Seòmar agus comataidhean

I apologise for not being with you in person today. I remind colleagues of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am rector of the University of Dundee.

The bill presents an opportunity to reset the governance and accountability framework for Scotland’s universities, colleges and training providers. It is clear that we need firm statutory protections against the kind of governance failures that we have recently seen at the University of Dundee.

We know that Dundee’s crisis was not inevitable: the Gillies report clearly said that it was caused by a failure of financial oversight, poor internal controls, lack of transparency, weak governance and a culture that discouraged dissent or scrutiny. The report found that the university court had repeatedly been presented with rosy narratives rather than with accurate and timely data about income decline, cash flow, banking covenant breaches and the like, which meant that the court was effectively blind to the risk until it was too late. That is not just one failure: it is a warning to the entire Scottish higher education sector.

The von Prondzynski review of higher education governance in Scotland laid out many of those risks back in 2012. It argued that stronger, legally enforceable transparency, accountability, and stakeholder-inclusion measures were needed and went beyond what a non-statutory code could guarantee. We can clearly see the consequences of ignoring that call. We cannot rely on good will, reputational pressure or voluntary codes alone.

My amendments in this group speak to six pillars of good governance and together would create a statutory bulwark against secrecy, irresponsible decision making and unchecked executive power.

Amendment 52 would make mandatory the publication of governing body agendas, minutes and papers dealing with major decisions. It would ensure transparency so that staff, students and the public can see what the court or board is deciding, and on what basis. It would remove the ability to hide critical decisions behind closed doors until after the fact.

Amendment 57 would introduce a governance publication scheme for every institution, creating a proactive freedom of information-plus regime in which institutions would publish governance structures, risk registers, internal audit summaries, financial sustainability statements, conflict-of-interest registers and more, doing so regularly and publicly. Early warning signs, such as deteriorating cash flow or growing risks, would become visible long before they reach crisis point.

Amendment 58 speaks to transparency and accountability for remuneration, establishing a statutory framework for remuneration committees. Too often, senior pay is decided behind closed doors by a small group of insiders. The amendment would require remuneration committees to have independent external members and would ensure staff and student representation. It would also require publication of a full annual remuneration report, including performance criteria and external appointments, which is essential for accountability.

Amendment 59 would enable statutory escalation and whistleblowing to the SFC. When internal governance fails, there must be a legally protected external route for concerns from staff, students, governors or auditors to go directly to the regulator. The amendment would give that route: protected disclosure directly to the SFC, with a duty on the institution to notify the Funding Council of a “material governance failure.”

Amendment 60 seeks to create a strict conflict-of-interest and disclosure regime. It would require all governing body members and senior officers to declare registrable interests, update them promptly and recuse themselves when conflicted. The register would have to be public and updated within 28 days, and non-declaration or participation while conflicted would be an offence.

Amendment 53 seeks to put the Scottish code of good higher education governance on a statutory footing. Rather than leaving the code as a soft, voluntary instrument, the amendment would put it on a statutory footing, which is so important. That would ensure that all institutions are legally bound to follow the baseline standards of good governance. The SFC can monitor and issue directions if necessary.

Statutory powers are essential; guidance is not enough. The code alone clearly was not enough in the case of Dundee. According to the Gillies report, decisions were repeatedly taken without appropriate paperwork, proper scrutiny or dissenting voices being recorded. Reliance on institutional good will simply failed: a top-down culture of “positive narrative” and suppression of challenge prevailed.

A regulatory regime that is based on statutory duties, not suggestions, provides real deterrence. That creates legal consequences for non-compliance, or at least the possibility of regulatory intervention. It also gives staff, students and stakeholders real rights to information, to challenge and to have voices heard through transparent governance structures.

The amendments take the next steps to fully implement the von Prondzynski review from 2012, and they are core to the future stability, integrity and public purpose of Scotland’s universities. I urge colleagues to support them.

That is helpful, but can I check your figures? You mentioned a total contribution of over £1 billion and you said that the pilot involves funding of £130 million over two years. That is 6.5 or 7 per cent of the overall fund. I understand the point of pilots but what is the path for shifting from that pilot to full roll-out?

Good morning. Thank you for joining us this morning.

Minister, you spoke earlier of the importance of engaging further with the SHRC and with other stakeholders. Of course, the third sector plays a vital role in delivering local services in rural areas. Those organisations often quite literally keep communities functioning and keep people well, and they are, therefore, very important stakeholders.

In the evidence that we have gathered, we have heard strong calls for partnership and meaningful engagement with third sector organisations and local communities as well as strong calls for parity of esteem—genuinely valuing third sector organisations as equal partners for the work that they do. Can you tell us a little bit more about how the Scottish Government currently engages with rural communities and the third sector organisations that provide such important services? Also, what improvements do you anticipate being made?

Thank you both. Minister, you talked about the support and stability that are required by the third sector. The frustrations around single-year funding will not surprise anybody who has had any engagement with third sector organisations. They spend nine months doing the work and three months applying for funding. That does not give them stability and it does not provide service users with long-term stability or continuity. When organisations have to issue redundancy notices to staff because they do not know when or if Government funding is coming, it can utterly undermine the vital work that they are doing.

Anna Densham talked about the fairer funding pilot but we already know that multiyear funding works. We know that it is a good thing. There is already demonstrable evidence from so many different parts of the third sector that it provides exactly the support and stability that they need. We also know that the return on investment in the third sector is much higher than elsewhere in terms of value for money and delivering positive outcomes that track to work linked to the national performance framework and other things.

Therefore, how quickly can we move from that pilot to the full roll-out of multiyear funding? Also, in the meantime, how can you ensure that we are showing certain sectors within the third sector—for example, women’s aid organisations, which were highlighted as being in particularly chronic need of support—that parity of esteem and showing them that you value them as you say you do?

Thank you, convener. I am rector of the University of Dundee—colleagues should be aware of that. I have no other relevant interests to declare.

Alan Webb, is there anything in the social security space that you would highlight in terms of access to support? You mentioned citizens advice support. Are there particular challenges that are distinct for your area?

I suppose—Tess White will be familiar with this as well—where there are job opportunities, there may be housing, but there might be no local school for a family who has moved in. We need to look at this in the round.

That links into what Paul McLennan was talking about: not only capacity building but broader cost of living issues. If the cost of living is higher, support services do not go as far.

No—that is fine.

Good morning, everyone. I am a Scottish Green MSP for the North East Scotland region.