The former principal of Dundee University Professor Iain Gillespie was grilled by MSPs on Holyrood’s education committee.
Professor Gillespie, who quit the troubled institution weeks after he announced the spiralling crisis, faced the music in a much-anticipated evidence session on Thursday morning.
Questioning kicked off at 8.30am and questions came from convener Douglas Ross MSP and other members of the powerful committee.
It follows an evidence session on Wednesday with the former chair of court Amanda Millar, ex-chief operating officer Dr Jim McGeorge and former finance chief Peter Fotheringham.
🔁 This live blog is finished. Thank you for joining.
11:50am: Gillespie dodges media questions as he leaves parliament
In a dramatic end to three hours of evidence, Professor Iain Gillespie was met with parliament’s media as he left the committee room.
He refused to take questions as he was asked if he was ashamed of his role in the downfall and how much responsibility he took for the university’s near collapse.
One student who had watched on from the public gallery asked simply: “Can we have our money back?”
11.40am: Stay tuned
This morning’s grilling of Professor Iain Gillespie may have finished but our blog will continue with more fallout and reaction from today’s Holyrood examination of the former principal.
11:30am: ‘I choose incompetent’
We’re at the end of a three-hour session now, and it has been tough going for the ex-principal.
Douglas Ross, as convener, asks the final flurry of questions.
Should he pay back the £150,000 pay-out?
“I will take that away and reflect on it with my family,” Mr Gillespie responds.
And then the impossible choice question…
Are you incompetent or corrupt?
“I’m certainly not corrupt, so I have to choose incompetent.”
And with that, the hearing ends and Mr Gillespie leaves the room.
11.27am: How a blackhole suddenly got darker
There was surprise at the lack of handle on the spending of a £40 million windfall from the sale of an AI company at yesterday’s session.
Today, Iain Gillespie says he didn’t realise until too late either.
Recalling, he said a finance employee told him: “We’ve got some news you really won’t like.”
A £1.2m deficit was suddenly going to get a lot worse, all the way up to £35m or so.
And the windfall sale money was already gone.
11.25am: An unforgiving session for Iain Gillespie
The Courier’s political editor Alasdair Clark shares his reflection from the room.
This has been a brutal, unforgiving evidence session for Professor Iain Gillespie.
At first confident, more so than the three witnesses on Wednesday, he has visibly struggled under laser-like attacks on his character and leadership.
The inferences to instances in his past where he left former colleagues scarred even 10 years later left Professor Gillespie visibly shaken.
Asked who should pay, he said: “I’ve lost my job.”
Douglas Ross asked Professor Gillespie what his strategy had been for today. Frankly, few on the committee believed he would even turn up.
He insists he has been open and honest. MSPs seem unconvinced.
11:10am: Financial vandalism
Stepping back a little bit, it’s worth noting that Mr Marra said the university – and city – was betting on rapid and continue growth.
Mr Gillespie said they did expect that. But visa changes and other problems got in the way.
He was referring to UK Government policy there, something many in the sector and in Scottish Government say is a big problem by no means specific to Dundee.
But reports at the time also warned the hoped-for growth wasn’t coming, the committee hears.
The Nigerian economy had “collapsed” – a clear problem if student recruitment is focused there.
Dundee university, meanwhile, was being told it’s bucking the trend.
Mr Marra keeps pursuing what he calls financial vandalism.
No grip on expenses, expenditure, governance, he adds. An “absentee landlord”.
Mr Gillespie says: “There were some things I should have known that I didn’t know.”
10:50am: Iain Gillespie made handwritten changes to budget
What about training in finances? Does he have any, asks the convener.
Mr Gillespie says he relied mainly on the finance director and the team around him.
Then some surprise evidence.
Mr Ross produces handwritten amendments by Mr Gillespie on a financial statement, secured overnight by the committee.
A sentence saying “overall adverse impact resulting in an operational deficit” was to be changed to a “small” operational deficit.
A report saying the university’s financial performance in 2023-24 was adverse to budget was to be changed to “comparatively strong”.
The auditor rejected the suggested handwritten changes.
10:35am: The Spy and The Traitor
Michael Marra, on the committee, says Iain Gillespie has a flair for language.
