The next item of business is a statement by Jenny Gilruth on an initial response to the Gillies review of University of Dundee finances. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:21
Scotland’s universities are anchor institutions in our communities, acting both locally and globally. Put simply, they are woven into the very fabric of Scotland’s identity.
Before I turn to the substantive matters of today’s statement, I acknowledge the deep concern, uncertainty, and distress that many of the staff, students and members of the wider community of the University of Dundee have felt in recent months. I have witnessed that at first hand, having engaged with trade unions directly over recent months and having met with staff at the university’s school of life sciences.
At the heart of Dundee university is a community of people who care deeply about the future of the institution. My focus—the focus of this Government—is on ensuring that the University of Dundee emerges from this crisis stronger than ever.
Before we can move forward to secure that future, the university must respond to the urgent and clear conclusions of Professor Pamela Gillies’s report on financial oversight and decision making at the University of Dundee.
We have already seen individuals at the university take decisive action, with changes at a senior level being announced last week. That is welcome, and it must be the start of a process not just to appoint fresh leadership but to restore confidence among staff.
I am encouraged that Professor Nigel Seaton, formerly principal of Abertay University, will take on the role of interim principal on a short-term basis, and Ian Mair, who is deputy chair of court, will step in as interim chair of court. Elections will, quite rightly, take place for a new chair of court over the summer. I put on record my gratitude to the wider sector and to Universities Scotland for their collaborative efforts in supporting the University of Dundee.
Turning to the Gillies review, I sincerely thank Professor Pamela Gillies and her investigation team for the robust report that has been produced. I thank everyone who gave evidence to the review and I extend my gratitude for a thorough and insightful report that has uncovered the events leading to this situation. Indeed, there is much detail in the report alongside important recommendations for the university to consider. The overall themes include a breakdown in governance and processes at a leadership and court level, as well as a culture that did not cultivate openness and challenge; issues with financial management, reporting and oversight; and missed opportunities to raise and respond to a worsening financial situation.
Professor Gillies outlines that, although the Scottish Funding Council’s financial memorandum and code of good higher education governance in Scotland are fit for purpose, and that the university was obliged to comply with them, it did not do so. The code provides a framework for effective management and governance arrangements, but the university failed to operate effectively in practice.
Professor Gillies notes that there were inconsistencies and gaps in the information reported to the university’s executive group, finance committee and court. However, information was produced which, with appropriate challenge, should have signalled warnings from March 2024, if not earlier.
Although many of the recommendations are, quite rightly, a matter for Dundee university to respond to, ministers have already held early discussions with the Scottish Funding Council to consider what more we might seek to do to strengthen governance in our institutions. It is right that we do that, given the public interest in our universities.
With that in mind, I turn to the actions that the Scottish Government is taking to support the university at this difficult time. I make it clear that this is not about rewarding failure, but about responding to an unprecedented and unique situation that threatens much of what we hold dear in our university sector: students’ futures; Dundee university’s contribution to health and other sectors; the vitality of our communities; and the profound impact that the university has on the wider city region.
Colleagues will recall the announcement earlier this year of £25 million from the Scottish Government to the sector, of which £22 million was directed by the Scottish Funding Council to the University of Dundee. The Scottish Government is determined to do everything that we can to secure a positive future for Dundee university. That must be achieved through the delivery of a sustainable, long-term recovery plan in which public financial support will work alongside commercial and private investment to ultimately end reliance on extraordinary public funding.
To that end, ministers are keen to see progress at pace from the university to deliver that plan. We will, accordingly, develop appropriate conditions for the funding, working closely with the SFC, and only when that plan is in place will funding be released. The university’s journey towards immediate and longer-term sustainability will continue to be supported by the on-going work of the strategic advisory task force, chaired by Sir Alan Langlands, which is expected to complete its work in July.
Members understand that our universities are independent and autonomous institutions. In normal circumstances, decisions on the allocation of funding to individual institutions are, quite rightly, the responsibility of the SFC. However, this is a unique and unprecedented set of circumstances that requires a unique and unprecedented response. Where there has been the appearance of financial mismanagement at an institution, Scottish ministers are obliged to consider whether it is necessary or expedient to issue a direction to the SFC about the provision of financial support.
