Chamber and committees

Thank you. That is helpful.

I appreciate that, Professor Mathieson, and people are not looking for it to be sugar-coated. I believe that they genuinely want to see what the situation is, without the sugar-coating, but they also want you to hear what they have to say without their sugar-coating it. Having that open dialogue, on the back of some of the discussions today, could go a long way to trying to come to the joint solution that your students, your staff, your leadership and you want to see, which would mean that the University of Edinburgh could continue to do the great work that it is doing for the region and for Scotland.

Have you done any impact assessment of the decision?

I will start in a similar vein to how my colleague Willie Rennie finished, which is to say two things. First, it is fair to say that students and staff at many institutions across Scotland are worried and are having what they think and believe is—and what objectively looks like—a pretty hard time, if I am honest. Many of you have acknowledged that. Secondly, I would like to acknowledge the fact that our universities are some of the most leading and well-respected institutions in the world. I genuinely appreciate the work that you and your staff teams across Scotland do for the country and for students attending them.

I will start with a question for Professor Mathieson, which goes back to some of the points that we heard earlier around the particular situation and your circumstances at the University of Edinburgh. We have done a lot of work on this, so I want to get something clear on the record. Trade unions have told us that they did not feel that many alternatives were explored or that, if alternatives were explored, they did not understand what they were, partly because they felt that they did not have the information they needed and partly because they were not sure that they had been explored at all.

Could you set out for us what alternatives specifically were explored before reaching the conclusion that you have drawn, which is that you have to reduce the staff?

Thank you; I appreciate that.

Professor Miller, one representation that has been made to me on the circumstances in your university is that some of the potential job losses disproportionately impact on the social sciences division. It has been put to me that many widening access students, mature students and first-generation students attend that particular area. What is your response to that concern?

I understand that. You have spoken about responsible leadership and responsibilities. You will know that staff, too, have responsibilities, not only to their subject but also to the students and in respect of their own personal circumstances—their home and their life. They are finding it difficult, particularly when, as they have told us, they are not privy to the information that you say that you have given them. The committee is navigating two sets of truths, I suppose, or two sets of circumstances that we are trying to understand.

As a way forward, would you consider meeting the joint unions on the back of today’s session to talk in more detail with them about the specific operating alternatives that you looked at in order to show that you have left no stone unturned—as Ross Greer said—and have wrung as much out of every other area that you considered? People understand the issues of liquidity and the things that are fixed or not fixed. However, would you commit to meeting them again and to having that open dialogue? If different decisions can be come to, that would be great; if the same decisions are come to, at least people will feel that they have been included, have been part of the discussion and that your legal obligations as an employer have been carried out.

Thank you. Briefly, if staff or trade unions and their representatives have any questions or concerns about the impact assessment, would you be prepared to discuss it with them?

Revisiting issues when more is known is welcome.

My final question is for Claire McPherson and Professor Rigby. I am struck by the evidence that you submitted from Universities Scotland that spoke about the biggest issue being the underfunding of the sector and the levelling down of public funding. From what Professor Rigby said, the operating environment for universities is almost the worst of both worlds. Given all the things that universities are being asked to do now through the SFC and its allocations, widening access to protect Scottish-domiciled students’ experience and to enhance research, are they being asked to do the impossible with the resources and the model that they have?

I will ask my substantive questions in a moment, but I have a supplementary question on the clawback. Professor Miller and Professor Rigby, you have both spoken of concerns about articulation, in particular, and the flexibility in the system. Has the SFC indicated to either of you or to the Government that there is an understanding of the pressures on all parts of the tertiary system and the flexibility that is required for it to deliver what Scotland needs to address some of the problems that you have highlighted?

I agree.