Swinney: Reasonable for ex-Dundee University principal to return £150,000 payout
Professor Iain Gillespie told MSPs on Thursday it was not in his 'thought process' to hand back the cash, although he accepted the 'buck stops with me' for the university's difficulties.
He stepped down from his post at the university – which is looking to cut hundreds of posts as it tries to deal with a £35 million deficit – in December.
He told Holyrood's Education Committee, which is examining the difficulties faced by the institution, that the university had a 'contractual obligation' to pay him the cash.
Prof Gillespie insisted it was 'not in my thought process to repay a contractual obligation to me for my work at the university' – although he added later he would 'reflect' on the matter.
Mr Swinney however later insisted: 'I think that would be the right thing to do because the University of Dundee is facing an acute challenge.'
A report into the situation at Dundee by former Glasgow Caledonian University principal Professor Pamela Gillies last week heavily criticised Prof Gillespie.
Asked if Prof Gillespie should give back the money, the First Minister said: 'Given the awfulness of the Gillies review of the handling of the finances of the University of Dundee, I think that would be a reasonable thing to do.'
His comments came after Education Committee convener Douglas Ross branded Prof Gillespie a 'coward' and accused him of having 'created this mess and walked away into the sunset'.
Pressing the former principal over his time in charge, Mr Ross asked him if he was 'incompetent or corrupt' – with him replying he was 'certainly not corrupt' so he would 'have to choose incompetent'.
Prof Gillespie began his evidence to the committee with a 'heartfelt apology' to staff and students at Dundee – which is to receive an additional £40 million from the Scottish Government to help its financial situation.
'Let me start off with an apology to the staff and students,' he told MSPs.
'I think staff and students deserve better than they have had with the management and the governance of the University of Dundee over quite some time, but particularly over the period of 2024.
'It's a heartfelt apology for a university that I love, and a city that I hugely respect.
'I accept the buck stops with me. That is why at the end of last year I left.'
Mr Ross said the Gillies report showed Prof Gillespie had 'dangerous over self-confidence and complacency', and an 'overbearing leadership style'.
Prof Gillespie said that description was 'not something I recognise' – although he later told how a complaint had been made against him in a previous job at the Natural Environment Research Council about his 'overbearing behaviour'.
Prof Gillespie stepped down as principal at the University of Dundee in December, recalling this happened after others at the institution told him they had 'no confidence' in his leadership.
He told MSPs it was 'possible' he had then resigned by text – though he said he may instead have sent an email confirming his decision.
Mr Ross told him: 'The only thing I thought about you was you are a coward.
'You couldn't go back to the university and face the staff who were losing their jobs, face the students whose studies were so badly disrupted.
'You just created this mess and walked away into the sunset.'
Challenging him on the payout, Mr Ross told Prof Gillespie he had been given 'over £150,000 to walk away from a university you almost destroyed'.
He asked the former principal: 'At any point have you considered paying that money back?'
Prof Gillespie said the university had a 'contractual obligation' to pay him the money.
While he said he took 'overall management responsibility for what happened at the University of Dundee', he told Mr Ross he would 'push back' against the claim that he 'almost destroyed it'.
Liberal Democrat MSP Willie Rennie also pressed for Prof Gillespie to give back the money.
He told the former principal: 'To hold on to that just seems astonishing with the pain other people are feeling.
'I just genuinely want you to think about that, because I think it would send an important message.
'It wouldn't repair the damage but it would send an important message.'
Conservative MSP Miles Briggs said giving back the money could be a way for Prof Gillespie to 'send a message to students, to the staff who are left at Dundee, that you understand your role in this saga'.
The former principal told him: 'You are one of several members of the committee who have suggested that and I will reflect on that.'
Prof Gillespie also hit back at claims from former Holyrood minister Wendy Alexander, who was vice-principal international at the university for almost a decade.
In a submission to the committee, Baroness Alexander had said she was 'frozen out' and then 'asked to leave' her post after raising concerns about university finances.