Subject to the public value test that I have set out today, Scottish ministers consider that it is both necessary and expedient for a direction to be issued to the SFC under section 25 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005. The use of that power is unprecedented and has been made necessary by the exceptional circumstances at the university, as set out in the findings of the Gillies report, which recounts
“poor financial judgement ... and weak governance”.
However, the process as set out allows for ministers to target a direct settlement to the University of Dundee, and to place specific conditions on that funding in this unprecedented set of circumstances. I can confirm, therefore, that the Scottish Government will provide funding in principle of up to £40 million over two academic years, or three financial years, via the Scottish Funding Council, to support the University of Dundee. That funding is subject to further due diligence prior to any expenditure occurring.
The SFC will continue to support the university in its development of a robust and deliverable recovery plan, which leverages commercial lending. However, there remains a liquidity gap. Dundee university estimates that gap to be in the region of between £45 million and £60 million across the next two academic years. That figure is also likely to be impacted by progress at the university to reduce expenditure and stabilise income.
Colleagues will understand that that figure requires to be further interrogated by the Scottish Funding Council. The SFC has been advised by Dundee university that, although this is not an immediate cash need, it will need to be addressed before the end of the current financial year. It is, therefore, vital that the university works to secure a plan that will allow for commercial lending to support some, or all, of that liquidity ask. The Government will, of course, consider all avenues and other support that we can provide to achieve that end.
I want to provide reassurance today to the wider higher education sector that the additional funding to Dundee university will not impact on the funding that is available from the SFC to any other institution. In doing so, I recognise that many institutions have, over recent years, worked proactively in response to a challenging operating environment to rationalise their operations, including their staffing levels. However, there is a need for our universities to reflect on the levels of growth that we have witnessed in some institutions during the pandemic in particular. Some of the planned job losses that are currently being experienced relate directly to that uncapped expansion; the costs that are being paid today are the unsustainable jobs that were created as a result of that.
Although Dundee university’s finances might be unique, its approach to investment in the international student economy is not, so there is a lesson in Dundee university’s experiences that other institutions should be mindful of.
Clearly, Dundee university will need time to fully work through the challenges that the Gillies review presents, and to respond accordingly. Ministers will support that endeavour through the auspices of the Scottish Funding Council, and the SFC will provide an update to the Education, Children and Young People Committee on its associated next steps. Ministers will provide a further update to Parliament early in the new term.
I have appreciated the cross-party engagement with local members, and I give colleagues an undertaking today that that engagement will continue as we progress with the associated next steps.
Finally, I offer my personal thanks to the trade union representatives at Dundee university. Their leadership and support to their members at this time has been invaluable.
A line must now be drawn under the mistakes of a collective few, and jointly, across this chamber, we must endeavour to support Dundee university to rebuild, thrive and, once again, flourish. The city of discovery should expect no less.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. Members who wish to put a question should press their request-to-speak buttons.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement and I express my concern for staff and students at Dundee university at this time.
When universities across Scotland are experiencing serious concerns about their future financial sustainability, I do not think that it is wise for us to say that we want just to draw a line under the mistakes that have been made at Dundee university. The cabinet secretary’s statement shows that, even after the steps that the Government has taken, there will be a potential £20 million black hole in the university’s finances over the next two years. If a bailout of £20 million is needed over the next two years, what will be the Government’s plan B to fund the gap?
Given Wendy Alexander’s allegations at the weekend, what police investigation might be undertaken into criminality at the university?
I thank Mr Briggs for his questions and I share his concern for staff and students. I am conscious that we are tight for time, but he mentioned a number of factors, and I will address each in turn.
I have not explicitly touched on the wider external factors, but there is no doubt that the changes to international immigration rules—which were, of course, introduced by Mr Briggs’s party—have hampered our institutions. We know that that was a factor in Dundee, and that is set out in Pamela Gillies’s report. Brexit has also been a factor for Dundee—again, the report addresses that.
Mr Briggs talks about drawing a line, but that is not the Government’s position at all. If he considers the totality of the recommendations, they are, in the main, quite rightly a matter for Dundee university. However, I have been clear today that ministers want to assure ourselves about approaches to governance. Mr Dey and I met the chair of the Scottish Funding Council only yesterday. He was very clear that, had the university adhered to the good practice guide that exists for all higher education institutions in Scotland, there would not have been an issue. As I identified in my statement, that is not what happened. However, we want to assure ourselves of what more we might do to strengthen governance in that respect.
