Chamber and committees

Thanks for that. You talked about mandate, and there are some questions on your existing mandate and powers. The commission has previously said that there is very limited use of powers of inquiry, both in terms of whether the commission has used them and also what you could do with what is there. I do not think that you have done very much litigation work in recent times. Could you give us a sense of how the work that you have been able to do, particularly the spotlight work, relates to and opens up the possibility of our thinking more broadly around your mandate? Obviously, we want to have that discussion as part of the human rights bill, but are there things that we could push to the boundaries of what exists, to make sure that, either through litigation or through inquiry, the excellent work that you have done—such as the spotlights or the work on prisoner rights—can follow through to something meaningful and with that strand of accountability running through it?

Jan, do you want to say something about the historical use of litigation and where it might be useful in the coming months or years?

That is helpful. In some ways, there is quite a big conversation around the litigation powers, particularly if the non-overlap remains, because obviously there need to be mechanisms of communication and information-sharing with other organisations, whether they are commissions or have responsibility to check or bear duties. There is quite a complex system that we maybe have not got to grips with yet, so that is an on-going conversation.

My next question is about Scotland’s national action plan 2. I know that Scotland’s national action plan for human rights runs to 2030 and that the Scottish Government owns that. Tell us a little bit about what role that plays. You have spoken already this morning about ensuring that you are responsive and that you scan potential issues. How do your strategic priorities fit in and dovetail with SNAP 2? Where are the points of friction, if points of friction exist? I do not know who wants to take that first.

The opportunity for reciprocity is quite exciting—not overlapping, but using each other to the benefit of citizens in those targeted groups across Scotland. I will leave it there, thank you.

Can I come back in on that briefly, convener?

I appreciate the minister’s comments and I am grateful for his assurance that he will raise those issues with the SFC if it is not already aware of them. There are still some concerns and, given the overwhelming vote of no confidence not in one person but in the whole university executive group, staff and students have no trust that the executive group that burned the place down will build it up again. It might not have burned the place down entirely, but those words were used by a member of staff.

It is important to have some assurances that there will be not just genuine engagement and consultation with trade union representatives, but inclusion of them. They have never been in the room and they have never been able to be part of any of the decisions that led us to this point. There has been a lack of transparency in decision making and finances, and not just in the past six months. The University of Dundee has faced difficulties before; this is not the first time that it has happened. The concern is that successive bad decisions have been made over several years and nothing has changed.

I take on board what the minister says about the SFC working with the university and the on-going work on what powers might be necessary if something comes out of the situation. Let us not use the university as a test case of failure. Let us step in sooner rather than later to ensure that we get it right. The university is not just a university. It trains the doctors, nurses, social workers and teachers that Dundee and the Tayside region rely on. It has been called the beating heart of the city. It is not just a stand-alone independent institution. It feeds into every aspect of city life.

Thank you, convener. I am grateful to you and the committee for giving me a moment to speak and ask some questions. I also thank the minister, because we have had conversations about the matter in response to letters.

Just before Christmas, I attended the town hall meeting that took place at the University of Dundee, which more than 1,000 staff members participated in, either in person or online. The strength of feeling—the anger, hurt, upset, frustration and fear—was palpable. Morale is very low, with staff members saying things such as, “I feel like I cannot breathe any more”. They do not know what their future holds in light of the news of the £30 million deficit on the back of what everybody, including some court members, thought was years of modest surpluses. There has been a vote of no confidence in the university executive group and there is an open ballot for strike action.

All of that presents a concerning picture and the financial situation is kind of the backdrop to it, while many take the view that it is a consequence of poor governance, management and decision making. I appreciate that this is a budget scrutiny session. My questions come from that financial context, but they also speak to the bigger, knottier questions about governance and management. The university relies on public money, and we have a responsibility to ensure that that money is being used effectively and that management decisions are not jeopardising the functioning of the institution. If they are, there is a role for us.

Much has been said about institutional autonomy and independence, which is right and good. However, the existence of the institution has potentially been undermined and senior management have said to staff members that the university might not exist in two years’ time. There have been those kinds of threats, and trade union members at the university have said that it is the university executive group that is now threatening the institution’s autonomy and existence.

Given all of that, there are some key issues for us. I know that other members also want to ask about some of the specifics. My first point is on fair work. There has been no direct trade union engagement in any of the discussions that the university executive group has had about recovery. There is no trade union member on the task force that has been set up in conjunction with the SFC to work through and develop the recovery plan. The trade unions have repeatedly asked for financial information, but the limited information that they have received has been incomplete and late, and it has not allowed them to take information back to their members to consult, so they have not been able to have proper discussions. The trade unions think—and I share their view—that the university management is not complying with fair work principles. The words “compulsory redundancies” have been used by management, but no process has been put in place. As soon as that was indicated, there should have been a process of discussion with the trade unions, but that is not happening.

My other key area of concern is, as I said, about governance. Significant decisions have been taken that have led to where we think the deficit has come from. It is quite clear from the limited financial information that has been disclosed that the deficit is not about staff costs—it comes from elsewhere. The university recently procured information technology and software systems to help with admissions, but there was no proof of those systems working in any other institution. Staff were asked to work over Christmas to contact students and give them offers for the January intake because the IT systems failed. The unions can find very little risk analysis on international students and international student infrastructure—not so much the students and the fees associated with them, but the funding that is spent on international student infrastructure—and no mitigation measures for a situation where that infrastructure is not used because of falling international student numbers.

Those issues all speak to really poor governance and risk management decision making and the Scottish Government and the committee should be concerned about that. I am interested in hearing the minister’s and the cabinet secretary’s views, particularly on governance and fair work.

I am sorry—there was a lot in that.

I have a quick question, which might be best directed to Simon Stockwell.

Minister, you talked in your opening remarks about how we can support children in giving evidence and participating in processes. What have we learned from the bairns’ hoose model? Is there stuff that we can translate across from it? After all, really good work can happen in one bit of a world, but it does not always find its way across departmental or other boundaries. Are there things that we can learn from the bairns’ hoose approach that will allow us to support children and young people to be part of the process in a safe and supported way?

I just thought that some of the cultural stuff, if not the process stuff, around the bairns’ hoose model might be quite useful. I would be interested to know more as those discussions progress over the coming months.

If there are barriers related to existing institutional structures or remits, are conversations about that part of the mix?