Prof Gillespie insisted he did 'not want to get into a slagging match about people's characters', he told MSPs: 'Wendy's performance in terms of delivering student numbers wasn't what we needed it to be.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
9 hours ago
- Scotsman
Silence of the Goats: Slaughtered animals reveal how SNP is creating £4.7bn black hole in public finances
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... My MSP of the week, she might be surprised to learn, is Rachael Hamilton, the Tory who represents Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire, for an eloquent plea on behalf of goats, in a Holyrood committee. In a week when the SNP admitted it has dug a £4.7 billion black hole for itself – or rather, for all of us – it is a significant story not only for goat-lovers but as an illustration of how money is squandered without any understanding of what it is intended to achieve. I'll get back to the goats. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The bleak warning from Shona Robison, the hapless Finance Secretary, was slipped out in time for MSPs to go off on a two-month break. If I were taking a scythe to public expenditure, Holyrood and its countless apparatchiks would be a symbolically good place to start, before moving on to the quangos. A feral goat with a kid in the Tarras Valley near the town of Langholm | Katharine Hay Bad spending decisions For openers, Ms Robison promised cuts of £1bn a year to 'administration costs'. These are a symptom of the malaise as well as a cause but at least it seems to have dawned that spending money they don't have, then blaming 'Westminster' for not sending enough, has hit the buffers of credibility. The mission of the devolved government should be straightforward if the rules are observed – ie, you have a fixed budget, plus tax-raising powers, and your job is to spend it efficiently and effectively. The SNP have never respected these rules because they crave for entirely different ones. That conflict is incapable of resolution. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad By any reasonable standard, the Scottish Government is very well funded and receives far in excess – £22bn at the last count – of the revenues raised in Scotland. So get on with it. Instead, there has been no real fiscal discipline because the escape clause will always be to blame someone else. The £4.7bn black hole is made up of hundreds of spending decisions, few of them open to meaningful challenge at Holyrood, and many devolved to quangos which control massive budgets. There is no equivalent of the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster, which might penetrate the culture of waste and obfuscation. Ancient, wild herd But let me return to the goats of Newcastleton, whose plight is deserving of attention in its own right. They are, Ms Hamilton explained, victims of the Scottish Government's efforts to promote a market in 'natural capital' which requires large areas of Scotland to be flogged off to 'green' speculators intending to make large profits out of carbon credits. To be fair, she didn't put it like that, but it is a fair summary. In this case, an Exeter-based outfit called Oxygen Conservation Capital acquired 11,400 acres of Langholm moor in 2023 and now intend 'to cull 85 per cent of the ancient herd of wild goats on the moor'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This, Ms Hamilton told the Scottish Parliament, 'is causing distress in the community. Those goats are not only of ecological importance but are of significant cultural and heritage value. More than 12,000 local residents have signed a petition for the goats' protection'. Alas, Ms Hamilton reported, the cull was already underway and 'the goat meat is in the butcher's shop'. Then came the nub of her argument. 'I do not think that the issue is really about goats, though… my point speaks entirely to the fact that grants from the Scottish Government have gone to an offshore investment company that is creating very few jobs and has upset 12,000 people,' she told MSPs. She added: 'The government needs to look at this, because we are at the very start of the natural investment process. Pension companies will buy up swathes of land and do pretty much what they want, without the say of communities.' Well spoken, Ms Hamilton. Carbon credits That, in SNP terms, is what passes for 'land reform' and, of course, it is also inflating land values to make Scotland's land ownership structure even more grotesque. Simple question: Why are many million pounds of Scottish Government money encouraging this speculative process rather than taking community interest as the starting point? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I can find no trace of that fundamental question having been debated at Holyrood before it became an assumed good that subsidising speculators in carbon credits should be the preferred approach on the road to net zero. Once that silo was created, it was there to stay. For the sake of completeness, I should acknowledge that Ms Hamilton moved an amendment to the Land Reform Bill calling for an 'ethical framework for natural capital investment... developed in consultation with individuals and communities that have a legitimate interest'. That sounds pretty reasonable but it was defeated by five votes (four SNP, one Green) to four. Greens Against Goats, apparently. Proper funding for high priorities The Scottish Government's approach to spending imposes no requirement to take an overview of priorities in order to review them. Just keep adding… more commitments, more quangos, more civil servants. It has taken nearly 20 years to embed these silos and they have no intention of being disturbed. Ms Robison certainly isn't going to do it. A day-one commitment by the SNP's opponents must be to a Comprehensive Spending Review, with no line of expenditure exempt. The highest priorities must be funded properly. However tenaciously guarded by vested interests, the spending silos, large and small, must be challenged. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad There has to be a real sense of change from a devolved government which respects the rules and has no agenda other than to deliver for Scotland. And if that involves not handing money to 'green' speculators to slaughter much-loved goats, I will make sure Ms Hamilton gets her share of the credit.