Mr Briggs has identified a £20 million funding gap that I am not familiar with. The funding that I announced today is the totality of the ask from the university to date. That has been met. We also made available to the sector £25 million, of which £22 million was directed to Dundee earlier this year. We will continue to work with the university.
Finally, in response to the question about the next steps, plan B is—rightly—a matter for the university. However, the Scottish Funding Council is working to support the university, which needs to come forward with a long-term strategic plan to allow the university to thrive into the future.
There was a final point in relation to potential criminality, which I addressed in interviews last week. I have heard some of the challenge from Wendy Alexander about the culture in the organisation, which is also spoken about in the report. The Scottish Funding Council and Professor Pamela Gillies have assured me that they found no evidence of criminality. However, that is a matter for the appropriate authorities, and not for ministers, to comment on.
I thank Professor Gillies for her report, which lays bare the financial vandalism of three individuals in particular. There is real relief in Dundee that there is now a greater understanding and acknowledgement of the conduct of management and the collapse of effective governance at the university. We all have to focus on building a sustainable future for the city’s most important institution.
The university submitted a request for a further £100 million to the Scottish Government on 30 May, which was 25 days ago. Almost one month on from that, will the cabinet secretary set out to us what additional scrutiny of that request is required?
The cabinet secretary acknowledged that income growth from international recruitment is not a realistic option for Scottish universities. Where will Dundee university find the money to repay up to £60 million of loans, whether that is from the Government or from a commercial source? The Scottish Government has already given the green light for 300 jobs to be cut but, without income growth, will further cost cutting not be inevitable? How does the cabinet secretary think that that circle can be squared?
Michael Marra has raised a number of points. He mentioned the relief that is being felt in Dundee university. That was palpable after the Government’s first announcement on funding—I met staff on that very day, earlier this year. I have since heard from trade union members about their feelings on the back of the report that was published last week. I have also very much felt the frustration throughout the engagement that Mr Dey and I have had with staff.
Mr Marra is right to talk about a sustainable future. He spoke about the liquidity ask in the context of what I have announced. I have set out that the £40 million that has been requested will be met over the next financial years; that has been confirmed by the Scottish Government. We are required to undertake further due diligence with the university, which will be undertaken at pace with the Scottish Funding Council. Mr Marra should also be mindful that the outcome of the report, which was published only on Thursday, impacted on the way in which ministers were able to award the funding that I am talking about. The use of the section 25 power is unprecedented, and it requires us to reflect on the unique situation that exists in Dundee. We will continue to work with the university leadership on the next steps.
In my statement, I rightly talked about the need for additional funding to come from other sources that are not public—for example, via banks and commercial opportunities. Mr Marra will be aware of some of the challenges that the university has faced in that regard, which are spelled out in the report. Had lending been an available financial option for the university, it would not have found itself in such a challenging position. We will continue to work with the university to support its growth, which is vital for the institution, the city and the wider city region.
I welcome the announcement of support from the cabinet secretary and her decision to use the section 25 power. I also appreciate how much ministers have been engaging with me and other MSPs, who have largely worked on a collaborative basis across party lines.
My focus remains on the staff, who have been badly let down by the university’s management and who understandably remain angry and anxious. Will the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government’s financial support will help to save jobs in Dundee? Will she assure staff that steps will be taken to fully remove the threat of compulsory redundancies?
I thank Joe FitzPatrick for his engagement as the local constituency MSP. It is simply unacceptable that staff and students should suffer because of historical leadership and governance failures. The £40 million of funding that I have announced for the next two academic years will give staff and students confidence and will help to return the university to the thriving institution that we all want it to be. The money is needed to support that development and the delivery of the sustainable long-term recovery plan that Mr Briggs rightly spoke to. As I mentioned in my response to Mr Marra, public finance will work alongside commercial and private investment to ultimately end the reliance on extraordinary public funding. I will continue to consider all avenues and other support that might be needed.