Asking about his exit, Mr Marra notes his keys and staff card were laid on a book called The Spy and the Traitor” when he left.
Was that a parting message, asks Mr Marra, a Dundee-based MSP.
It was a book that he was returning to someone, Mr Gillespie says.
A little bit of attempt at drama, but really this exchange is about what Mr Gillespie was doing when he was about to leave.
The university was in “existential crisis”, Mr Marra says.
Income was collapsing, a voluntary severance scheme failed to materialise.
Mr Marra – who used to work at the university – says the principal was there for the good times, a “good time Charlie”.
But when it got difficult, he “wasn’t interested”.
Mr Gillespie says “that is certainly not the case”.
But he did not realise the urgency of the situation, including the breached banking convenance – a crucial part of this financial crisis.
10.30am: ‘You speak when you’re spoken to’
Professor Iain Gillespie is asked by Green MSP Ross Greer about the lack of information being held back from the university’s governing body.
Mr Greer asks Professor Gillespie if he ever withheld information.
“I certainly wasn’t deliberately withholding information from court. I would have conversations with the chair of court on specifics.
“I had a conversation as I began to see the severity, and the chair of courts view was very firmly that she communicates with court members,” he says.
“There was sense that you speak when you’re spoken to.”
Mr Greer says he finds this hard to accept given accounts of Professor Gillespie’s character.
“I find that very hard to believe,” the MSP adds.
“I find it very hard to believe you would accept that. I find it incredibly hard to believe.”
Professor Gillespie adds: “The chair of court was pretty clear she wanted me to say little. She chaired what she saw as a very tight court meeting.
“My contributions were relatively small compared to what they had been previously.”
Professor Gillespie also insists he was not behind the decision to remove other members of the university executive, despite multiple accounts this was his decision.
10:20am: ‘Completely broken’
A difficult exchange when Willie Rennie interrupts the flow to say the individual at Nerc, who had apparently complained about Mr Gillespie’s behaviour in a previous role, has been in touch during today’s hearing.
“The individual says thank you in capital letters,” Mr Rennie tells the committee.
“I did not move to another research council. I left completely and went to another university, completely broken.
“I lost a lot, including my final salary pension.”
Mr Gillespie says he couldn’t recall where the individual went, then says “I’ve heard that” when Mr Rennie repeats the “completely broken” claim.
Mr Rennie says: “To deny it initially, then for this person to feel so strongly and to have affected their life so deeply, and for you not to recall, I’m afraid that tells us a lot about you.”
A particularly uncomfortable moment in what is shaping up to be a tense session.
10.15am: Did ex-principal use expenses to fund his lifestyle?
Tory MSP Miles Briggs is onto questioning about Professor Iain Gillespie’s expenses, including business class flights and one stay in a 5-star hotel.
He is also asked if he signed off his own expenses, which he denies despite evidence from an independent auditor saying he did so.
“I think the expenditure was always focussed on the needs of the business. There was some expenses where we were entertaining,” he says.
Mr Briggs asks: “Did you use your position to fund your lifestyle?”
The professor responds: “My salary funded my lifestyle.”
But Mr Briggs points to first class travel: “It just had to be the best for you wherever you were going.”
Professor Gillespie is also asked for a third time about whether he will pay back the £150,000 pay off he received as he exited the university.
He says: “You are one of several members of the committee who has suggested that. I will reflect on that.”
10am: Complaints about Mr Gillespie’s behaviour
Douglas Ross jumps in to pick up on something he’s not happy about.
He asks again, after Willie Rennie first raised the topic, was there any time in a previous role a complaint was made against the former principal?
Just minutes after saying he didn’t really recall, Mr Gillespie has a new answer about a previous role at the Natural Environment Research Council.
“In my time at Nerc there was one member of staff who did make a complaint against me.
“That was about overbearing behaviour. I’m not going to mention names in public.”
It was resolved when that individual moved to another job. He could not recall any non disclosure agreement.
Did he deliberately not answer Mr Rennie earlier?
Mr Ross has comments to hand that the member of staff finds it hard to talk about the experience 10 years on.
Mr Rennie is now back onto the topic, “surely you remember any?”
