in my name and the amendment in the name of Alison Johnson are both supported by UCU and NUS Scotland. What my amendment is not doing is giving the Government any legislative control over paying conditions of any management. What it is doing is asking for staff and student reps to be on that remuneration committee where one exists. The senior management pay was an area that was brought up in our initial evidence act committee and seems to be an area that has been missed by the Government. The pay ratio of 16 to 1 between those at the top and those at the bottom of the pay scale in our higher education sector, as I said, is the highest in the public sector in Scotland, and it is an issue that should be addressed when we are talking about the governance of those institutions. I think that staff and student reps on that remuneration committee would start to address that. They would give those committees the cross-section of opinion across the whole university campus and the views of staff who are having to strike and fight for much lower pay rises than those at the top and ask members to support the amendment in my name, and I will be pressing the amendment. The question then is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Palmynt is not agreed. There will be a division. It is a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 43 is, yes, 30, no 80. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 44 in the name of George Adam, already debated with amendment 41. I ask George Adam to move or not to move. The question then is, that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are. I call amendment 45 in the name of George Adam, already debated with amendment 41. And I ask George Adam to move or not to move. I move. Proceeding of that. Thank you. The question is, that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I call amendment 46 in the name of George Adam, already debated with the amendment 41. ychydig i'w ddoros cymrydio i'w ddechiddio? Fe yw y gwaith. Clamgrifennid Weith 음og yma, 46 yn ymgyrch i'w ddoros cymrydio. Fe gydig i'w ddoros cymrydio? Fel'r gafael ei ddoryn ymgyrch i'w ddoryn am gyfer Gwyrddkei, wedi gyrch i'w ddoryn ymgyrch i'w ddoryn ymgyrch i'w ddoryn ymgyrch i'w ddoryn. mae'r argwiyth e'w argyrch i'w ddoryn ymgyrch i'w ddoryn yr gafael ei ddoryn? We have moved. The question is that the Women's during the 40's agreement, I agree with you. Are we all agreed? We are. That brings us to group 11, the specified percentage of women appointed to the governing body, and the newwithal amendment 48 in the name of Cara Helton in a group on its own. I invite Cara Helton to move and speak to amendment 48. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today is International Women's day, my amendment to the bill is aimed at ensuring yn ei wneud o'r unigfawr, yn ymgyrch, mae'n ddechrau'r rydyn ni, rydyn ni'n ddechrau'r hwnnw, a'r unigfawr yn ei ddechrau'r unigfawr, ond y 35% o'r unigfawr yn ei ddechrau'r ffemol. Felly, mae'r pethau o'r edrych yn ei ddechrau'r ysgolwyr, yn ddoch i ddau cyfnodol, ond mae'n ddweud o'r unigfawr yn ei ddechrau'r ysgolwyr. Mae'n mynd yn ei ddechrau'r unigfawr yn 40% o'r unigfawr o'r unigfawr. Why would we deny 60% of women if they were the better and best candidates? Kara Helton. I'm quite stunned by Chick Brody's intervention. When I look at, for example, the Westminster Parliament that is full of men, I don't think that they are there on their merits. I'm glad that in Scotland we're taking a more progressive way and backing the campaign for 50-50, and that's why I'm putting this motion forward today as well. So I welcome the progress that's been made in recent years, because up until recently the record was extremely poor, and I've got no doubt that the improvements that have been secured have got a lot to do with the scrutiny that's on the sector. But I think it's still very much the case that women remain underrepresented in positions of leadership in our universities. 65% of governing board members at Scotland universities are men, and in four institutions more than 70% of them are men. As recently as 2010, just one in four governing board members were women, and I don't accept the case at all but argue by members like Chick Brody that that's because women weren't able to do their job. There's plenty of women that are the well able to take those roles on. Universities in Scotland have accepted that higher education governance has faced a serious problem with gender imbalance, and from the figures we see today it's clear that much more needs to be done to ensure real equality for women in the university sector. On the issue of wider diversity, perhaps more worryingly, an FOI request by NUS Scotland found that only 40% of institutions have set targets for increasing wider equality and diversity of their governing bodies, and only 30% were issued in regular reports on progress and equality targets. Both of those were requirements of the Scottish Code of Good HE Governments, and they show that voluntary self-regulation has so far failed to deliver success in the sector. If we're going to put the safeguards in place to ensure that there's no return to the old days, then we've got to act now to ensure that women have got fair representation. Our universities should be at the forefront of advancing equality, and today on International Women's Day we've got the opportunity to act by backing my amendment to ensure that the governance of our universities reflects our society and to ensure that women are fairly and properly represented. I move amendment 48 in my name. I can understand the motivation behind Kara Hilton's amendment writing this into the bill as suggested could be problematic. The make-up of the governing body, as Kara Hilton will be aware, has arrived at through various means. Members are elected or nominated by a range of different interests, including staff, students, trade unions and academic board members. In those circumstances, it's difficult to see how the governing body as a whole could give effect to the proposal that is desirable, as it undoubtedly is. That said, the governing body should be representative of the wider university community, something that I would expect those nominated and elected members to take fully into consideration. We've seen strides in that direction over recent years, but those must be continued, stepped up and sustained. On that basis, while I'm not able to support Kara Hilton's amendment, I think that it has served a very useful purpose in allowing Parliament to reiterate the importance that it attaches to achieving greater gender balance on governing bodies. Kara Hilton has slightly misunderstood the effects that her amendment might have. The governing body would not be in a position to control that, since a wide range of its members are elected and nominated by groups, including staff, students, trade unions and academic board members. Securing a 40 per cent woman's quota across the membership of the governing body would mean that limitations would have to be imposed on those specific elections for the groups, because that would be hugely complex, if not impossible, to ensure that the final quota breakdown could be agreed upon without upsetting the democratic right of the different groups to nominate who they think best fits the job. In any case, I don't really think that there is much of a problem, because in recent years I think that I'm right in saying that there are now eight female chairs of our HEIs. I want to start by thanking Kara Hilton for her contribution today. She is right to say that our university should be at the forefront of tackling inequality both within and outwith its institutions. This Government has made a clear and unequivocal commitment to require public boards to have 50-50 representation by 2020. I know that gender equality in all areas of public life is an aspiration that Labour shares with us, and I am therefore very sympathetic to the intention behind Kara Hilton's amendment. However, as things stand, amendment 48 falls outwith the legislative competence of this Parliament, as equal opportunities are currently a reserved matter. Like others, I welcomed the commitment made by University Scotland last April to work with its members to achieve 40 per cent representation of women amongst the lay members on all university Government bodies. Clearly, some institutions are embracing this commitment more enthusiastically than others. While I also welcome the rapid change that some have made in their representation, I urge those who currently have a much lower percentage of women on their courts to consider what more they must do to make progress. Much as I might wish to underpin that voluntary intent with appropriate legislation on the gender make-up of university Government bodies, for as long as wider equal opportunities powers remain substantially reserved area, I cannot support Kara Hilton's amendment at this time. I am happy to give way to Mr Sarawak. I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. How does the Scottish Government's position on amendment 48 fit with Nicola Sturgeon's commitment to 50-50 gender equality on public bodies? As I point out to Ms Marra in case she cannot hear, because she is sitting up the back there, that unfortunately Ms Hilton's amendment 48 falls outwith the legislative competence of this Parliament, as equal opportunities are currently a reserved matter. Of course, Ms Marra and her colleagues campaigned for those matters to remain reserved in 2014. If Scotland had voted for a yes vote, we would already have had the powers that she now clearly seems to think that we should now have. On a more consensual note, moving forward, the new legislative competence that the Scottish Parliament is set to gain under the Scotland Bill will provide the next Scottish Government and this Parliament with the opportunity to return to this matter again. I am sure that Kara Hilton will join with me in looking forward to that. I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary will not support my amendment today. I am not convinced at all by her argument that we do not have the power here to act. I would possibly like to have some guidance from the Presiding Officer on whether it is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to act on the issue or not. Ms Hilton, I am sorry, I did not hear you for the noise, I was shouting orders, could you please repeat your point? Right, sorry, I am not convinced by the arguments of the cabinet secretary that it is outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament to act on this matter, and I would appreciate your guidance as Presiding Officer, but whether we do have the competence to act on this issue. Will the matters of the Parliament to debate and decide on Ms Hilton? The purpose of my amendment today is to ensure that women have fair representation in governing boards. If that is the principle that we want to support, then I think that you should back my amendment today, and I would like to move the amendment in my name. Thank you, and the question then is that amendment, sorry, put the order to Ang Lamont. The officer could clarify that if an amendment is deemed competent to be debated as part of this legislation, does that not mean that it is competent to be passed on? The legislative competence of an amendment is not criterion for admissibility, it can be admitted and the Parliament can then debate on the matter and take a decision on the matter, I think that that is quite clear. We now turn to the vote on the matter, which is that the question is that amendment 48 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division, this is a one-minute division, please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 48 is yes 29, no 80, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 23 in the name of the cabinet secretary, which has already been debated with amendment 22, and I ask the cabinet secretary to move formally, please. Thank you, the question is that amendment 23 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 24 in the name of the cabinet secretary, which has already been debated with amendment 22, and I ask the cabinet secretary to move formally, please. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 49 in the name of Alison Johnstone, which has already been debated with amendment 43, and I ask Alison Johnstone to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, there will be a division, this is our 32nd division, please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 49 is yes 30, no 80, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. That brings us to group 12 exemptions from part 1, and I call amendment 25 in the name of Liam McArthur in a group on its own, and I invite Liam McArthur to move and speak to amendment 25, please. At various stages so far I have referred to the diversity as well as the quality of our university sector. During our consideration of this bill, we have heard ample evidence of both, and please, to avoid doing anything that would undermine either. The poster child perhaps for this has been the Royal Conservatoire, whose staff, student management and stakeholders have all made abundantly clear their outright opposition to the bill's provision applying to their institution. No-one can seriously dispute the uniqueness of what the Conservatoire does, how it is set up, and the expectations placed upon it. It was set out in the letters received by the committee from the widest possible cross-section of its stakeholder community, expressing collective dismay at the consequences of this bill for the Conservatoire. These concerns exemplify the risks inherent in taking the blunt instrument of legislation to something as diverse and complex as our university sector. By way of illustration, in a letter this week to the Minister Dr Allan, the principal of the Conservatoire, Professor Geoffrey Sturkey, states that, quote, an election for a chair will be especially divisive, disruptive and diversionary, given our scale and our disciplinary focus. Elections will sow the seeds of division and will politicise the role of chair. Given that the election of chairs is now embedded in the legislation, the only option left for addressing these concerns is to allow for the Conservatoire to be removed from the bill's provisions. At this point, I wish to pay tribute to Sandra White for the effort she's made in articulating this case, not solely on behalf of the Conservatoire, but Glasgow School of Art as well. She's argued forcefully on behalf of both institutions, highlighting the extent and range of ways in which both are unique and both are all suited to the sort of statutory approach favoured by ministers. While Scotland's rural college has been mentioned less frequently in despaches than its more artistic counterparts, its claim for an exemption is arguably no less strong. In truth, the most sensible approach at this late stage is to leave open the opportunity for each of these institutions to make their case to ministers for exemption. It would then be for ministers to decide whether that is justified in whole or in part. I think that the only way that could be done would be through the more general exemption proposed in my amendment 25, rather than the institution-specific approach taken quite reasonably at stage 2 by Sandra White and others. Other universities may well believe that they have a case for partial exemption from certain provisions. For example, Jim Eadie has in the past made a pressing case on behalf of Edinburgh University. That more general approach would have the benefit of allowing those arguments to be considered more fully, again leaving the ultimate decision with ministers. That said, given that the Conservatoire has been the cause celebra on this issue, let me leave the final word with Professor Sharkey. The problem that this Bill seeks to solve in relation to the Conservatoire has not been articulated. Given the opposition of the entire Conservatoire community to the Bill, the risks and the costs associated with its implementation and in the absence of any clear benefits that might outweigh those risks and costs, we believe that the Conservatoire should be excluded from its scope. On that basis, I move amendment 25 in my name and look forward to the contribution from colleagues on all sides of the chamber. I have four members who wish to speak in this part of the debate. I would ask remarks to be kept as brief as possible. I call Liz Smith to be followed by Sandra White. Amendment 25, which I have very much pleasure in supporting, is very important. I return to my comments at the start of proceedings at its essential, notwithstanding the differences of opinion that we have about the politics of this Bill, that we make it properly workable, and that we respect the very wide diversity within our institutions, which is, after all, one of the most redeeming and successful features, something that, in words at least, the Scottish Government is always keen to maintain. Respecting the differences within institutions is crucial if we are to allow our institutions to flourish and to stay ahead of the game when it comes to international competition, and it can happen without prejudicing any other aspects of the Scottish Government's intention. That is very clear from the voices within the SNP backbenches. Mr MacArthur has already mentioned Sandra White and I hope that she will contribute to this amendments debate with the Labour and the Greens, and I ask the Scottish Government to think about this extremely carefully. Those backbenches are not given to move against Scottish Government policy intention, but, on this occasion, they have done so on practical grounds. Some of those practical differences are very simple. For example, the Royal Conservatoire is accompanied limited by guarantee. It has shareholders, which is quite a different institution from many others. Like the Glasgow School of Art and Scotland's rural college, the Conservatoire makes the case for its small-sized specialist nature, which is so very different from other universities. It also makes the point that it must compete against Scottish and UK performing arts companies, and that is very dependent on attracting international staff. It warns in blunt terms. The entire Conservatoire community—and that includes the EIS—believes that this bill will be detrimental to the Conservatoire as do the leaders of Scotland's national companies. I would have thought that that is a very compelling case. I also draw the cabinet secretary's attention yet again to the comments made by Ferdinand von Brunsinske and her predecessor, Mike Russell, that those specialist institutions would almost certainly need to have their special circumstances fully recognised. The cabinet secretary maintained at stage 2 that such exemptions would cut across the very heart and purpose of the bill, but in fact the opposite is true. Treating the different constitutions of institutions in a different way is not a weakness, it is a strength, and it reflects the rich diversity in what those institutions have been built and their successful reputations. For those reasons, we wholeheartedly support amendment 25, which seeks to establish a new section introducing flexibility for institutions, which, because of size or any other factor, are unable for practical reasons—I stress that it is practical rather than political—to comply with any of the provisions contained in part 1 of the bill. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Having a representative constituency with three fantastic universities and colleges and, obviously, the specialised Conservatives and the Glasgow School of Art, I have taken a great interest in this debate. I thank colleagues from all over the political parties for their comments at stage 2 of the bill. I moved an amendment in relation to the specialised institutions, but I have some concerns with that particular amendment. The Conservatoire has been mentioned in all the contributions so far, but the amendment opens it up to all higher education institutions, and that is where I have my concerns. Although it was for the specialised institutions, specialised higher education such as the Glasgow School of Art and the Conservatoire, I thought that it was eminently sensible at that point. However, I do have concerns, very much concerns, that all higher education institutions could apply for exemptions under this amendment. They could also claim that they could not reasonably comply with any aspect of the provision at stage 1. I am really concerned that, through that, while the higher institutions, all of them, were put forward to the Scottish Government, they could claim that they could not comply with the provisions. We have just been speaking about staff trade unions and student members, and that is where my real concerns come in. Perhaps Liam McArthur, when he is summing up, could alleviate some of my concerns. However, the fact that this amendment opens up to all higher education institutions is a mistake. I could not possibly support that if it is going forward as all higher education institutions. My main concern is the smaller institutions, which my amendment raised. I thank that at stage 2, but the thought of opening it up to all of the higher education institutions, with the fact that, when we are talking about trade union representation, staff and students, they could apply. That is a real worry, as far as I am concerned. I think that it would be a worry for everyone as well. I rise to support Mr McArthur's amendment, as we did in a slightly different form at stage 2. We, on this side of the house, support the higher education governance bill, although the cabinet secretary has not always made it easy to do so and certainly not easy to love the bill. It is no secret that we have had some concerns about the process whereby we have arrived at the final stage and final form of the bill. In particular, there is an issue around a small number of higher education institutions, most notably the Conservatoire and Glasgow School of Art, which made, in the