The Scottish Government providing £40 million to the University of Dundee, subject to due diligence, is very welcome. However, the liquidity gap of between £45 million and £60 million will remain across the next two academic years. Do those estimates factor in the expected recruitment challenges in the domestic and international markets as a result of a reduction in the number of courses and reputational damage? Will the Scottish Government offer any long-term assurance on that liquidity gap beyond what the cabinet secretary has highlighted today?
Mr Golden hits on an important point, and I welcome his support for the £40 million that has been announced. There are issues in relation to the estimates that have been provided to ministers, and we will have to reassure ourselves of the totality of the ask from the public purse.
Mr Golden rightly speaks to the impact of international immigration—of course that will be a factor. Indeed, there will be fluctuating factors in the years to come that will impact on the totality of that figure. We are therefore working with the Scottish Funding Council to reassure ourselves about that final figure.
However, we are also asking the university to look more widely at other sources of funding, because there is not a sustainable future without that. I do not think that any of us here accept that the Government should directly provide on-going funding. We need to work with the university to allow it to come up with a plan that sets out a sustainable future, which was the point that Mr Briggs quite rightly made.
I agree with the member’s points. We will continue to engage with the Scottish Funding Council on reassuring ourselves of the totality of the liquidity ask.
The Leverhulme research centre for forensic science at the University of Dundee provides a range of crucial forensic services in Scotland. Recent evidence that was provided to the Criminal Justice Committee’s inquiry on substance misuse in prisons described the drug testing service provided by the centre as “critical”. I understand that nine core-funded staff are at risk of redundancy, which risks the future of the drug testing work for the Scottish Prison Service and for the planned national drug testing laboratory for Scotland.
Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on the work that is being done to secure the future of the centre, given its importance to the delivery of justice in Scotland? Will she provide clarity on the university’s recent statement that forensic science will continue to be delivered as part of its portfolio, while pressing ahead with possible redundancies for all its research-active and core-funded forensic science staff?
I thank Audrey Nicoll for raising a hugely important point. Dundee university’s contribution to our national and international forensics, justice and law enforcement policy is of significant importance, and the Government has made strong representations to the university about the importance of retaining its strength in forensic sciences.
To reassure Ms Nicoll, I highlight that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs is a member of the cross-Government group on Dundee, which is led by the Deputy First Minister. That is because we recognise the critical importance of the university’s forensic science capabilities, which must be protected into the future. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Funding Council will continue to offer the university support to ensure that it fully explores all available options to maintain its significant research expertise as part of its pathway to financial recovery.
I understand that the situation at the Leverhulme research centre relates to external research funding, which was already due to come to an end prior to the situation with Dundee university’s finances arising last November. However, I absolutely appreciate that this will be a really anxious time for staff, and I have asked my officials to engage with the Scottish Funding Council and other relevant stakeholders to explore options in order to optimise forensic capability at the university.
The report uncovers some awful failures, and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to progress the wider governance lesson for the sector. I would ask that, in doing so, she works with universities and the trade unions.
However, we should not ignore the fact that, although Dundee has experienced unique problems, the sector is in dire straits, with many institutions having to make cuts, resulting in job losses and fewer students from deprived areas going to university. The entire sector has endured little more than managed decline on this Government’s watch, with year after year of cuts and being told that there is no more money.
Can the cabinet secretary tell us where the £40 million is coming from?
Our universities in Scotland do not exist in a silo. They are impacted by policies that exist across these islands, not least, of course, international immigration rules. I am sure that the member will want to reflect on the role of those rules in relation to the findings of Pamela Gillies’s report. The University of Dundee was also impacted by Brexit, and that is set out clearly in the report. Finally, I mention the increase in employer national insurance contributions, which Universities Scotland estimates could cost the sector in Scotland up to £45 million.
I am sure that Ms Duncan-Glancy will urge her Labour colleagues to consider what more they could do to help to alleviate the pressure on Scottish institutions and on those across the United Kingdom. I will, of course, give her an undertaking that we will work with the trade unions and on a cross-party basis in relation to our continued work to support Dundee university.
Despite claims made by Conservative and Labour members last week, Professor Gillies clearly outlines the impact of a number of policies implemented by past and previous UK Tory and Labour Governments, including restrictive immigration policies, national insurance rises and Brexit. What is the cabinet secretary's assessment of how those Westminster policies have done further damage to the University of Dundee?