Another long pause, but Mr Gillespie can’t recall any others.
Mr Ross says 17 senior people left while the principal was in post over four years.
In the four years to December 2024 the university had four directors of people; three financial directors; three directors of external relations; three directors of strategy; and four chiefs of staff in the principal’s office.
“Were you the problem?” asks Mr Ross.
A pause, “No I didn’t think I was the problem for them leaving.”
Some left because of “challenging environments” they were in.
9.50am: ‘Redundancies should have launched sooner’
Former principal Iain Gillespie admits “with hindsight” that the university should have moved forward with redundancies sooner.
“We were slow,” he says.
“With the benefit of hindsight we should have moved forward more quickly but we did not.”
John Mason MSP, an accountant, also asks about a visit her undertook to the university last year where he was the number of new buildings.
Asked if this was appropriate, Professor Gillespie says: “Evidentially we were spending more cash than I thought we were spending.
He adds: “Some of that was over ambition. Some of it was required, for example some of the maintenance.
“We could have put the Fulton Building, mothballed it, and not expended cash on that had we known the cash situation. We did not have sufficient grip.”
9:45am: ‘Team wasn’t up to job’
Willie Rennie is another MSP unhappy that Mr Gillespie did not think it was important to watch yesterday’s session which featured three of his former senior colleagues.
Mr Rennie says ex-finance chief Peter Fotheringham admitted he as struggling.
“The team wasn’t up to the job,” says Mr Rennie, so did the principal now there was a problem building up?
Mr Gillespie suggests he had no reason to worry, and tells the committee he didn’t think there was a problem with anyone feeling able to challenge him.
He was aware other universities were planning for tough times, as was Dundee.
“What I didn’t know was we were about to breach our banking covenants,” he says.
“We simply didn’t have a sufficient eye on our cash reserves”
Then some long pauses as Mr Rennie asks for details of any complaints against him as boss.
“Not for an awful long time,” he responds.
During his time at Leicester?
Another pause, then “I don’t remember any such instances”.
9:32am: ‘Pay the £150k back’
Willie Rennie, North East Fife MSP, says it doesn’t feel like Mr Gillespie understands how angry people are.
He references the fact Mr Gillespie didn’t watch previous sessions.
Mr Rennie turns to the £150,000 pay-out given when Mr Gillespie quit last year.
It’s hardly £35m deficit scale, but it’s an indication you understand, he tells him.
“It would send an important message”.
Mr Gillespie does not respond to that particular challenge.
Here’s how we covered more on the pay-out to Mr Gillespie. Ex-Dundee University chief Iain Gillespie told to hand back pay-out
9.20am: ‘Misrepresentation’ to say Wendy Alexander was sidelined
Professor Iain Gillespie has responded to accusations he attempted to “pay-off” his former vice principal Wendy Alexander.
He also accuses his former vice principal of being “away from the university” for a lot of time as she participated in various committees.
“The issue of her being sidelined is simply a misrepresentation,” he says.
“What the university tried to do was develop an opportunity for Wendy to help develop the North American market.
“Trump had just been elected, there was more and more interest in North American students coming to Europe. It was an area Wendy knew very well.”
In a direct criticism, Professor Gillespie says: “One of her weaknesses was that she got very detailed in the micromanagement of professional service staff.
“This was causing significant amounts of tension.”
But convener Douglas Ross intervenes, saying he finds it hard to accept someone who went on 11 foreign trips in two years could criticise someone for not being at the university.
“This is a public session and I don’t want to get to get into a slanging match about people’s characters.
“Wendy’s performance in terms of delivering student numbers wasn’t what we needed it to be,” he adds.
Lady Wendy quadrupled international student income during her time at the university.
9.10am: Gillespie challenges criticism from former vice principal
Iain Gillespie is now responding to written evidence from his former vice principal international, Baroness Wendy Alexander.
He is asked why she says he ignored warnings about Dundee University’s over investment in risky areas.
Professor Gillespie says: “Wendy was very focussed on pushing numbers of students up.
“We had over recruited from high-volume, low cost markets. That over recruitment in 2022/23 was causing us quite significant academic integrity problems.”
He says students were coming into the university without the levels of “academic integrity” expected in a Scottish university.