course of giving evidence to the committee, a strong case that they are different in scale and, indeed, in governance, too. That is an issue that has not really been addressed. It has, rather, I think, been dismissed. It certainly was dismissed at stage 2 consideration of the bill. I think that this amendment gives ministers another opportunity to consider some of those arguments. I should say that I am not as certain as Mr McArthur sounded that any particular institution should be completely and permanently exempted from the bill, but the amendment allows for consideration of exemption from some elements of the bill, which seems to me to be flexible and helpful. Mr McArthur's amendment could allow those concerns to be addressed in the future. For that reason, we would support it. I do not share Sandra White's concerns, because it seems to me that, if all higher education institutions vexatiously applied for exemption, ministers would give them a pretty short shrift, particularly if they had no particular argument that has not been presented already in the course of the bill. I do not share Ms White's fear, and we will support Mr McArthur's amendment. I am grateful to have the chance to say a few words in support of this amendment, which has been brought to us in an extremely reasonable form, about as reasonable as I could imagine it coming forward. Like others, I have had representations from institutions, including the Conservatoire in the School of Art in Glasgow, and I think that all of us—whatever view we ultimately take on this amendment—would recognise the distinctive value that those institutions give to the landscape of higher education in Scotland. It seems to me that, if those representations had only come from the senior management institutions, I would have had a lot less sympathy, but that seems to be the clear and settled view not only of the senior management, but also, as has been said, of the teaching unions and of the student bodies. It seems to me also that there is no great danger, as of what Sandra White suggests, of seeing a whole heap of spurious applications raised if this amendment is passed. If they were, the Government is entitled to reject them all by return of post. The amendment does not even require that, in turning down an application for exemption, the Government should set out any detailed reasons. It gives the Government discretion over the duration of any exemption, the extent of any exemption. It seems to me that this is about as reasonable an amendment as we could have in order to recognise the distinctive circumstances of certain specific institutions. If there is time to take an intervention, I would be happy to do that. Very briefly, please. Sandra White, very briefly. I thank the member for taking an intervention. You mentioned about representation, but the university association has also sent emails to us asking us to support this particular amendment, which obviously supports all of the universities. I do have a real fear that that could happen. I just want to confirm that the member has had that as well. Patrick Harvie. Well, I think that I would be able to trust them to recognise the distinctive situation that some institutions are in, but I say again, even if spurious applications come from every university in Scotland, the Scottish Government is entitled to turn them down on the day it receives them, without even setting out detailed reasons. I think that this is about as reasonable amendment we could have to allow some kind of discretion. I really do hope that members will consider supporting it, even though we all continue to support the principles of the bill itself. I thank Mr MacArthur for outlining the purpose of amendment 25. That is substantially the same amendment as the one that Tavish Scott moved on behalf of Mr MacArthur at stage 2. I do stand by my view at stage 2. The introduction of such a provision would be to the detriment of the overarching aims of the bill, and therefore I cannot support Mr MacArthur's amendment 25. Could the cabinet secretary spell out how it would be to the detriment? That is what my contribution will hopefully do, Ms Smith. Is she knows that the bill aims to introduce a high level of consistency across the sector and a small number of discreet but key areas of governance in our higher education institutions? Amendment 25 would undermine this objective by enabling any institution to seek exemption from application of any of the bill's measures on any grounds, simply stating that it cannot reasonably comply with any aspect of the bill. It has the potential to result in differing application of the bill's provisions across institutions, and it suggests a highly subjective test from within the institution about when it cannot reasonably comply. You said all along that the most important thing is ensuring that we have diversity in our sector to allow it to continue to have its success. Surely the logic is to allow that diversity when it comes to amendment 25. I would have thought that, more than most, Ms Smith would have understood the issue about consistency and consistency of position. If this had been a Government amendment, it would have been widely criticised and rightly criticised for giving powers to ministers outwith the scrutiny of Parliament. That is a detailed and prescriptive process when we have heard throughout the bill such as Ms Smith complaining about undue meddling and bureaucracy. The point that Sandra White makes is important. There is no limit on the number of times that an institution can apply for an exemption. It is a very poorly drafted amendment. If such provision was incorporated in the bill and any application for an exemption was successful, it would fatally undermine the bill's aim to create a consistent approach to governance. It should also be noted that it would allow Scottish ministers to apply provisions of the bill in relation to particular institutions without any scrutiny from the Parliament, as I indicated earlier. That is quite contrary to the other amendments that Mr MacArthur has lodged. I do not think that it would be appropriate to let legislation develop in this way. I assure Mr MacArthur that I have given the fullest consideration to the amendment to determine whether it would be appropriate. I cannot foresee any circumstance in which any of our institutions could not reasonably comply with any of the measures in the bill that make the need for the provision compelling. I anticipate that all of our 18 HAIs will be able to meet the provisions of the focus bill, enabling every voice on campus to be heard. That amendment carries a very real risk that those voices will not be heard, the voices of staff in the election, the voices of union members on government bodies and the voices of students across a range of democratic decisions that are making processes on campus. I have the same aspirations for each and every one of our higher education institutions in Scotland. I am convinced that all of our institutions are more than capable of achieving those aspirations. Indeed, many institutions, including the small specialist institutions such as the Royal Conservatoire, have already achieved a level of compliance and practice. Should Parliament pass the bill, we will of course continue to engage with the Royal Conservatoire, the Glasgow School of Art Scotland's rural colleges to discuss implementation of its provisions. Discussions will be aimed at identifying the transitional arrangements that could be put in place to help small specialist institutions to fully comply with the bill's high-level provisions in due course. For all the reasons that I have set out, I respectfully ask that Mr MacArthur does not press amendment 25. If it is pressed, I ask members to reject it. I thank all those who contributed to the debate, particularly those supporting the amendment. The cabinet secretary in her remarks talked about the need to have the voice of students and staff heard and that amendment 25 posed a threat to that. I have to say that it is the voice of staff and students at the Conservatoire, the Glasgow School of Art and the Scotland's rural collins, which is being ignored through the process at the moment. As Patrick Harvie quite rightly said, were this a case simply being made by the senior management of those institutions, I think that it would be received rather differently than it has. The cabinet secretary also talked about the importance of consistency, and that up into a point is correct. However, again, as Liz Smith rightly pointed out, it is the diversity of the sector that is not its weakness but its very strength. It is the very strength that the cabinet secretary undertook to our committee and to this Parliament to safeguard through this process. To some extent, Iain Gray gave the wind-up speech to Sandra White's contribution. Sandra White led the charge in relation to the Conservatoire and put that on record. The fact that she is now backing down from that position simply because she thinks that this amendment is broadly cast is not at all appropriate. What this amendment does is allow the opportunity for institutions to make their case. That case is then considered by ministers. As Patrick Harvie said, it would be returned in post if those applications were vexatious. The Conservatoire has put forward, I think, a pretty compelling case at this stage. To be reassured by the cabinet secretary that, at some point after we pass this legislation, discussions will begin with them and the GSA about its implementations will be of cold comfort to them. This is a reasonable amendment. It is not often that Patrick Harvie refers to me or my motions in the extremely reasonable form. That may be lifted for a leaflet in due course. Nevertheless, I think that this is a reasonable amendment. It is trying to make good and undertaking the cabinet secretary and the Government gave us at the beginning of this process and salvaged something from this bill to reflect the diversity, protect the diversity of our university sector. I will indeed be moving the amendment 25. In which case, the question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed to be a division. This is a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 25 is yes, 48, no, 62. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We now turn to group 13. As we are nearing the agreed time limit, I am prepared to exercise my power under rule 9.8.4a to allow the debate on this group to continue beyond the limit in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed. I call amendment 10, in the name of Liz Smith, which is in the group on its own, and I ask Liz Smith to move and speak to amendment 10, please. Paragraph 1 of the schedule presently creates confusion about the role of the Senate in relation to the administration of property, where legislation that followed the 1858 act has given powers to the court of a university in relation to the administration of property. It is not clear that this is the intent of paragraph 1, and so amendment 10 seeks to restore clarity in section 5 of the University Scotland Act 1858. I thank Liz Smith for her explanation of the intent behind amendment 10. The aims of the bill focus on the composition of the academic board, Senate not on its roles and responsibilities. I do not consider that the consequential amendments that the schedule makes to section 5 of the University Scotland Act 1858 will affect the way institutions interpret the powers of the academic board, Senate. The provisions in section 5 of the 1858 act are subject to further provisions in the University Scotland Act 1889, which makes clear that the university court has overall control of the revenue and property of the HCI. I believe that HCIs will continue to interpret the statutory provisions on the role of academic board, Senate, as they currently do. For those reasons, I do not support this amendment and I urge members to reject the amendment if it is pressed. Liz Smith, to wind up and press a withdraw your amendment. Nothing to wind up, but I do press the amendment. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. Will there be a division? Please vote now. This will be a one-minute division. The result of the vote on amendment number 10 is yes, 18, no, 89. There were no abstentions in the amendment, so it is not agreed. That ends consideration of amendments. We will now move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 1538, in the name of Angela Constance and the Higher Education Government Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I now call on the cabinet secretary to speak to and move the motion. For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I wish to advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Higher Education Government Scotland Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. I am pleased to be able to present the Higher Education Government Scotland Bill at stage 3 and to seek Parliament's support for it. The bill enables key principles and values to underpin governance in our higher education institutions, transparency, democracy, inclusion, participation and accountability. The bill is in step with a modern Scotland, where participation in democratic processes must be nurtured and encouraged. No one, with even passing knowledge of the bill, can have failed to notice the often vigorous debate on its provisions. However, I have listened carefully and consistently to all views offered. Indeed, a range of constructive ideas have influenced alteration of the bill, as introduced and amended at stages 2 and 3. I have been and remain surprised, I suppose, at the level of opposition to the bill from some. It is important to remember that the bill's origins flow from a substantial review of higher education governance in Scotland, led by the principle of Robert Gordon University, Professor Ferdinand Von Prynsinski. It is important that we all pause and reflect on the purpose of the bill and its intended benefits. First, staff and students will get a say in future on who the best person is to lead the institution that they study and work in. By electing the powerful chair or senior lay member in every institution, greater transparency and inclusivity are introduced to the appointment process for that pivotal role. The process between stages 1 and 2 of the bill was intended to give everyone with an interest in its measures the opportunity to co-design the detail of how the process should work in practice. That applied particularly to the role of the chair. I listened carefully to a very wide range of views on the issue before agreeing that having some form of selection process would enhance the election part of the process. The cabinet secretary advocates a resumd dechrau for her bill, particularly in relation to what she considers to be the role of the chair. Is she aware of the definition from the European Institute of Business Administration that a good chair knows who she works for and is ultimately accountable to the organisation of which board he-she leads, not at stakeholders, not at shareholders, not its customers, not its employees or its executives, but the institution itself? How does that definition reconcile with the form of governance in this bill? The school day has raised this issue before previous debates in this Parliament. I suppose that this is where I differ from her. I think that a higher education institution is something far broader than a business. It is important that the chair or senior layperson is accountable to the governing body and to the wider community of staff and students. That is why, for many reasons, I have included in the bill measures that afford institutions the ability—we were talking about the selection process earlier—to demonstrate the ability to drive the further success of higher education institutions. I have listened carefully to concerns about how the new senior lay member might impact on the traditional role of Rector. It was never the intention of the Government to abolish the role in institutions that have a Rector, despite the rigorous attempts by some to portray the bill's measures as such. At stage 2, I also ensured that measures were included to protect the statutory and historical role of the Rector in our ancient universities. Rectors and senior lay members on the governing bodies of HCI play different but complementary roles right now. What the bill introduces does not change that. With both the roles that are elected in future, it will, of course, be for each autonomous institution to ensure that the campus electorate is clear on the established dovetail between the two. Some stakeholders have raised concerns that students, staff and institutions will be confused about the roles and what they are voting for. I have complete faith that students and staff will have little difficulty in working that out. The bill aims to ensure that the composition of all governing bodies is representative of the entire campus community. With a majority of lay members plus staff, student and union members, a fair and balanced blend is created. The bill also ensures that academic boards or senates will feature a majority of elected staff and students. Adequate student representation in particular is very important. On academic freedom, I believe the bill features a definition that protects the rights of staff while giving institutions a key role in assessing the reasonableness of any expression of academic freedom. That is an important balance, as academic freedom cannot be construed as a licence to break the law. Higher education institutions are, indeed, autonomous bodies. That is a fact. However, in a tough financial settlement, the Scottish Government has again identified over £1 billion of direct grant investment in our higher education sector next year. Ensuring that access to higher education is free, that teaching is of a high quality and that research is supported to enable our institutions to contribute to our economic strategy is a price that is well worth paying in terms of our overall aims of creating a fairer Scotland and a more prosperous economy. As a society and a Government, we are entitled to expect higher education institutions to adhere to the higher standards of governance and to be ambitious in seeking ways to continuously improve. Excellence is not a given, so I hope and expect all of our institutions to embrace the changes that the bill will introduce. At its heart, the bill is about ensuring that all voices in campus are heard, are equal and are empowered to contribute to decision making. We have heard before and we may hear again today, for some members, about how bad an idea campus elections are and that talented people will be put off from applying for the post of elected chair or senior lay member. In preparing for today, I was reminded of the 1865 rectorial election at Edinburgh University, in which Thomas Carlyle faced up to Australia. I am sure that members will agree that a shortlist is not lacking in talent. Thomas Carlyle won that election and gave an inaugural address almost 150 years ago, on 2 April 1866, to the students of the university. Of course, there were no women students in attendance and women were not admitted to Scottish universities until 1892. However, I can still wholeheartedly agree with Carlyle's view expressed in that address that universities have and will continue to have an indispensable value in society. That observation stands at the test of time. However, the nature of higher education institutions has changed along with the expectations of them on part of students' staff and the public beyond campus. The bill represents another step on the journey for higher education institutions to continue to be world leaders and teaching research and embracing the contributions of all in the campus community to ensure growth, prosperity and greater equality in the future. I commend the bill to you and I hope that members will support its passage at stage 3. I move that Parliament agrees to the higher education governance Scotland bill being passed. In all the different stages of this, it has been important that we recognise whatever our views on the merits or demerits of the bill itself. It is good that we have been debating universities, their governance and, indeed, their importance to Scotland, because they are very central to not just our education system but our very culture and history. Of course, there are institutions in which students study and are highly successful in that. In the course of the debate, many colleagues have pointed out that we have five universities in the top 200 in the world. That is more top universities per head than any other country. We should be proud of that. Students seem to feel that universities in Scotland are doing the right things, too, since student satisfaction surveys show that Scottish universities are doing better than the universities in the rest of the United Kingdom. They seem to be doing a good job in terms of turning out students ready and prepared for future life, too, since graduates from Scottish universities have a higher average starting salaries than other universities in the UK. A greater proportion finds their way into graduate-level jobs. We know not all of them, but certainly our universities do well in doing that. They are also centres of excellence when it comes to research. Back in the days of the referendum debates, it was a common place that we punched well above our way in terms of accessing UK-wide research resources—around 15 per cent of those resources in some years—far more than our population share. We are also one of the world's leading countries when it comes to publishing peer-reviewed research papers. Finally, they are a critical and central part of our economy. First of all, through their own investments, employing more than 38,000 people, and you only need to walk around the south side of Edinburgh to see just how much the University of Edinburgh is investing in construction and innovation in its own estate, but also in working with existing companies and starting up companies to turn some of that