���˿���

I am not a member of the committee, but I think that it will be keen to see the workings.

It is really important that the independent investigation is genuinely independent. You have said in your answers that it is not for you to say who should be on the list. I get that, but the list of folk should be extensive and it should include all the senior executives. Some names have been mentioned. I am sure that Baroness Alexander and Lord Robertson will have something to contribute. A lot of folk who are in senior management are not here—some are still involved, and some are not. I am not pointing any fingers, by the way, but we need to have a full understanding of how the university has got to where it is.

I hope that the committee will have sight of the inquiry’s terms of reference so that it can be confident that the inquiry will genuinely look at the things that our constituents are concerned about and give an independent assessment so that the university does not get into such a position again. That will be crucial to getting to a point where we continue to have a world-leading research and academic institution in my home city, which is so important to everyone.

We would appreciate the workings and how you got to those figures. Those are big numbers that are being bandied around.

Just last year?

I want to go back to the point about who was able to attend the court. One of the big issues relates to international students, so was the VP for international students allowed to attend the court, or was there no reporting on that?

Thank you. Such an approach will help as we go forward.

The other thing that I want to raise is that we need to work out what all the challenges are. We have talked about the £35 million, but the structural deficit figure of £63 million has also been put into the public domain via a communication to staff. For our understanding, can you break down that £63 million structural deficit?

I will try not to cover the ground that my colleagues have covered, but it is important to re-emphasise just how devastating the situation is not only for the university’s staff and students, but for the wider community in Dundee, which is my city—the city in which I live. A lot of the folk who are directly affected are neighbours in the city and they really care about the university.

I have spent some time speaking to all the major unions that represent the workforce, and they are devastated about the numbers in the recovery plan. They are also hugely concerned about the university’s ability to continue to function as a world-class institution, which really matters, not just to the University of Dundee, but to the city of Dundee and the wider economic region. That is why I will say again what I have said before and what everyone has said: the current proposals are not acceptable. It was good to hear you say that you are open to alternative proposals, which will be welcomed, particularly by the unions.

You mentioned to Jackie Dunbar that you have been speaking to the unions throughout. However, she hit the nail on the head when she talked about different forms of consultation. The unions do not feel as though they have been consulted. Instead, they feel that they have been called to meetings in order for you to tick a box and say, “Right, that’s us met the unions again today, so let’s get back to doing what we’re going to do.”

Everyone is telling you that the plan is not acceptable as it is. I do not think that it is possible to have a plan that will protect the university’s reputation without your working closely with your trade union members. They recognise the challenges and that the issues cannot just be ignored. You cannot put your head in the sand and move on as before. They are willing to play their part, but there needs to be meaningful engagement. It would be good to hear your assurance that you have a genuine commitment to meaningfully engage with your workforce. At this point, that would be really helpful.

Are you be able to break down what that is made up of? What portion of it relates to international students and what portion relates to employer national insurance contributions?

Tricia Bey, did it not seem unusual that the person who was responsible for such a significant part of the university’s funding was not attending the court?

Thank you. We will hold you to that.

For awareness, convener, I note that the unions are keen and would be pleased to speak to the committee if you felt that you were able to facilitate that in order to hear their take on some of the issues.

I have not seen the plan and it has not been sent to me, but—this goes to Clare Haughey’s question—the unions tell me that the proposed job losses will predominantly affect women and large numbers of those in lower-salaried positions. It is a concern that the pain will not be shared at all levels. It is good to hear that the £200,000 post will not be taken forward, but colleagues have mentioned that salaries for senior executive members of the university are eye-watering. I was speaking to my colleague Mercedes Villalba and she asked why anyone should be paid more than the First Minister of Scotland, who runs the country, but many people in the university are being paid a lot more than him. If we genuinely want to consider how the university sector moves forward, we may need to look at salary levels at the highest end of the scale across the universities.

The First Minister currently takes a pay cut, with his salary frozen at 2008 levels, and that cut is equivalent to about 20 or 25 per cent of the salary that he could take. If senior management at the university were to consider how they could share some of the pain, that would send a signal to the unions and it would perhaps give a bit more time for further recovery plans to be tabled. I would urge you to consider that. I am keen to hear your thoughts about whether there is a willingness from senior management to share some of the pain that students and staff are feeling right now.

It would be good if you could say, on the record, who the VP for international students is, because we are saying “she”.