“We found quite a number of students were coming in not able to pay their fees.
“They were looking for the university to support them through hardship but also Dundee City Council to support them through housing.
“As the cost of living crisis struck we had a double whammy of an over recruitment of students who couldn’t afford to support themselves and students that weren’t meeting the academic integrity challenges.
“We took a view to reduce the number of students recruited from these markets and to put caps on a number of courses where we felt the quality of delivery was being challenged.”
9am: When did Iain Gillespie see red flags in finances?
Dundee City West MSP Joe FitzPatrick asks Professor Gillespie when he first became aware of “red flags” in the university’s finances.
He also says the former principal’s apology likely won’t “cut it” with deeply disappointed staff and students.
Professor Gillespie goes on to list out the financial challenges as he saw them, saying: “As the university came out of Covid times, international student numbers were booming and we took a very profitable exit from a life sciences company spun out from the university.
“We believed, myself, the executive group, the court, that it was the opportunity to invest and grow the university.
“Real financial challenges started to come as we were in academic year 2023/24 and we saw international student number decline very rapidly.”
He appears much more confident discussing this area than he was facing questions on his leadership at the beginning of the session.
The former civil servant says that decline was followed closely, with scenarios created for falling international income.
“It was very obvious that our numbers had declined much more significantly than even our downside scenario,” he adds.
8:55am: Banking breaches
One of the big points raised on Wednesday was about how financial problems were discussed, and not caught in time.
The ex-finance chief admitted he was struggling at the time, and the banking covenant breach was not flagged quickly.
It was a problem because it oversaw access to crucial finances. A breach has to be reported to the Scottish Funding Council, which was not told immediately.
Today, on a 2023 breach, Mr Gillespie says the “first time I was aware of a deviation” was in the Gillies report, published this month.
“It was never reported to me,” he says.
The 2024 breach came up “in conversation” with the finance director after he resigned.
8.48am: Quit by text
The Courier reported the way Iain Gillespie announced his departure this morning.
It was by text message, according to well placed sources, but challenged in committee this morning, he can’t remember.
First he says he was “fairly sure” it was by email, and questions whether the report is “correct”.
But then adds: “It’s possible I did – I don’t now recall.”
Mr Ross, who is off to a combative start, says Mr Gilliespie is a “coward”, which draws a shocked reaction.
“Whether I’m a coward or not is for others to comment on, I don’t think I’m a coward.”
8.40am: Was it a lie?
The committee moves straight to the numbers.
Douglas Ross says there was an £8m hole in 2024 budget.
But says Mr Gillespie was saying it was getting better.
“You lied to the university an were painting a rosy picture,” Mr Ross says.
Mr Gillespie says he was “trying to present what I saw as the reality and the truth”.
He adds: “There was no lie, no mendacity.”
Mr Ross “wholly disagrees”.
8.32am: ‘Heartfelt apology’
Straight into the “damning” Gillies report as committee convener Douglas Ross describes “scathing” analysis of the former principal.
He asks Iain Gillespie what he says to the people left behind?
“Let me start off with an apology to staff and students. Staff and students deserve better than they’ve had.”
He adds: “It’s a heartfelt apology for a university I love and city I respect.”
The Gillies report is forensic, he notes.
But he “doesn’t recognise” the portrayal of his management style.
Then, in a comment which will go down like a lead balloon on the committee, he says he didn’t watch any of yesterday’s four-hour hearing.
That means he can now continually say he didn’t hear what was said about anything yesterday.
8.23am: Gillespie arrives in confident mood
Iain Gillespie has arrived at the Scottish Parliament – much to the surprise of many who were saying even last night that he may not show.
Professor Gillespie is said to be feeling confident, but MSPs are currently in private session planning their line of attack.
8am: Welcome to our live coverage of the second day of evidence
Thanks for joining our live coverage of the second day of evidence in parliament about the crisis at Dundee University which saw the institution come to the bring of collapse.
MSPs will today hear from ex-principal Professor Iain Gillespie who captained the institution for four years until his abrupt exit – by text – in December.
Questioning is due to start from 8.30am in parliament’s committee room 4. It is likely to continue until around 11.30am.
