Enterprise and Culture Committee, 05 Sep 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 5, 2006

Official Report 241KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

The Robert Gordon University (Scotland) Order of Council 2006 (SSI 2006/298)

We have four items of subordinate legislation to consider, all of which are negative instruments, which means that we just need to report to the Parliament any comments that we have. I have asked that, for each instrument, we have representatives from the Scottish Executive to answer any questions that members might have. I hope that we have not delayed them too long.

The first instrument is the Robert Gordon University (Scotland) Order of Council 2006 (SSI 2006/298). We have with us Louise Sutherland and Andrew Campbell from the Executive and Natalie Laing from Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen. Natalie Laing will give us a brief introduction and then I will ask whether there are any questions about the order.

We are happy to have the opportunity to outline to the committee the background to making the order. The provisions for the governance of the university were contained in the Robert Gordon University (Scotland) Order of Council 1993 (SI 1993/1157). In early 2004, the university began a fairly significant review of its governance structure and, as part of that evaluation, a review of the university's constitution was undertaken.

A number of significant issues arose from that review and certain key areas that required to be addressed were identified. In particular, the university wished to ensure that it was working within a governance structure that would ensure that it would fulfil its ambitious development plans well into the future. It sought to ensure that its constitution supported all the needs of a modern institution that now works in an international arena.

The overall feel of the new order of council is more modern and lean in both substance and language than the 1993 order. Rather than amend the 1993 order, there has been an almost complete reworking of the existing order. The result is a document that I think you will find much more user friendly and functional. It is also more accessible to anyone who chooses to access it.

Although it is a completely new order, the principles of control and accountability that existed within the 1993 order are still entrenched within the 2006 order. In conducting the review of the university's constitutional arrangements in 2004, it became clear that the university was in a slightly unusual position because, arguably, two legal entities were co-existing. One was the governors of the Robert Gordon University, which was effectively the governing body or the board. The other was the institution itself, the Robert Gordon University. In the 1993 order of council, the body corporate was identified as the governors of the Robert Gordon University and the university holds its properties in that name. However, in all other respects, including all primary and secondary legislation in which the university appeared, it was referred to as the Robert Gordon University. In order to make the university itself the body corporate and to sweep away the anomaly, it has been necessary to establish a new Robert Gordon University. The constitution, functions and powers of the new university are set out in the new order of council. The original university will be closed and all property, staff, rights and liabilities will transfer to the new institution. It is proposed that that will take place on 4 October.

Thank you. That was very helpful.

I draw the committee's attention to the cover note on the order of council, which points out that the Subordinate Legislation Committee considered it on 13 June 2006 and agreed to raise various points with the Scottish Executive. I believe that the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Scottish Executive have now resolved those issues. As a result, an amending order has been laid and will need to be considered by this committee at a subsequent meeting, but we are still required to consider this order. Does anyone have any questions for the panel?

This is not a question for the panel, but one about the procedural issue that you have highlighted. The covering note raised a question in my mind about why we are in this situation. Instinctively, I feel that we ought to be able to look at such matters in the round. Is there a wider procedural point that we should raise within the Parliament? I do not think that such a situation normally occurs.

I ask the clerk to comment.

It is not a normal occurrence, although it is not unusual for an amending order to be laid. Our original intention and desire was to deal with both SSI 2006/298 and the Robert Gordon University (Scotland) Amendment Order of Council 2006 (SSI 2006/404) at the same committee meeting, so that we could consider them in the round. Unfortunately, the 40-day rule in standing orders requires us to consider SSI 2006/298 before 11 September, which means that we had to do so at this committee meeting. We could not also deal with SSI 2006/404 today because the Subordinate Legislation Committee has not completed its consideration of that instrument. We usually deal with an instrument after the Subordinate Legislation Committee has done so, in case it wants to bring any points to our attention. We checked during the summer recess to see whether there was any way round the problem, but there was not. If the committee is so minded, I am happy to take up the issue with both the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Procedures Committee to see whether anything can be done in the future to avoid this situation.

Everyone is nodding. We should draw the matter to the attention of those committees, because the situation is a bit daft.

For my own curiosity, can the officials give us a flavour of the issues that have been the subject of the amendment?

