Seòmar agus comataidhean

I accept that that reduces the deficit and, at best, buys you time. However, buying time is not in and of itself an effective activity. I am just a little concerned. Although the exercise that your estates director is doing is useful, it does not sound as if there is a particular timescale attached to it. You are moving forward with redundancy processes and staff are facing the prospect of losing their jobs. If I were in your position, I would want a bit of urgency behind the estates review—that work should not just involve property; I will come to other assets in a minute—so that I know what are my options are other than losing staff.

What timescale are you attaching to that exercise, and how does it sit alongside the timescale for staff redundancy processes?

Absolutely. I acknowledge that. I am just looking to make sure that no stone is left unturned.

As well as your property portfolio, the university has other assets that are not property. Are you assessing all of that? I recognise that the scales here are quite different, but yours is one of a number of universities that hold a number of pieces of artwork, for example. It is perfectly legitimate to argue that it is a public good for the university to have that art, rather than for it be sold to a private collector, which would mean that the public loses access to it. However, given the financial situation that the university is in, does your assessment of all your assets go as far as non-property assets, such as artwork?

I have a final question. I take on board everything that you have already said about your own salary package. You acknowledged to the convener at the start of the evidence session the 5 per cent salary increase that you received at the start of the financial year. I accept your point that your salary alone—even if you were paid nothing—will not close a deficit of tens of millions of pounds. However, do you believe that your 5 per cent salary uplift is worth the damage that it causes to staff morale and confidence? That decision and decisions like it are seen by staff as emblematic of a wider problem of senior management insulating themselves from the challenges that the rest of the institution is facing. Was that 5 per cent increase worth it, given the upset and distress that it has caused to staff who face the prospect of losing their jobs entirely?

To you and to the wider senior management team, but to you as the individual at the top of the institution who accepted it. Do you think that it was worth it? Let us leave aside whether you think that it was a benefit to you. Do you think that it is worth it to the institution for decisions like that to be made?

You did. I am asking you whether you think that it was worth the distress and upset that it caused. I presume, by accepting it, you believe that it was.

I do not think that it would have made people feel more secure; I think that it would have avoided the loss of even more confidence that many staff feel in the senior management team overall. I acknowledge that it would not have solved the problem and that it would not have made staff feel any happier. My point is that your accepting the increase further damaged what little trust staff have in the senior management team. Those considerations need to be taken on board in the future on an on-going basis, but particularly at a point of what we all acknowledge is a financial crisis. That should be an active point of consideration for the senior management team in the future. However, I accept the answer that you have given.

I acknowledge that. However, I go back to the assessment of your estate. Has your estates director been given a deadline for reporting to the executive team? Does the court have any indication of when a paper could be tabled for consideration?

I do not like interrupting but, to be clear, I understand entirely the process. I am familiar with remuneration committee processes. My question is to you, as somebody who accepted the increase. Do you think that it was worth the distress and the damage to staff morale for staff who face losing their jobs entirely and who, in most cases, are paid less than a 10th of what you are to see you getting a pay increase on an already incredibly substantial pay package, which puts you in the top 0.5 per cent of earners in Scotland? Was it worth it? That is what I am asking.

I would like to stick with the property questions. Professor Mathieson, you have mentioned that there is an assessment of the university’s property portfolio going on. Could you give us a bit of detail on that? Given that there is significant distress among your workforce at the moment about the potential redundancies, it would be useful to know how the assessment of the property portfolio fits in with wider cost-saving measures. Are you expecting a report to go to the university court some time soon with an assessment of the portfolio and what assets might be disposed of? Could you give us a little bit more detail on how that aspect of it is being assessed?