3pm: Thanks for joining us
Wednesday’s evidence sessions are now over and the three witnesses have left parliament after a gruelling four hour evidence session.
We’ll be back with live coverage of tomorrow’s session with former principal Iain Gillespie – which is due to start at 8:30am.
1.45pm: Gruelling session comes to an end with a brutal sign-off
Douglas Ross, as convenor of the committee, sums up what he’s heard, and he’s not pleased about any clear conclusion.
He asks: “Is it just the simple fact that we had all of the wrong people in all the wrong senior positions of responsibility who all failed to pick up on the deficiencies of the others? Is there any other conclusion that can be reached?”
Dr Jim McGeorge says they “could and should” have spotted earlier the crisis was coming.
Peter Fotheringham says there were multiple failings.
He adds: “I agree, your summation is not a million miles off it.”
1.40pm: Four hours in, any regrets?
Green MSP Maggie Chapman, perhaps thinking of her upcoming role as university rector, asks each of them what they would say to the next group running the university.
Time to air some regrets?
Amanda Millar says building trust is important and executives have to be open.
Dr Jim McGeorge says it’s important to share information openly and be open to challenge.
Peter Fotheringham adds: “There are good recommendations in the Gillies report. If I were to speak to any former peers of successors, I would suggest very clearly following up and not assuming that no feedback or positive feedback was the right thing.
“Test what you think you’ve said is what was heard.”
1.10pm: Incoming university rector asks who should pay
Maggie Chapman is an MSP the education committee – and she’s also about to be the next rector of Dundee University.
That’s an unpaid role, but a crucial one in the overall running of the institution.
She starts off by asking about “self inflicted” wounds.
Who should pay for it, she asks.
Amanda Millar, after a long pause: “In terms of taking responsibility, I have taken responsibility for my part in it. In terms of others, I am optimistic and hopeful that those who remain in the university are in a position to resolve the issues.”
Dr Jim McGeorge: “I take responsibility for my failings in that regard.”
Peter Fotheringham: “I completely understand I need to take a share of responsibility for each of things that could have done better.”
Ms Chapman says staff facing redundancy are actually paying the price.
12:50pm: Amanda Millar shared picture of her dog in update to court
Mr Marra asks Amanda Millar about her objectives to chair the updates she provided to the body about her work.
He asks: “I have reviewed a number of your reports to court which essentially amount to account of your diary, going to openings of galleries. There’s a picture of your dog in one of them.
“There’s no sense of strategic intent. Do you feel you provided any strategic guidance?”
Ms Millar says: “My role as chair is about leading and supporting and having those conservations within court generally and hopefully looking at decision making.
“It’s that broader role.”
12:40pm: Jim McGeorge ‘didn’t know’ he was spending AI share windfall
Michael Marra seems shocked at a response by former chief operating officer Jim McGeorge, who says he was “surprised” when discovered a £40 million windfall from the sale of an AI company had been spent.
“Suddenly you were surprised it was gone, despite the fact you were the person sanctioning the expenditure?,” Mr Marra asks.
Dr McGeorge says: “The university spent it. I invested it in projects that I believed were the right projects to invest in.”
Former finance chief Peter Fotheringham, asked about Dr McGeorge’s response, admits surprise.
12:25pm: £500 million turnover goal was not backed up by any plan
Former finance chief Peter Fotheringham is asked by Dundee-based MSP Michael Marra about a stated objective by the university to increase its turnover to £500 million.
But he says this was “aspirational” rather than a goal backed by any plan.
He adds: “It was not something backed up in any plans. Growth in income for the university is very limited. The University of Dundee can grow research income and it grows our costs.
“We haven’t really identified other significant opportunities either through commercial or third streams.”
11:55am: Wendy Alexander’s trip offer
One of the big questions behind the scene is what happened to Lady Wendy Alexander.
She was former vice-principal at Dundee University, looking at international recruitment.
The Courier reported last week that she was offered overseas trips and a “pay-off” after she challenged failing leadership.
Dr Jim McGeorge was asked by convener Douglas Ross to explain if these were “enticements” to leave her job after tensions.
A financial settlement was discussed as were potential links with North America.
Mr Ross says: “These were trips to get someone to leave.”