great research work into good businesses. Scottish universities account for some 28 per cent of spin-outs in the UK, again punching well above our weight. They are also part of our history and tradition. That is a democratic tradition. It was only in the 60s when George Davie couched the phrase, the democratic intellect, but he was talking about the history and traditions of our universities, particularly the ancients, where something that was important was that link in partnership between society itself and its intellectual leaders. I think that, internally, our higher education institutions too see themselves very much as communities involving academics, students and other staff. Perhaps that democratic tradition is best symbolised by the rectors in our ancient universities, and the cabinet secretary made reference to that. I am not sure that she picked the best example of a rector by picking Thomas Carlyle, who was, of course, notoriously opposed to democracy in almost any form and a precursor of fascism. Perhaps she might have been better to reach back to the first rector in Edinburgh University, Gladstone, of course, a well-known democrat. Nonetheless, that is an important democratic institution, unique, I think, to Scotland and to our universities. We have supported the principles of the bill throughout that we need to revisit and modernise those democratic principles that we have found before in our universities. We agreed with the Government that the voluntary code that had been created had not proven satisfactory. Although the higher education institutions did argue that that was enough, examples such as the one that my colleague Mark Griffin referred to earlier this afternoon, when the UCU tried to find out how principles pay had been derived and discovered not transparency but a refusal and redaction of all the proceedings of remuneration committees, demonstrated that the voluntary code was not enough and we agreed and accepted the Government's view that we had to go further. We have supported the bill. However, I said earlier that it has not always been easy and the bill has not been without its problems. When it first arrived with us, it was full of ministerial powers and discretion, although those were powers that ministers said they did not actually want. That caused two problems—the potential loss of autonomy for the institutions and the potential reclassification of the universities as public bodies, which would have hurt their finances. It was ironic towards the end of the consideration of amendments when the cabinet secretary steadfastly fought against Mr MacArthur's reimposition of a modest amount of ministerial discretion when it came to applications for exemptions. Originally, the bill was little more than that, but in fairness that has been sorted by, for example, completely removing several sections of the bill and providing some more clarity on the format of the elections that will be required for chair. In truth, more consensus in reaching that point would have been nice and the cabinet secretary really has, I think, depended less on the dialectic of debate throughout this and rather dug herself into a series of ditches from which she has then defended herself. It has not been an ideal legislative process, but in our view it has got us to a bill that does encompass those principles. We said at the beginning that we would support the election of chairs, of course in higher education institutions and proper and guaranteed representation for staff and their representatives and for students too. On that basis, we will support the bill this evening. Thanks very much. Now, Colin Llyw Smith. Five minutes are there by. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It has been no surprise that we are not supporting this bill. Not only do we continue to believe that there is absolutely no need for the bill, given the complete inability of the Scottish Government to provide evidence for its rationale, but we also believe that several measures that are put in place will actually diminish rather than enhance democratic principles, and they will reduce the effectiveness of university governance in some institutions. The cabinet secretary repeatedly says that the bill is about making the framework of governance and, I quote, more modern, accountable and inclusive, but she has persistently failed to produce the necessary evidence about what it is that is so wrong with the existing system. In particular, we object to the straight jacket into which the Scottish Government is attempting to place university governance, thereby failing to acknowledge that diversity is in fact one of the sector's greatest strengths. The very dismissive approach that has been taken towards our small specialist institutions, which incidentally happened to be some of our very best, is disturbing, and it reflects an inability on the part of the cabinet secretary to understand what factors it is that have delivered their academic excellence. That is not a good thing, and it is little wonder that some of those institutions have been so angry. On some of those issues, I think that the cabinet secretary has actually not paid attention to the concerns that were raised by Ferdinand Vaughan-Prasinski and her predecessor, Mike Russell. Both the architects, I may say, of the unfortunate bill, but who at least understood the need for special circumstances in order to preserve diversity in the institution. When the bill was first mooted, the Scottish Government made clear that its only intention was to make some minor amendments to legislation to allow transparency when it came to the governance and management of universities and when it came to their accountability for very large sums of public money. Interestingly, and perhaps very tellingly, universities have approximately another 500 or so lines of accountability to non-Scottish Government organisations, none of which have had any issues with university governance, and that would suggest that the bill has actually become the first that it lays bare. It is little wonder that it was— On the question of the model of governance that is proposed by the bill, I have asked in vain of the Scottish Government to give me an example of where this model can be found anywhere in the world. Silence prevails. Can the member help me? Is she aware of this model of governance existing anywhere in the world? Bairda cannot help Annabelle Goldie because we have not had any answer to this question. It remains something that is in the midst of time. I really do not understand where the Government is getting this information from. It is something that, as I say, I think is very disturbing. The other stakeholders do not seem to have a problem with governance, and I question again why it was that the bill was, in fact, necessary. If you are to accept—let us be generous for a minute—that some changes were required, you would hope that they could be made with clarity and rational thinking, but that, in fact, is far from the case. Indeed, I feel very sorry for our universities, which will undoubtedly be faced with the additional constitutional and administrative burdens, all because of the Scottish Government's meddling. I do think that, in some cases, it will diminish rather than enhance its democratic accountability. That is very sad, not least because those universities are, as I say, some of our finest institutions in Scotland. The last thing that they want to be bothered about just now is having to worry about an unnecessary bill when there are so many other things that they want to get on with, leading the field on an international basis, in knowledge exchange, in research and development, and, as I say, I think that we can all feel pretty sorry for them. Overall, I think that it has displayed a degree of ignorance about what it is that makes a university so good. It is undermined the crucial trust that exists between a chair and a board and how that underpins the policy making. I entirely accept what Annabelle Goldie has been saying throughout this afternoon. That bill dilutes that trust, not least because there remains an overlapping electorate for chairs and directors with the result, but it is very hard to see where the responsibility lies. That is never ever a good thing in any institution. I will finish on the basis that I am disappointed and, in some ways, I am very saddened by the approach of the Scottish Government over this. I think that I can echo the feelings of every institution across the land when it comes to what has happened with regard to this bill. They have lobbied very reasonably, they have lobbied very often and it has all fallen on deaf ears. That is deeply regrettable and I do hope that the Scottish Government will look at that again and bring that legislation back to the next Parliament. Thank you very much. We now move to the open debate. I call on Stuart Maxwell to be followed by John Pentland, four-minute speeches type for time. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, for what is a relatively modest piece of proposed legislation, the Higher Education and Governance Bill has generated considerable comment. Indeed, it is fair to say that members of the Education and Culture Committee have certainly heard a number of concerns, some of those justified, others not. However, it is important to remember what lies at the heart of the bill and that is the ambition to democratise, modernise and bring greater transparency to our higher education institutions. That is about making Scotland's world-class universities even better by ensuring that they adhere to the highest standards of governance. It is for this reason that the Education and Culture Committee's stage 1 report recommended supporting the general principles of the bill. Indeed, the committee's report was informed by a range of views from across the sector, and it was clear at stage 1 that, although the bill's overall aims were worthwhile, more clarity was needed on a range of issues. I am pleased therefore that the Scottish Government listened carefully to the concerns raised in the report and took steps to amend the bill accordingly. The cabinet secretary worked to address concerns about the possible unintended consequences of the bill, and the reclassification issue has been a good example of that. In response to the stage 1 report, the Scottish Government said that it had considered the risk to HEIs of being reclassified as public bodies and subsequently amended the bill at stage 2 to minimise the risk of ONS reclassification. Another criticism level that the bill and reflected in the committee's stage 1 report was the apparent risk to the role of rectors at ancient universities. Again, the Scottish Government responded positively to those concerns, and I was pleased, along with the cabinet secretary, to introduce amendments at stage 2, which protect the statutory rights and responsibilities of rectors and ensure that the position is complementary to the senior lay member. As the cabinet secretary said, it was never the Government's intention to