MINISTERS have backtracked over new laws to reform the way universities are run amid fears of greater ministerial interference in the sector.

Angela Constance, the Education Secretary, has written to the Scottish Parliament's education committee saying the government is minded to withdraw a number of controversial sections.

The Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Bill paves the way for the chairs of universities' powerful ruling Courts to be elected for the first time.

It also includes provisions for trade union members and student representatives to sit on Court and for the position of chair to be a paid post.

However, universities fear an impact on their autonomy because the legislation also allows some of these provisions to be changed by ministers at a later date.

They have also warned extra ministerial interference could mean universities are reclassified as public sector bodies, jeopardising millions of pounds of private investment and their charitable status.

In a letter to the committee Ms Constance said fears over the reclassification of universities by the Office of National Statistics had been "central" to decisions about the Bill and officials had decided they did not add to any existing risk.

But she added: "Although we are confident the provisions in the Bill do not amount to government control... we have listened to what stakeholders have said in respect of certain provisions in the Bill at introduction.

"Having given the matter careful consideration, the Scottish Government is minded to put forward amendments... to remove sections eight and 13 of the Bill."

Ms Constance went on to provide more detail over the election process for chairs.

She said the government's preferred option was for an open advertisement, interview and selection of candidates by a nomination committee and an election where all staff and students would have a vote.

Where universities already have an elected rector, who also has the right to chair meetings of Court, she said it was up to institutions to decide how the roles would work together.

"While we are aware this model does not attract unanimous support, we believe it meets with our stated policy aim of embedding modern, inclusive and transparent processes," she added.

Liz Smith, education spokeswoman for the Scottish Conservatives, welcomed the proposed removal of clauses related to ministerial interference, but said the sections "should never have been there in the first place".

She added: "The question of how the roles of elected rectors and elected chairs will work also remains unanswered."

A spokeswoman for Universities Scotland, which represents university principals, also welcomed the changes, but said concerns remained.

She said: "This response gives the strongest indication yet that the government is minded to remove the sections of the Bill which we believed increase universities’ risk of a reclassification. A move to do so would be constructive and very welcome.

"Some confusion and gaps in the evidence base still remain in important parts of the Bill, including whether the proposals on the selection process for the chair will actually improve what has already been recognised by government as good governance."

Mary Senior, UCU Scotland official, backed the election of chairs adding: "While our preferred option has been for rectors to be elected and to chair governing bodies in all institutions across Scotland, the plans for electing the senior governor and keeping an elected rector where one exists is one we think can work."

The origins of the Bill date back to 2011 when a number of universities, including Glasgow and Strathclyde, brought forward course cuts.

Unions felt consultations with staff and students were rudimentary and decisions were motivated by economic considerations rather than academic ones.

There have also been long-running concerns over the spiralling salaries of principals and the increasing autonomy of their management teams.