Dr McGeorge says it might be perceived that way but “that would be wrong”.
Then a pointed question from Mr Ross: “Do you accept that if there’s a perception by some that the discussions you had without prejudice were enticements rather than as you describe them, would that be criminal? Using the university money to buy someone off in that way? Would that be criminal?”
Dr McGeorge says: “If that was the case – I’m not a lawyer – it may well be, but that simply was not the case.”
11:50am: Courier political editor on struggles to answer
The Courier’s political editor Alasdair Clark is in the room as the three formers bosses are quizzed.
He says all three have struggled with some challenging questions as MSPs attempt to find out what went wrong and who is responsible.
Dr Jim McGeorge has been criticised several times and accused of passing the blame to others and not speaking about his own responsibilities.
Those in the room include staff and students watching on, including incoming student president Tánaiste Custance.
Meanwhile, Connor Bertie, from the Dundee student newspaper Jute Journal, is at a watch party at the university with staff and students.
He tells The Courier: “Staff are laughing at the incompetence.”
11:20am: ‘You nearly tanked the university’
Dr Jim McGeorge is back in the spotlight under questioning from committee MSP George Adam.
He wanted to find a “smoking gun” in the Gillies report on the crisis, but just found lots of problems.
So what was the trigger moment? Why was the big red flag not seen earlier?
Dr McGeorge says: “Previously, it’s about us seeing that financial performance and financial projection were such that we needed to get in quickly and make those changes.
“I just think we were slightly blindsided in that regard this time around. I think had any of us spotted that, and any of us been challenged on that through the finance committee or court process, we would have acted immediately.
“The counterfactual is to say we sat there knowing there was a crisis and did nothing. That’s just not what any of us would do.”
Mr Adam cuts steps in to say: “With the greatest of respect, you nearly tanked the university. You nearly tanked one of the oldest universities in Scotland.
“I don’t understand how people like yourselves can get yourself into that position with all the checks and mechanisms in place. Surely you’re not telling us something.”
Dr McGeorge says they just did not see “early enough” there was a problem.
11:05am: Who said Shane O’Neill was a good idea?
Green MSP Ross Greer, who sits on the committee, wants to know if the university court under Amanda Millar had any warning about Shane O’Neill’s role in the crisis.
He went on to replace Iain Gillespie, who had abruptly quit when the problems came to light.
It’s all part of building up a picture of whether information has been reliable among executives.
“I wasn’t given any clear information that would have suggested to me he was implicated to the level that would appear now to the case,” Ms Millar says.
“It that had been the case it would have been a very different conversation.”
In light of the Gillies report, was information withheld?
Ms Millar has claimed several times in today’s session so far that she “cannot speak to motive” when asked questions like this.
Responding to Mr Greer, she says: “There may well have been a lack of, not necessarily deliberately withheld…but a lack of evidence and a lack of knowledge or awareness.”
She got her information about a successor to ex-principal Iain Gillespie from a combination of executives, including Dr McGeorge on process.
11am: ‘Almost a criminal failure?’
Convener Douglas Ross asks, with a sigh, how it is possible for two senior figures – Dr McGeorge and Mr Fotheringham – not to know a breach of a banking covenant should be reported.
Dr McGeorge: “I am not an expert on financial reporting.”
As chief operating officer he is legally bound to alert institution, Mr Ross says.
“Is it not just an appalling failure, but almost a criminal failure that you were negligent in that way?” he asks.
Dr McGeorge insists he was not negligent, adding: “I simply didn’t know that it was a reportable incident.”
He adds: “I don’t want to look like I’m blaming others and I don’t want to shift responsibility.
“I would in that situation normally expect expert colleagues in finance to say to me, Jim, this breach is a reportable thing, you need to write to the funding council about it. But I do accept, convener, that I could have acted myself, looked it up and found that out and done something. I apologise that I didn’t.”
It’s the company secretary job, says Mr Ross.
“I accept that,” Dr McGeorge says.
It then emerges, under Mr Ross’s questioning, that Dr McGeorge was at a meeting on October 10 when the problem was aired one day before Mr Fotheringham left the university.
Dr McGeorge previously claimed he did not know about it until November when an email was sent to the funding council.