Yes. If it is all right, I can tell you that. It is straightforward. Basically, the phrase "or elected" was missed out twice in the order and it has been inserted in the amendment order. You will twice find reference to "appointment" in the order when it should say "be appointed or elected".

I thank Natalie Laing for that information; it gives some weight to the points that we want to make. We are stuck with the legislative framework as it is currently constituted. I know that the Subordinate Legislation Committee has been putting a lot of effort into considering what it does, including the procedures and the 40-day rule. I am sure that our comments will lend weight to its considerations.

Do we agree to draw our concerns to the attention of the Procedures Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee?

Members indicated agreement.

We have no further questions. The order is a negative instrument so we do not have to agree to it. We just report back.

I thank the panel. I think that Andrew Campbell is staying on for the next instrument. In fact, it is his lucky day as he is staying for all four.

---

Education (Graduate Endowment, Student Fees and Support) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/323)

For the second SSI I welcome, as well as Andrew Campbell, Kathleen Robertson from the Scottish Executive. I invite her to say a word or two about the regulations.

I do not have anything to add to the Executive note, but I can summarise briefly what is in the note, if that would be helpful.

Very quickly.

The first reason for the amendment regulations is to implement a Council of the European Union directive on the rights of European Community nationals and their family members to move and reside freely among the territory of the member states. In relation to student support, the directive broadly ensures that those who have acquired a right of permanent residence under the directive have a right to equal treatment in relation to maintenance support, but that other, non-economically active EC nationals and their family members who reside in the UK have a right only to equal treatment in relation to tuition fee support.

The second purpose of the amendment regulations is to remove the requirement for three years of ordinary residence in the UK and the islands as it applies to people who have been refused refugee status but given another form of leave to enter or remain. In short, the regulations bring them into line with refugees as they are currently treated.

Thank you. I draw the committee's attention to the cover note to the regulations, which states:

"The Subordinate Legislation Committee … considered the instrument on 13 June 2006 and agreed to raise various points (mainly defective drafting) with the Scottish Executive. The Executive has responded on these points. The SLC has drawn these points to the attention of the Committee."

I asked Stephen Imrie yesterday to give me some detail on those points. We can circulate that information, but there appear to be three fairly minor drafting problems. The first problem will be corrected by means of a correction slip. I have not heard of a correction slip since I worked at the Digital Equipment Corporation. What is a correction slip?

My understanding is that a correction slip is used to correct typos.

Does it come to us?

No, on the basis that, in effect, there has been a typing error in the process of putting the SSI together. If it was a substantive point, it would go through by way of an amending instrument.

So, if a student looks at the statute book next year, the correction slip will have corrected the problem.

Yes.

The second point will be corrected in a forthcoming consolidation.

Yes. All the other drafting errors will be corrected by our next action, which will be the overdue consolidation of the student support regulations. The amendment regulations that you are considering consolidate a large part of the regulations in terms of the two schedules that set out the residence criteria, but we have the remaining stuff to do. It is due to be laid in January.

Okay. It would appear that we have no worries.

I have a question. I recall the process starting when I was on the Subordinate Legislation Committee. Can you confirm that, with the amendment regulations, we are in line with European human rights legislation and all the other statutes?

To date, yes.

Are there any further questions or points?

No.

---

Education (Student Loans for Tuition Fees) (Repayment and Allowances) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006<br />(SSI 2006/326)

For consideration of the third instrument, I welcome, as well as Andrew Campbell, Laura Barjonas and Tom Kelly from the Scottish Executive. I invite Laura to say a word or two.

The key points are covered in the Executive note, but essentially, the regulations are being introduced to enable Scottish students who study elsewhere in the UK to have access to a new means of fee support to cover the costs of the new variable fees that are being applied elsewhere in the UK for the current academic session. The repayment amendments are to bring into line the repayment arrangements for loans for fees as well as loans for living costs.

I am glad to see that the Subordinate Legislation Committee found no problems with the regulations. As no member has any question or comment, we thank you.

---

Education (Student Loans for Tuition Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/333)

Andrew Campbell, Laura Barjonas and Tom Kelly will speak about the final instrument under consideration today. Will Laura give us an introduction to the regulations?

They cover the same element as the previous regulations. They relate to the same purpose, but they are to ensure that the repayment requirements of students are consistent with the existing repayment arrangements.

As no member has any question or comment, we thank you for that—you were very helpful.