The Herald Scotland
10 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Swinney government accused of twisting EHRC advice
The comments earned a stinging rebuke from Baroness Kishwer Falkner, the Chair of the EHRC, who said the Commission had made it "clear" to civil servants that public bodies should not wait for updated guidance before acting on the judgment. The peer said she was "very concerned that our conversations with officials appear to have been misrepresented". FWS told The Herald they were stunned by the claims from officials: 'At what point does this stop being ignorant incompetence and tip into wilful malpractice?' Read more: In April, the UK's highest court ruled unanimously that a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not alter a person's sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. The judgment clarified that the terms 'man' and 'woman' in the legislation refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. The EHRC then issued interim guidance in May related to trans people's use of facilities including including changing rooms and toilets, and participation in sports. It also launched a consultation on changes to parts of its code of practice for services, public functions and associations, which is due to conclude on June 30. The watchdog is due to publish the updated code later this year. While First Minister John Swinney initially welcomed the 'clarity' provided by the ruling, the Scottish Government has repeatedly said it is waiting for this further guidance before issuing new guidance of its own to Scotland's public bodies. However, the EHRC has repeatedly said that the ruling applies now and that "those with duties under the Equality Act 2010 should be following the law and looking at what changes, if any, need to be made to their policies and practices". For Women Scotland following the court ruling (Image: PA) After the meeting with the Equalities Directorate, FWS wrote to the EHRC to question the claims made by officials. Baroness Falkner replied: "As you rightly point out, our public messaging has been that the law as set out by the Supreme Court is effective immediately. "We have been clear in our public messaging and in direct conversations with duty-bearers, including the Scottish Government, that they should not wait for our guidance but should be seeking to update their policies and practices in the light of the new understanding of the law, taking their own specialist legal advice where necessary." Earlier this week, FWS wrote to the Scottish Government's Permanent Secretary Joe Griffin calling for a full investigation, saying it was "extremely concerning that statements made by a senior government official to a third party about EHRC advice have been directly contested by the regulatory body itself". In a letter to the campaigners on Friday, seen by The Herald, Mr Griffin did not challenge FWS's account of the meeting, and said his team would "revert in due course" with a fuller response. He said the Government accepted the Supreme Court's judgment and "acknowledges the EHRC statement that duty-bearers should not wait for our statutory Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations to be in place to review their policies to ensure they are complying with the law as now settled by the Supreme Court". This, he added, "aligns with the approach the Scottish Government has taken since the judgment was issued in April". Read more: In Holyrood on Wednesday, Mr Griffin was pressed by SNP MSP Michelle Thomson to name any concrete action the Government had taken since the ruling. Mr Griffin said only that the "short life working group" had been established to prepare for implementation. He could not identify any specific changes made to guidance or policy. Asked whether the threat of legal action — including two formal pre-litigation notices issued by FWS and Sex Matters — had prompted a rethink, Mr Griffin insisted that his advice remained that it was appropriate to wait for final EHRC guidance. Susan Smith from FWS told The Herald: 'After the rambling performance of the Permanent Secretary at committee, it was clear that the Scottish Government has done nothing to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. 'To justify this, the civil service has materially misrepresented the advice given by the EHRC. There is no justification for Ministers or civil servants to ignore the law, and these highly paid public servants and politicians should not sit on their haunches while grassroots women's groups with little power or funding explain to them the basic principles of law and professional standards. Scotland deserves better. 