diminish the role of rector. In fact, the work of the rectors at Scotland's ancient universities is viewed very positively, and it is hoped that the extension of the elected chair model will benefit all of Scotland's HEIs. The remuneration of chairs was another key issue that was raised at stage 1, with a call for further clarity on the need for bringing forward a statutory power to set the level of remuneration. The cabinet secretary sought to build a consensus among stakeholders and supported amendments to ensure reasonable remuneration for elected chairs, whilst removing the requirement to have ministerial powers in this area. That is a welcome step, and I note that NUS Scotland has highlighted it as an important part of widening access to the role of elected chair. When considering the bill, it is worth remembering that those proposals are underpinned by the recommendations put forward by Professor von Brunsinski following his 2012 review of higher education governance, a review that gathered evidence from a range of experts based in Scotland, the UK, Europe and beyond. That bill is not about the Government taking control of universities, rather it is about ensuring that every voice on campus is given the chance to be heard. It is about ensuring that students and staff, the lifeblood of our higher education institutions, are placed at the very heart of the decision-making process. It is to be welcomed that the introduction of the higher education governance bill has sparked debate on a range of issues that are facing HEIs, including equality, diversity and senior pay levels, an issue that research published by the UCU has shone light on in recent weeks. Those are undoubtedly important matters, and I would expect further examination of them during the next session of Parliament. However, in conclusion, I believe that strengthening the democratic processes at our universities is a good thing. If passed, I look forward to the legislation that will ensure that Scotland's higher education sector continues to go from strength to strength. The passage of the legislation, as we have just heard, has not been a great advert for the Scottish Government's competence and grasp of educational matters. However, what matters is that it really should have been thrashed out in co-operation with the institutions, staff and students who have been pushed through despite frequent opposition over quite reasonable concerns. In particular, there was significant apprehension about the impact of changes that could adversely affect their financial status. The institutions were not easily mollified by SNP reassurances, particularly given the Scottish Government's track record of such reassurances turning into expensive mistakes. Douks remain about some aspects of the bill, and dissatisfied parties abound who will doubtlessly be looking for outcomes that give substance to such doubts. Despite its messy management, at the heart of the battle lies good intentions, namely to create more democratic, diverse and accountable governing bodies that operate with greater openness and transparency. A primary objective in this process, which has been supported by Scottish Labour in the amendments that were put forward, was to ensure that the operation of the governing bodies has opened up to staff and students and clearly works for their benefit. If such representation already existed, we wish to ensure that the existing powers in the hands of staff and students were not undermined. The role of elected chairs should strengthen transparency and democracy in our universities. The bill was initially drafted, neglected the role of the rector and gave rise to strong criticism for those universities who have a rector elected to chair the university court and to represent the students, or in one case, staff and students. Stage 2 amendments made provision for the election of the senior lay member position and the retention of an elected rector in the four institutions where the rector has a right to chair the court. For many, this was a second best to having a rector elected by all staff and students chairing court and with full leadership responsibilities. Now, while not the preferred option, it is, however, accepted as a compromise that will work. For the other institutions, it is a major step forward in representation. We are welcomed even by those with concerns about the final shape of that representation. There is no doubt that there have been problems in our higher education institutions. What the UCU calls a disconnect between principals and senior management on one hand and staff and students on the other. This legislation should go some way towards bridging that disconnect. The Scottish Government has somehow managed to muddle through and with some much-needy changes that took on board major concerns to retain a bill that is worse supporting or at best released as possible. Of course, there is too much to hope that they would have improved that further by accepting all our amendments. Today, those amendments included extending staff and student representation to relevant subcommittees of the governing body, as been moved by Mark Griffin, and amendment 48 by Cara Hulton to strengthen diversity and fair representation. I believe that the bill is weaker and poorer with a rejection. Liam McArthur, George Adam. Our university sector is genuinely world-class. That does not mean that our universities cannot be improved. Adapting to changing needs, expectations and circumstances is the only way to protect and enhance standards and reputation. In our HE sector, however, we have something to celebrate, to value and respect. One of the sector's great strengths, of course, are its differences, from the variety of institutions to the diversity of staff and student populations. It is absolutely right, therefore, that the governance of our universities properly and transparently reflect that diversity. That means giving effective voice to students and staff and the decisions that affect the institutions, ensuring that governing bodies look, sound and act like those they represent. How that is achieved, however, is a legitimate question, and it is territory over which politicians should tread with care, and that, however, has not been the watchword of the Government. From the outset, it has not been clear what the problem is that ministers are trying to fix. That evidence has been produced to justify the approach or explain what international comparators we are trying to emulate. Ultimately, there has been an inability to explain how this bill will make our university sector better. Proposals have been unveiled often, with little or no consultation, only then to be withdrawn or heavily amended once the full implications have been spelled out. This has left universities in collective despair and not just principals, rectors and chairs of court. Liam King, president of the Student Representative Council at Glasgow University, captured the frustration felt by many when he said, I am perplexed as to how the Scottish Government has managed to botch this bill so profoundly. From inadvertent clauses that risk turning Scotland's universities into public bodies, to utter ignorance over the relationship between the role of rector and role of chair of court, this bill has been an unmitigated disaster. He then goes on to conclude that it has been ramshackle and embarrassing, and ultimately it threatens to undermine a proud Scottish tradition, democracy in Scotland's universities and good governance. Fortunately, the cabinet secretary backed down from her game of chicken with ons over the threat of financially disastrous university reclassification, but a mess has still been made, notably in the confusion created by the overlapping roles and mandates of rectors and elected seniorly members. This, despite solemn promises by the minister not to meddle and the efforts of the committee convener to salvage the situation, might have been possible to limit the damage. The Government accepted my amendment on exemptions. That would have enabled the conservatoire at Glasgow School of Art and others with a strong case to be exempted from provisions within the bill to have their case heard and where appropriate respected. That would have been in keeping with the diversity of the sector. All the evidence shows that the best-performing universities worldwide are those exercising the greatest level of responsible autonomy. They should be accountable, transparent and reflect the diversity of the communities that they serve. How this is best achieved, though, should not be second guessed by ministers using the blunt instrument of legislation, given the complete absence of any evidence for why legislation is needed and the potential for this bill to hinder, rather than help, our world-class universities. I cannot support it at decision time this evening. I thank you, Presiding Officer. As I said while proposing my amendments at stage 3, the bill has caused storm and fury over practically every single part of it. However, during stage 1, we had the discussion with regard to ONS reclassification potential and too much ministerial control. During that period, the debate was listened to, and at stage 2, the cabinet secretary came back with amendments to change that, to make it different, to make sure that those beliefs were not there anymore. That actually happened, but then we still had the storm and fury that continued. There became something else that happened within the sector with regard to other issues. I was led to believe that my interactions with the sector themselves were the ministerial control. At stage 2, they wanted that and ONS potential reclassification they wanted that dealt with. When that was dealt with, that should have been the case of let's try and see a way forward, let's try and work together to make that move forward. Then we ended up with a situation in which we continued. There were other issues as well. That made me, first and foremost, a backbench MSP who represents my constituency. I have a university UWS. I went to see the principal, Craig Mahoney, and for the first half hour of our discussion, we effectively went through the academic arguments that has been going between the University of Scotland and the Government for about the past six months. Eventually, when we actually worked down and said how we could see as a modern institution how UWS could move forward, how we could actually see it as a way of making a difference in how it could manage that new structure, then I believe—I am not putting words into the principal's mouth, but I believe—that we actually got a better place than where we were. That is what we need to do when we are looking at this, is to sit back and say, right, how will this work in the very practical real world, as opposed to within the chamber here? During the education committee's evidence sessions that we had, there was much positive things said about our world-renowned university sector. The very spirit of the bill was to ensure the democratisation and the opportunity for the full