As I have just alluded to in my response to Ms Duncan-Glancy, the UK Government has a role to play here. It could help by recognising the impact of its policies that are damaging university finances, not just in Scotland but across the United Kingdom. Brexit, which I mentioned previously, national insurance rises and those immigration policies are all the responsibilities of another Government. It would be welcome if we could have a team approach to supporting the sector in Scotland that recognises where other responsibilities rest.
It does not need to be this way. The UK Government could support our plans for a Scottish graduate visa, or it could provide consequential support for universities for employer national insurance contributions.
We are stepping up for universities in Scotland. I urge Labour members in particular to consider what more their Westminster colleagues could be doing, too.
The cabinet secretary highlights the Gillies report’s call for openness and transparency, but already the interim leadership team is showing little sign of change. I have heard concerning reports that the democratically elected student representative on the court is being asked by the interim chair to not attend handover court meetings where the report is being discussed. There has been no attempt yet to include new voices from unions, Dundee University Students Association or the incoming rector in the development of the action plan, which is due later this summer.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that there is no justification for excluding court members from court discussions when there is no conflict of interest? What more can the Government be doing to ensure that the culture change that is needed starts now and that discussions about the future are inclusive, open and transparent?
The member has set out a range of factors that I am not familiar with. The important point to take from my statement today is that we all must come together to work to support a viable future for the university. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment on the specific minutiae that the member has set out in relation to the role of the university court.
However, I understand that the deputy chair of court was appointed by the court of Dundee university by correspondence last week, on 16 June. The appointment was for the court and was made by the court. Professor Seaton was the university’s choice for interim principal, and any dialogue with the Scottish Funding Council on that decision was about the process, in order to ensure that the university was following its governance processes; I think that that gets to the essence of the question that I have been asked. My understanding is that processes have been followed appropriately, but I am more than happy to engage with the member and the trade unions on the substance of her point.
I will have the opportunity later this week to question the former leadership of Dundee university. I am concerned today about its future, because that is far from certain.
The money that has been made available is good—I am really pleased about the £40 million—but it is only for two years. To avoid future job losses, on top of the 300 jobs that are already going, there will need to be a significant increase in income growth. If that does not happen, more job losses could come, but people do not believe that it is realistic to expect a significant increase in growth in such a short period of time.
If the university comes back to this position, will the Government step in again to prevent future job losses?
I thank Mr Rennie for his question and his participation in the round tables that we have held with local members. He says that he welcomes the £40 million of funding that was announced today.
I do not want to be back here in two years’ time talking about additionality for the sector and, in particular, for Dundee university. Our purpose in providing the funding that was announced today is unique and unprecedented. That is why ministers have been advised to use the section 25 power, which is very different from the approach that we took earlier in the year, if Mr Rennie recalls, when we announced wider funding for the sector, of which Dundee university received £22 million in support.
This goes back to the essence of Mr Briggs’s question, which was about a plan and a sustainable look to the future. The leadership of Dundee university has to come forward with that plan at pace. The Scottish Funding Council has been working to support the university in that regard. The plan will require a look at extra sources of funding that are not public money, because public money alone is not a sustainable way in which to fund our autonomous, independent universities.
We will continue to work with the university sector. We have provided that £40 million of support thus far in addition to the £22 million of support. We will continue to work with the university on the liquidity ask to that end and on leveraging in wider investment, which will be critical to Mr Rennie’s points about growth.
Despite the financial challenges and declining international student numbers, it seems that Dundee university’s senior management hired more staff and continued to spend money without control. Professor Gillies’s review points to a failure of leadership. Leaders of the university’s court and members of senior management, including former Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander, who is now a Labour peer in the House of Lords, have let down the university’s staff and students. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the university requires fresh, strong leadership going forward? Will she reiterate how the Scottish Funding Council is working with the university to support it?
I fully agree with the sentiment behind Ms Mackay’s question. I understand that there is a need for interim leadership, as members will well understand, but the long-term plan that I spoke about in response to Mr Rennie must be put in place as soon as possible. I very much welcome the appointment of Professor Nigel Seaton as interim principal and Ian Mair as interim chair of court before the elections for the permanent chair are run over the summer.
