Schedule 2.—(POWERS OF UNIVERSITY COURTS.) (Hansard, 17 February 1966)

§ Mr. MacArthur
I beg to move Amendment No. 52 in page 10, line 37, at the beginning to insert: Subject to the provisions of section 7 of this Act". This point was made by myself in Committee, and I do not propose to go through the arguments again in detail. The hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State was good enough to say that she would consider the point between the Committee stage and Report. I should be 1649 obliged if she would let us know the result of that consideration.
The argument, in brief, is this. There is an interesting contrast between Clause 7 and Schedule 2. Part I of Schedule 2 gives the university court the power, by ordinance, To amend the composition, powers and functions of the University Court, the Senatus Academicus, and the General Council…", whereas Clause 7 lays down specifically the proportion of readers and lecturers who should belong to the senatus academicus of each of the older universities. It would, perhaps, be a mistake not to have the protection of the Amendment written into the Schedule in view of the very special recognition of the position given by the provisions of Clause 7.

§ Mrs. Hart
I have very carefully considered this Amendment and I have a good deal of sympathy with the motives which lie behind it. However, having considered it in terms of a logical and sensible Bill within which the various parts are consistent with each other, it does not seem a good idea to accept the Amendment. First, there is the protection that any change in the composition of the senate as laid down in Clause 7 would have to be prescribed by ordinance. It would, therefore, have to come before the Privy Council. To that extent, there is the full protection of the Privy Council.
It would be inconceivable, either at present or in the foreseeable future, that in the existing climate of opinion the courts would seek to reduce the proportion of members of the senate who are readers and lecturers relative to the others. This is not a point on which anyone need have any fear.
If, therefore, it is not likely to be a practical possibility because nobody would allow it to happen, and if there is the protection of the Privy Council, the question that remains is whether, having regard to the importance that we attach to this point and have done in our consideration of the Bill, we should distinguish between this type of ordinance and this aspect of the composition of the senate in comparison with other equally important aspects of the constitution of the senate—for example, the number of senate assessors on the court. This is a matter which is regarded 1650 as quite as important by many people. If an Amendment covered this point, what would be the logic in refraining from making other Amendments that enshrined other provisions of a parallel nature in the Bill?
It is therefore merely on grounds of inconsistency in the Bill rather than because of any lack of sympathy with the hon. Member's intentions that I do not regard his Amendment as acceptable, it being clearly understood that one recognises the total improbability that any worsening of the position from this point on would occur in the proportion of readers and lecturers. There might possibly be an extension, but not a reduction.

§ Mr. MacArthur
I am grateful for the hon. Lady's sympathy and, in general, I accept her explanation. I agree that it is most unlikely that any change of this kind would be proposed, but I thought it right to raise the matter in what I thought to be the interests of consistency. The hon. Lady has, however, reminded us that in the unlikely event of this happening there would be a form of protection through the Privy Council. I accept that and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment

§ Mrs. Hart
I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 11, line 4, to leave out "always that in" and to insert "that before proceeding to".
This is a minor drafting Amendment designed to make it clear that the court must take into account the views of any body set up under the Acts of 1858 or 1889 before any steps are taken to amend the composition of that body. In Committee, at col. 243, I accepted an Opposition Amendment the purpose of which was to ensure that the bodies set up under those Acts would be heard if it were intended to amend their composition.
Technically, in view of the acceptance of the "body or person" Amendment—that phrase is now familiar to hon. Members—there was no need to accept the Opposition Amendment on that occasion. Since any change can be made only by ordinance procedure, those bodies could make representations under Clause 4(c). However, under the ordinance procedure 1651 those bodies can make representations only when they have received the draft. The Amendment would enable any of those bodies to make recommendations during the preparation of the draft—that is, before the procedure of Clause 4 has begun to operate. This strengthens the proviso.
The Amendment may go some way to meet the representations of Edinburgh Corporation. We have a later Amendment concerning the curators of patronage, but this Amendment is relevant to it in that it protects their position much further.

§ Mr. MacArthur
I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 11, line 6, at the end to insert: and in the case of the Curators of Patronage, shall have their consent". As the hon. Lady has just said in our discussion on the previous Amendment, the point is to some extent covered by what has gone before, but, with respect to the hon. Lady, not sufficiently so.
The University of Edinburgh has its roots back in time in the College of Edinburgh, or the Town's College, which was founded in the sixteenth century by the town council of Edinburgh. Under the Act of 1858, the patronage of certain chairs in the University of Edinburgh was transferred from the town council to the curators of patronage. There are seven curators of patronage, three nominated by the University Court and four nominated by the town council. The relationship between the curators and the university is a very ancient one and, in a sense, the curators have carried forward today the ancient atmosphere of the original nature of the foundation in which the university started its being.
I understand that what might be called the balance of power between the various sections of the curators of patronage is now the subject of some discussion as to whether there should be three or perhaps four members nominated by the university court and may be three members nominated by the corporation instead of the present four.
Obviously I do not propose to discuss the merits of that at the moment. But I think that it is important in the Schedule 1652 to provide that if there is to be a change in the weighting of authority within the curators of patronage, the curators of patronage themselves, as a body, should give their consent to that change, and the whole authority for the change should not be entirely in the hands of the university court. I hope that the hon. Lady will extend her sympathy on this occasion to acceptance of the argument and the Amendment.

§ Mr. David Steel
I hope that the hon. Lady will not extend her sympathy to the Amendment. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) is quite correct in tracing the origin of the curators of patronage. The fact that they are more or less a mediaeval institution is no reason why they should have supervening powers today. The case for taking their views into consideration has been adequately met in the Amendment that we have just passed, and I hope we shall not continue to give some right of veto to this mediæval, interesting but perhaps not quite up-to-date body in the administration of the university.

§ Mrs. Hart
I have just been experiencing the same sense of slight surprise which has afflicted me from time to time during the passage of the Bill, in that I have never been quite sure what any hon. Member was going to say. The support of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) is surprising, but none the less welcome.
I must say to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) that the previous Amendment covers the point. He will know, as he indicated, that discussions are going on between Edinburgh Corporation and the university. We have looked into it very carefully, and we do not find any reason to suppose that Edinburgh Corporation has any distinct feeling of unhappiness about the arrangements that have been made in the Bill. I can see that those who are mediæ valists, either by taste or by inclination, may feel that, above all, the interests of the curators of patronage must be protected, and I can see that the hon. Gentleman feels that.
I would say that Edinburgh Corporation seems pretty happy that mediævalism is being preserved to some extent at least in the Bill, that the curators of patronage 1653 are being given every possible consideration, and relationships with the university show no signs of any pronounced deterioration on that account.

§ Mr. MacArthur
I am not a medievalist. I do, however, have a certain respect for ancient institutions. I think that it is unwise to weaken them or to push them about without very careful thought, and this was at the back of my mind in moving the Amendment. However, the hon. Lady has pointed out that the previous Amendment does to some extent meet the point, and I accept her assurance that the discussions which are now going on, and to which the Amendment directly relates, are taking place in a spirit of harmony and agreement. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.