Meeting of the Parliament 08 March 2016
Mr Brodie has outlined today and at stage 2 that there are, at present, clear divisions and clear lines of responsibility between the senior lay governor and the rector in the five institutions that have a rector. He is correct that clarity of purpose is essential for good governance.
The fact that the bill will create an overlapping franchise and, therefore, overlapping responsibilities is a serious issue that the Scottish Government must surely recognise. Notwithstanding our political differences on the matter, I hope that the Scottish Government can see fit, even at this late stage, to undo what is a muddle. There is a significant difference between opposing an element of the bill for policy reasons and opposing that element because it creates confusion, which is exactly what has happened here.
I emphasise strongly that the task that is before us at stage 3 is to address the bill’s practical implications, rather than the principles, and ensure that what we vote for at decision time is both workable and acceptable to the diverse institutions that make up our HE sector. We owe them that, at the very least—a point that Mr Brodie has made. That point was recognised fully at stage 2 by SNP members Sandra White, Jim Eadie, George Adam and Chic Brodie, not least because, as they reported, they had been lobbied by the various institutions in their constituencies. It is also apparent that Labour and the Green Party agree with the point, too.
It is essential that a governing body is chaired by the person whom that body has the greatest confidence in, as confidence is a principle of good governance in any institution, never mind a university. There must be absolute clarity of purpose. We are therefore happy to support Mr Brodie’s amendments 27 and 31.