Although the leadership is ultimately a matter for the university, I reflect that, whatever process is used to address the leadership gap, it should look to appoint effective leaders and to restore confidence in the court and the executive team. The Scottish Funding Council has been supporting the university, including through convening support from leaders elsewhere in the university sector.
The Gillies report sets out a timeline and a series of decisions that reek of incompetence and corruption. I listened to the cabinet secretary’s earlier response in which she said that, based on the Gillies report, she does not believe that the level of criminality has yet been breached. However, if further information comes forward or if that subjective view alters, can she confirm that the Scottish Government will fully co-operate with any criminal investigation surrounding Dundee university and the people who are in charge of it?
In response to an earlier question, the cabinet secretary said that the court elected the interim chair on 16 June. However, 16 June was last Monday, which was several days before the Gillies report was published, and we were all told that, immediately after the publication of the report, the chair of the court resigned. Did the cabinet secretary misspeak when she said that it was on 16 June, or were people resigning from the court and the top of Dundee university before the report was even published?
On that final point, I clearly have the date inadvertently wrong in my speaking note, so I will seek to correct the record at a later date.
In relation to the thrust of Mr Ross’s question, I agree with him on the damning verdict of the report. He talked through the timeline. On reading the report last week, I was struck by the fact that, throughout, there were various points at which intervention could and should have happened. The failure to take that opportunity has led us to where we are today.
Mr Ross mentioned alleged criminality, which I think was also mentioned by Mr Briggs. I have already sought assurances on that matter from the Scottish Funding Council and Professor Pamela Gillies. They were both clear that there was no evidence of criminality, but I wanted to assure myself of that point. The Government would of course co-operate with any inquiry in that regard.
I am keen to include all members who have pressed their request-to-speak buttons, so concise questions and responses would be appreciated.
Although the Scottish Government is ultimately not responsible for governance at the University of Dundee, the Scottish Government should still encourage all employers and institutions to follow the fair work principles of good engagement with employees and trade unions to bring everyone to the table. Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on the latest Scottish Government engagement with employees of Dundee university and trade unions to ensure that their voices inform the Scottish Government’s work going forward?
As I mentioned, the Minister for Higher and Further Education; and Minister for Veterans and I have met trade unions a number of times. Mr Dey met campus unions last Thursday, following the publication of the review. We continue to have a useful dialogue with the unions, and we have been supporting relationship building with the executive team.
I draw members’ attention to the work of the task force, which is chaired by Sir Alan Langlands, in ensuring that voices are being heard. The task force, which has now met three times, brings together a wide range of key stakeholders, including trade unions, Dundee City Council, other universities, enterprise and skills bodies, the national health service, businesses and student representatives.
Given all that has happened, does the cabinet secretary consider that a case will be made to review the Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Act 2016, about which the Parliament deliberated very long and hard?
The historic passage of that legislation was a topic of discussion at Cabinet this morning, which is why I hear the First Minister chuckling at Liz Smith’s point.
I have not had that case presented to me thus far. I discussed the issue at length with the chair of the SFC yesterday and with Mr Dey, and we also discussed it with the SFC last week in relation to governance changes. The SFC’s view, and that of Pamela Gillies, is that enough guidance is in place. However, I am aware from our engagement with the chair of the SFC that wider work is currently happening across the UK to look at the strengthening of governance in institutions, and I have committed that we will engage with the SFC to that end.
Both the internal and external auditors appear to have given the university’s July 2023 accounts, which would not have been completed until about the end of 2023, a clean bill of health. Does it surprise the cabinet secretary that the auditors do not seem to have picked anything up?
I have read some of the auditors’ commentary in the press. I am advised that the activity and cost of the audit process is currently being undertaken by the SFC, but I understand that the university is meeting auditors today, if that gives Mr Mason some comfort.
EY has also stated that it is unable to give an audit opinion without knowing the outcome of the investigations that the university has been subjected to, which I think Mr Mason was alluding to. I will await the outcome of today’s university and auditors meeting and further advice from the SFC.
That concludes the ministerial statement on the initial response to the Gillies review of University of Dundee finances. I will allow a brief moment for front-bench members to reorganise before the next item of business.
Previous
Topical Question Time