campus to have representation, and everyone to work together to try to make that even better. I think that that was mentioned at stage 1 as well, but it is important that Mary Sr said UCU Scotland. No one is questioning that the Scottish universities are good. They are good. What they are saying is that they could be much better if staff, student and trade unions were fully involved in the way they operate. I believe that that is what the bill is all about. That is the heart and soul of the bill, where, effectively, we are giving the opportunity of the full community. Not everyone—I would like to say much—is not the best idea in the world, but when you work as a collective group, there are others who will be with you who will have a better idea. I believe that that is the ideology that we are talking about here, giving the opportunity of modernising those institutions and bringing them into the 21st century. As I have already said, that, for me, is the most important part of the bill. However, we have to be very mindful that those organisations are actually getting £3 billion worth of money, £1 billion comes from the Scottish Government, £1 billion from the UK Government and research, plus commercial activities with the other bill. That is two thirds of their budget that comes from the public purse, and we have to look at the way of making sure that that can be accountable for it, and there is a process there in place to account for that. Unfortunately, I have got the 10 seconds, Ms Smith. Basically, in closing, I believe in this bill. I see that it is a way forward for our institutions. I am at the stage now where I want to work with institutions to see how we move on from here. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to speak in this afternoon's stage 3 debate on the Higher Education Governments Bill. The bill before us is by no means perfect, and it would have been enhanced greatly if many of the amendments that we have been discussing this afternoon had been passed. However, the bill provides a real opportunity to improve and strengthen the democracy, transparency and accountability within Scotland's vital university sector. We know the contribution that our universities make to Scotland, to the academic, economic, social and cultural life of our nation, and the support that they provide keeping tens of thousands of people in work across Scotland. However, there is no doubt that they could benefit from being more open and more accountable, so I very much welcome the opportunities that the bill provides to address the current shortfalls in university governance and to improve accountability and transparency in decision-making structures. Given what she has just said, could she tell me why it was that it took two hours and two minutes for Labour to make its first contribution this afternoon? I have to confess that I am a wee bit confused by that intervention, so I will pass on now. Given staff, students and trade unions a real voice and a real say in the future of the universities that they learn, teach and work in. It is only right that public institutions that receive millions of pounds from the taxpayer every year are running in a way that is open, democratic and transparent. As I said during the stage 1 debate, I think that when we look at some of the issues that have hit the headlines in recent years, such as job losses and senior management pay, it is easy to see why that is the case. The decisions that Government boards make would undoubtedly be better if they themselves better reflected the diversity of the student and staff population, yet right now 65 per cent of Government board members are men, and women and other groups continue to be seriously underrepresented. I would like to refer to research published today by the university and college union holding down women's pay, which shows that four Scottish universities are paying their female employees at significantly lower rates than men. At the University of the Highlands and Islands, female lecturers are paying £18,000 a year less than their male colleagues. At St Andrew's in Fife, women lecturers are paid £8,699 a year less than their male counterparts. I think that it is absolutely outrageous that 50 years after the Equal Pay Act, such staggering pay inequality exists in Scotland's universities. Once more, that highlights why improving transparency and accountability in the university sector is so important. In that respect, I was disappointed that the cabinet secretary opposed my amendment to introduce quotas on university boards. It is unacceptable that, while women make up more than half the student population, more than half the staff, that only a third of Government board members are women. While we have seen progress, the fact remains that there is a lot more to be done to achieve gender parity in our universities. I think that this is a real missed opportunity, and it seems out of step with the commitments of the cabinet secretary and the First Minister to support the 50-50 campaign. Having more women on the Government boards of universities would not in itself address the pay gap that we have seen in the report today, but I am confident that that would lead to more urgency in addressing the situation. I am disappointed, too, that the Scottish Government has not accepted Alison Johnstone and Mark Griffin's amendments on regulating pay for senior managers. Greater scrutiny alone is not enough to tackle the unreasonable pay increases that we have seen at the top of the scale. It cannot be right that university principals and three-figure salaries are taking inflation, bust and pay increases, while staff are told to accept lesser inflation, year-in, year-out, forced to take strike action just to get a basic 2 per cent increase. I can see that I am running out of time, so I will move to the end of my speech. The higher education governance bill is not perfect, and it could have been improved in many ways, but for all its flaws, I think that it provides a greater chance to improve university governance for the better. I hope that, if the bill is passed today, it will make a real difference to university students and staff. I hope, too, that we can revisit the debate in the next session, so we can take real steps to tackle the issues of diversity in Scotland's universities and ensure that they are governed better in the future. Thank you very much for now moving to the closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It has been quite a long day. Can I just say that, when the cabinet secretary mentioned Thomas Carlyle, I thought that I would just look up one or two quotes on my iPad. I like the quote, if I may use it. The cheerful man will do more in the same time, will do it better, will preserve it longer than the sad or sullen. I like that one. I also like the quote, where he said, all great peoples are conservative. Of course, yes. I just wondered if she had a quote about cheerful women. I think that, given that you are very knowledgeable about the time that Thomas Carlyle was writing, we can assume that it was for men and women. I think that there is enough of us today to take on his comments. Presiding Officer, this is my last stage 3 debate, and after this will be my last member's business speech and Kara Hilton's member's business, and tomorrow will be my last speech. I wish, Presiding Officer, that I could be more consensual in this final debate. I would like to thank the clerks, as we normally do on these occasions, of the education committee, but I would particularly like to thank the convener Stuart Maxwell. It was not easy to gain consensus on this bill across the committee. It was fairly complex, it was difficult to understand. There was very little information and clarity was away out there on the horizon somewhere, but I think that Stuart did as well as any convener could in bringing it together at stage 1. However, since 1999, significant legislation has been passed by this Parliament. I have been involved in mental health, banning smoking in public places. Across the political divide, we have always often disagreed on the policy approach to addressing problems through legislation, but this is the first time that I have found legislation looking for a problem. It has never actually had that since 1999. When the cabinet secretary said, she was surprised at the level of opposition from some, I have to correct her and say, it was not just some universities, it was every single higher education institution in the whole of Scotland. It is also quite incredible that the Government response to the justification of the bill is that it consulted one man, Professor Von Prondzynski, and he certainly got a lot to answer for. However, as others have said, the code of governance was to be reviewed this year, and there is no doubt that progress has been made. The University of Scotland has quoted that the code has already delivered nearly 400 positive changes, with 72 per cent of universities having two or more student governors, and 94 per cent having two or more staff governors. In August this year, we will have 50-50 gender balance for chair positions in Scottish universities, when another woman takes up a place in August. The 50-50 is happening. I hope in future when politics students look at this legislation. I hope that they do not use this bill as a shining example of what we do. On the face of the bill, at stage 2, there is a duty on the universities to advertise on the internet. Thankfully, it has been removed today, but I am not quite embarrassed that someone came up with an idea to tell our world-class universities that they have to advertise on the internet. On the face of the bill, in primary legislation, all the air in a nice bright purple, tell people that one where to get their application forms. It is a little bit embarrassing, so I see you are asking me to wind up. I think that I have probably done enough winding up, Presiding Officer. I would also like to thank my colleague Liz Smith, who has worked extensively across the sector, consulting and putting forward points of concern for higher education in Scotland. Mark Griffin is set out by Ian Gray at the beginning of the debate. Labour supports the general principles of the bill. It is a bill with laudable aims of ensuring that the structure of governance of our universities continues to develop and adapt to maintain the first-class university provision in which we should all take pride. In particular, from the start of the process, we have offered our support for the inclusion of trade union reps and student reps on governing bodies as a democratisation of higher education institutions governing bodies. We believe that that is central to ensuring the aims of greater transparency and accountability in the sector. All parties in member speeches in the chamber today have recognised the importance of the higher education sector to Scotland's economy and our international standards, so we should be listening to the sector's views and responding to its concerns. The value that we place in our higher