Iain Macwhirter suggests that the row over the Government's Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Bill centres on the desire of some university principals to run their institutions like private companies ("A question of principles on how our universities are run", The Herald, September 17). He then asserts that they are not private companies but public institutions.

The Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, which is covered by the Bill, is a private (not-for-profit) company, albeit with public responsibilities. Half of its shares are held by the elected representatives of students, academic and non-academic staff who are also members of the board. All students and staff have the right to attend and observe board meetings. They, together with the Conservatoire's other key stakeholders, are encouraged to attend and ask questions at the annual general meeting, where the Principal and other board members are held to account.

The Conservatoire supports, and indeed exemplifies, the objectives of the Bill to promote transparency, inclusivity and accountability in governance. But its elected student, staff and other board members, its one trade union representative and its academic board, are all opposed to the main provisions of the Bill, including the right of third parties (trade unions and alumni associations) to make appointments to its board, which would impinge upon the democratic and autonomous nature of the institution. They also favour a form of representative democracy, rather than direct elections, to apply to the appointment of the chairman, because elected representatives of students and staff on the board are better placed to understand the requirements of chairmanship and to judge the attributes of candidates.

The enlightened use of the private company model of governance is well suited to a small performing arts institution which has a distinctive ethos and numbers its students in hundreds, not tens of thousands. In matters of governance, scale and ethos count.

The Bill seeks to impose consistency in governance across the higher education sector. That aim is misplaced. Consistency in the principles of governance is highly desirable and can be achieved through the Scottish Code of Good HE Governance, without resort to legislation. Uniformity of practice, however, as imposed by the Bill across a widely and healthily diverse sector is unwarranted. If pursued, it will lead to a series of undesirable consequences, intended or unintended.

As Mr. Macwhirter points out, the Bill is highly dependent upon the recommendations of the von Prondzynski Review. That review was not unanimous, did not have a chairman independent of the sector and, by its own admission, did not investigate the circumstances of the Conservatoire or other small specialist institutions. Sadly, its shortcomings have found their way into prospective legislation.

Iain Vallance,

Chairman,

Board of Governors,

Royal Conservatoire of Scotland,

100 Renfrew Street,

Glasgow.