Meeting of the Parliament 08 March 2016
As has been said a few times, the bill acknowledges the diversity of our institutions, which should be valued. However, we want a high level of consistency across the sector when it comes to good governance.
Where Liz Smith and I fundamentally disagree is that she wishes to reduce the powerful and influential role of the senior lay member—which, in my view, should be an elected position—to that of a quasi rector. She wishes to downgrade the role of senior lay member, which is not in keeping with the bill or the Government’s position.
Amendment 1 seeks to remove a central function from the senior lay member, as I have indicated. In doing so, it removes one of the clear distinctions between the role of senior lay member and that of 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 such functions of the senior lay member as are provided for by virtue of any enactment or in accordance with the governing document of the institution.”
That means that the governing body would be able to make its own rules about the functions of the senior lay member, even allowing it to remove from the senior lay member 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 chairing member—it is recognised in the code as the main role of the chair of a governing body. The amendment could allow the governing body to render the role of the senior lay member meaningless.
As with the amendments lodged by Mr Brodie, Liz Smith’s amendment 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 to governance within institutions and enables the status quo to be retained. I therefore cannot support amendment 1. If Mr Brodie presses amendments 28 to 30 and 40, and Ms Smith presses amendment 1, I urge members to reject them.