education system in Scotland is part of our cultural DNA. We extol the virtues of our historic and new universities, and it is with great pride that we talk about our contribution to the world, not just in educating our own young people but in the world leading in research and dynamic entrepreneurship, which is recognised across the globe. It is in that context that we must view the bill. A context that has seen our universities continue to succeed in an increasingly competitive international climate. We must be cautious in attempting to improve the way that our institutions operate. We avoid diminishing or restricting the freedom that has contributed to that success. Scottish higher education is a long history of having staff and students at the heart of its mechanisms of governance. Staff and students are full members of university's governing body and the court at every institution. According to University Scotland, 94 per cent of institutions have two or more staff members and 72 per cent have two or more student members of court. We all recognise that the approach that we have to take should seek to build on that record rather than suggest that there is a problem with university governance, which requires a top-down overhaul. What was presented by the Government through the various stages of the bill has caused an unnecessarily difficult process. The cabinet secretary said that she was surprised at the level of opposition. I find myself surprised at how difficult it was for us to support the bill in its form, given our support for the general principles. Bad drafting, ministerial overreaching at times, genuine incompetence has put unhelpful pressure on the coalition of support that has existed for the bill. I am pleased to see that the cabinet secretary has recognised many of the drafting mistakes and pleased that, as a committee, we were able to help to rectify those mistakes. The issue of ONS reclassification, the clash with the role of Rector, and the incohemence around the Government's role in managing our universities have all been overcome, but I am disappointed that we have not chosen to further strengthen and improve the bill at stage 3. We supported the representation of staff and students on the remuneration committee. In light of the Government's failure to get to grips with pay and conditions packages in our colleges, it would seem that they are content to allow other public bodies to set their own terms. We felt that it could have been a crucial check on excessive pay to have those at the top and the bottom of the pay scale deciding on senior management pay increases. We are disappointed that the Government has chosen to reject that, but I think that the cabinet secretary has to be commended for accepting that there have been mistakes and issues with drafting, listening to the committee, listening to the sector and to the voices in the chamber. The repercussions of the Government getting it wrong on higher education governance are so serious that we will be watching carefully. Implementation of good ideas has never been the strong point of this Government curriculum for excellence being a case in point. That is why we will be scrutinising every detail as the policy moves forward into practice. Despite a bad start in a rocky road to get here, we have to make sure that our world-class universities are supported with the freedom and the framework to continue to provide a first-class education in ground-breaking research for which they are revered, and that is why we will be supporting the bill today. I thank members for today's stage 3 debate and put on record my thanks to the Education and Culture Committee, unlike Mary Scanlon. I am not going to embarrass the convener Stuart Maxwell. I also want to pay tribute to Oliver Steakholders, whether that is NUS, UCU and indeed Universities Scotland. Both Mark Griffin and Ian Gray said that the bill has not been without its problems. Of course, there have been a few twists and turns and a few bumps in the road on the journey that has been travelled. Of course, that does mean that the final destination is to be appreciated all the more. I thank Ian Gray for his opening remarks and, if I could say to Mark Griffin, that some of his amendments that came forward at stage 3, perhaps he may reflect on hindsight that, if they had been brought forward at stage 2, they could indeed have been developed further. Of course, I am not surprised to hear that Liz Smith, Baroness Goldie and Mary Scanlon are opposing the bill to the bitter end. Of course, it is their democratic right to do so, and they, of course, have been very active participants in this debate and have pursued their points and their views with tenacity. I suppose that the reality is that I could have turned wine into water and I would still have failed to persuade some on those benches of the merits of the bill. However, I would have hoped that there could have been some acknowledgement of how far we have travelled in terms of the measures in the bill that we have sought to meet the widest possible range of views from those with an interest in the bill. If I quote NUS Scotland in its briefing, when they said that, while they remained unconvinced of the need for any attempt to shortlist candidates, we recognise that the proposed model seeks to find a compromise among stakeholders, and we have been very supportive of the Scottish Government's attempts to find a compromise. I flag that up to John Pentland in particular to make the point that we have sought very hard to achieve a level of consensus, particularly in advance of the final stages of the bill. There are extensive efforts from the word go to communicate and engage with everyone who had an interest. There have been a lot of very valuable and informed contributions throughout the course of the afternoon. I think that both Cara Hylton and Alison Johnstone made very powerful contributions in acknowledging that universities have to be at the forefront of tackling inequality both within and outwith their institutions. However, I have to say to Cara Hylton in particular if a matter is outwith the legal competence of this Parliament that there is indeed a limit to those often debated ministerial powers. I emphasise, Presiding Officer, how much support this bill actually has, and we have to remember that there is a wider university community beyond principles and chairs of court, important though their opinions are. Many HCI staff, students and other stakeholders, including MSPs, signalled their appetite for change and modernisation in governance structures. I am grateful to them all for their variance and solidarity in showing support for legislation through its passage. We have touched upon it today in the closing debate on the statutory and historical role of Rector and how that has been protected. I want to pay tribute, in particular, to Catherine Stiller. Although we have not always agreed on every detail, she has made a very worthy contribution to the debate and has sought to make her contributions constructively and meaningfully. It is important to look to the future, although Liam McArthur seemed determined in his contribution to revisit the past debates, but I am going to resist the temptation to point out some of his efforts to introduce blunt legislation and some of which I would consider rather illiberal times. However, it is important that we now set aside our differences of opinion and collaborate to make the bill's provisions work and the long-term interests of our institutions and HE sector. Universities and other HE institutions play a vital role in the wellbeing of our society and economy. I have been clear throughout the bill that processes throughout that the retonomy is something that we all value and want to maintain. The Government continues to make a substantial public investment in higher education because our institutions are high-quality organisations that contribute hugely to our ambitions to be a fairer Scotland with a more prosperous economy. We know that time stands still for no one. Our institutions are good, but now is the time to refine governance arrangements to maintain that excellence that they are renowned for. Any institution that exists as part of a nation's fabric must move with the times and ensure that it remains capable of contributing to how the nation wishes to develop its culture and its values. In 21st century Scotland, there is an appetite for greater participation in those democratic processes that affect our lives and our futures for people with a stake in the future of their communities to have a say. That bill ensures that that will happen in relation to the HE sector. I want to conclude by encouraging our higher education institutions to focus on the positives that the bill introduces. Fundamentally, the bill is about modernisation, a focused, discreet and targeted modernisation that will help to create a stronger unity of purpose and sense of community on campus. The bill seeks to strengthen the wellbeing of our universities by ensuring that more responsibility for governance, for success and for excellence is taken by more of those with a direct interest in those outcomes. In short, the bill seeks to ensure that all voices on campus are heard. For anyone still reluctant to embrace the changes that the bill introduces, allow me to finish with a quote from Socrates, which I hope everyone will heed. The secret of change is to focus all your energy not on fighting the old but on building the new. Thank you. That concludes the debate on higher education governance Scotland. The next item of business is consideration of motion 15818, in the name of John Swinney on the Enterprise Bill UK legislation. I call on John Swinney to move the motion. The next item of business is consideration of motion 15761, in the name of Michael Matheson on the Armed Forces Bill UK legislation. I call on Michael Matheson to move the motion. Thank you for the question. This motion will put decision time to which we now come. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at motion 15837, in the name of John Swinney, on the Land and Builders Transaction Tax Amendment Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to and the Land and Builders Transaction Tax Amendment Scotland Bill is passed. The next question is at motion 15838, in the name of Angela Constance, on the Higher Education Governance Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed to move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 15838, in the name of Angela Constance, is as follows, yes, 92, no, 17. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to and the Higher Education Governance Scotland Bill is passed. The next question is at motion 15818, in the name of John Swinney, on the Enterprise Bill UK legislation, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion 15761, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the Armed Forces Bill UK legislation, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members to leave the Chamber should do so quickly and quietly.