Chamber and committees

I am open to doing whatever Parliament asks us to do, although I point out that it is not for Governments to talk about individual institutions and so on. There may be other ways of doing it. It may be that the committee decides to invite the SFC in—and me along with it or separate from it—to further interrogate the issue. The point that I was making at my previous committee appearance was about governance as much as anything. If there is something in what happened at Dundee that tells us that the governance arrangements—both internally to universities and externally through SFC oversight—could be tightened up, we will certainly look at that.

Later this month, I will have a meeting with the chairs of all the universities in Scotland. I have no doubt that governance will be at the top of the agenda for that conversation. I am hoping that the chairs have some suggestions about what they think would work better. Whether that is in the formation or training of courts or whatever, I would be astonished if something did not come out of that meeting that made us aware of what is available to us. It is not about taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but if something has arisen at Dundee that would benefit the sector—for example, additional oversight powers or intervention powers on the part of the SFC—we are amenable to looking at that.

I am trying to give you an accurate answer, but things are moving at a considerable pace. I could say to you that the SFC is engaging with the University of Dundee on a daily basis, and has been doing so for quite some time. However, convener, I am conscious that, when we had our exchange at a previous meeting, I was saying, “Look—we need to wait for the recovery plan and react to it.” Effectively, I am still saying that. It has taken considerably longer than I think that all of us would have wanted to get to the point where there is a degree of clarity on the scale of the issue.

Universities may, of course, choose to do that. The point that I am making is that the SFC will make a judgment on the seriousness of the University of Dundee’s circumstances and whether there are measures that the university can take, as other universities have done. The University of Edinburgh and Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen are examples of universities that have taken steps to address the issues that they faced. The measures that RGU took, painful as they were, were designed not only to address an immediate problem but to put the university on a sound footing. It should be said that the financial planning of all universities has been undermined. The ENICs situation was a nasty surprise for them, and they are all having to find money to address that.

I do not know whether you raised that question with the SFC earlier. The money has been given, as we stated, for the purposes that we stated. I would envisage, given the seriousness of the situation at Dundee, that the overwhelming majority of the money would be utilised for that purpose, but the SFC will make a judgment call based on its assessment of the situation there and set against any other institutions that might identify as having issues.

I was quite struck by Mr Brown’s question last week—

Sorry. The investigation as to how the situation arose is being conducted independently on behalf of the university, I think. We would expect the SFC to have sight of that, and it is my expectation that it will be available publicly. That is the very least that the staff deserve, and, in my opinion, the Parliament has a role in overseeing that.

There is another balance to be struck here. Yes, universities are autonomous institutions—you said that it is not for the taxpayer to bail an institution out—but they are major players in local economies. The University of Dundee employs 3,000 people, which is hugely important in the city and the wider area. It also plays a part in the wider landscape of our higher education offering for Scotland and helps to attract students from all over. Universities are hugely important institutions.

I do not disagree with you that an environment can be created in which it might be thought that it does not matter how you run an institution, because you will be bailed out by the taxpayer. That is a consideration. It is also the case that universities receive varying degrees of their income from public sources. For some universities, public funds are minimal—I think that roughly 25 per cent of the University of Dundee’s income is derived from public sources.

It is about more than just money, though, Mr Brown. Although I absolutely accept your point, it is about the importance of institutions—not only the University of Dundee—in the overall landscape in Scotland and the economy. Universities play a hugely important part in Scotland, and it is important that we preserve them.

Actually, I do recall that, when I looked at the evidence, I saw that he had said that. That is not my recollection of the reasons. I will look into the matter again, but my understanding is that it was for the reasons that I have just given you.

Principally, we thought that, because of the focus on the targets, it was important that the commissioner’s continued focus in assisting us was on the university piece. Nevertheless, I understand his argument. I am not going to sit here today and roll that out—that will be an on-going conversation with him. We disagree on that point, but he understands our reasons. That is where we were then, but the position might change in the future.

The door is not closed. This committee might decide to include the issue in its report, and we will respond to it.