'To say we are shocked is an understatement. At what point does this stop being ignorant incompetence and tip into wilful malpractice? 'The only recourse open to us is to return to court. But given the Scottish Government resoundingly ignored earlier Court of Session rulings and is now seemingly intent on not implementing the UK Supreme Court judgment it appears largely futile and a further waste of taxpayers' money. Has the Scottish Government really put itself beyond the law?' A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "The Scottish Government has been clear that we accept the Supreme Court judgment and that public bodies have a duty to comply with the law. "Work is proceeding at pace to implement the ruling across Government. We have established a Short Life Working Group to ensure support and consistency in this. "We expect public bodies to be analysing policies and procedures and this is what is happening. For example, Police Scotland this week issued interim guidance on searching, including searching of transgender people. "The Scottish Government has also updated the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 guidance to reflect the judgment in relation to the definition of 'woman' under the Equality Act and this is now published online. "The recent changes to the Equality and Human Rights Commission's interim update demonstrate the complexity of this work and the need for extensive legal advice and consultation with stakeholders. We will continue to take this work forward at pace in a way which protects the rights of everyone in society. "The Permanent Secretary has responded to For Women Scotland."
Daily Mail
18 hours ago
- Daily Mail
At long last, the SNP is forced to accept the word 'woman' refers to biological sex
The definition of a woman refers to biological sex, the SNP government has finally been forced to accept in landmark new guidance. For the first time, the Scottish Government has set out its new position in formal guidance published in the wake of its Supreme Court defeat on the issue. In an update about laws around gender quotas on public sector boards, it states references to woman or women in the legislation 'are references to a biological woman or women'. It issued the new approach after being threatened with legal action unless it implemented the Supreme Court's ruling on the definition of a woman. Now ministers have been urged to ensure that all relevant guidance and legislation is updated. Maya Forstater, chief executive of human rights charity Sex Matters, said: 'The Scottish Government's clarification that the word 'woman' refers to biological women in its guidance concerning public boards might look trivial to a casual observer, but its impact will be outsize. 'As we have outlined in our letter before action, the Scottish Government must now act to bring all its policies in line with the law – and biological reality.' The Gender Representation on Public Boards Act was meant to create a 50:50 balance of women and men on quango boards. It originally defined a woman as 'anyone living as a woman', including biological males with or without a gender recognition certificate (GRC). For Women Scotland successfully challenged this in Scotland's courts and ministers dropped the definition from their law, but the revised guidance continued to say 'woman' included a trans woman with a GRC. After For Women Scotland appealed to the Supreme Court, judges ruled the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex. In updated guidance on the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act issued as the Scottish parliament entered the summer recess, a section on 'the meaning of 'woman' for the purposes of the Act' said that 'references in the Act to a 'woman' or to 'women' are references to a biological woman or women'. The updated guidance was issued after Sex Matters threatened new legal action within 14 days if ministers fail to implement new policies and guidance. Scottish Tory equalities spokesman Tess White said: 'It appears only the threat of legal action has seen some common sense break out in the SNP. However, John Swinney has still failed to apologise for backing Nicola Sturgeon's reckless gender reforms.' In its submission to the Supreme Court ahead of last year's case, the Scottish Government argued references to a woman who is pregnant in the Equality Act would also apply to a 'pregnant man' born female. During the case, Ruth Crawford, KC, representing the Scottish Government, said a person with a GRC is 'recognised in law' as having changed sex 'and will have the protection afforded under the Equality Act'.