“I think you’re making a lot of this up as you go along,” says Mr Ross.
10:45am: Dr Jim McGeorge told he is more responsible than other witnesses for crisis
10:35am: Are witnesses challenging Gillies Review?
Both Dr McGeorge and Peter Fotheringham appeared to blame the crisis on the under recruitment of international students, despite Professor Pamela Gillies saying it was primarily an issue of overspending.
Douglas Ross asks if they are challenging this, which both witnesses deny.
“As chief operating officer, why didn’t you see student numbers going down but staff numbers and other costs going up? That is the role of chief operating officer,” Mr Ross asks.
Dr McGeorge says: “The university was under huge pressure around providing high quality teaching and providing the right kind of support services. Because we believed those student numbers were sustainable, we did make investments in staffing. We made most of those appointments on a permanent basis.
“We should, and I’m deeply sorry that we didn’t, spotted that in March 2024 and started with a recruitment freeze and [voluntary severance].”
10:30am: Was Amanda Millar qualified to take on key role?
North East Fife MSP Willie Rennie points out Ms Millar had not been chair of a body with a turnover the size of Dundee University – over £300 million each year.
He asks if she was qualified to take on the role as chair of the university court.
Ms Millar says: “From a governance perspective, in an organisation that has a finance director, a company secretary, effectively a chief executive, and in an environment where there would be opportunity for open dialogue, yes.”
Asked if she regrets applying to be chair of court, Ms Millar says: “I don’t. I have certainly reflected on the situation and my role and my time at the university. If the next question were to be what what you have done differently, it would have to work to bring a level of trust in me that colleagues could bring their concerns.”
10:25am: Finance chief was ‘struggling’
Willie Rennie, Lib Dem MSP for North East Fife, picks up questions on banking.
Key parts of the university structure were not being told about the breach of a banking covenant – which sets terms for loan facilities – in October and November 2024.
Mr Fotheringham was not at all the meetings in that period.
A breach is a reportable event to the Scottish Funding Council, which oversees university funding from government, but neither Mr Fotheringham nor Dr McGeorge were aware of this, the committee hears.
Moving on to tumbling cash reserves, Mr Rennie paints a picture.
In January 2023 it sat at £100m, but had fallen to £32m by July 2024.
The forecast was a £100m overdraft by July 2025.
Did it alarm anyone? Was anyone warned how important cash reserves are?
“I was clear we could not take on significant debt to invest in a capital programme until the university’s position had improved,” Mr Fotheringham says.
But all the time cash reserves were falling – so why was strategy not challenged?
“The budget suggested there would be adequate cash reserves,” Mr Fotheringham says.
Taking the failures on banking covenant and the debt management, did that mean they were struggling in their jobs?
“I did struggle in the job at time, particularly in 2024,” says Mr Fotheringham.
“Prior to that my team were seriously under-resourced. I struggled and my team struggled to stay on top of everything.”
Mr Rennie asks if Dr McGeorge know about those struggles.
He replies: “I don’t manage the finance team, that’s not one of my responsibilities. I was reliant on the financial information that Peter and the team behind him were able to produce.”
10:15am: Finance chief did not realise scale of crisis until September
10am: Why were university executive excluded from court?
Amanda Millar is being repeatedly asked to explain her decision to exclude vice principals and other members of the executive from the university court.
She was asked what changed in 2023 that lead to the exclusion.
Ms Millar said: “They were there. Were the contributing? No. Therefore there’s an argument to say there their time might have been better spent elsewhere because they didn’t appear to be actively contributing to what was being discussed.”
9:50am: Why did the university court fail?
Convener Douglas Ross asks former chair of court Amanda Millar why court failed in its responsibilities to challenge the executive.
But she insists the body did discharge its duties using the information it was provided.
“It sounds like you were asleep at the wheel. Did you enjoy the title but not do the work?”, Mr Ross asks.
Ms Millar says: “My responsibility was to lead and support the court in its decision making and its governance. I sought to do that to the best of my ability based on the information that was presented.
Mr Ross asks: “Where was your curiousity when all this was going on?”
Ms Millar says she did encourage questioning of the information that was available, adding: “Ultimately I acknowledge there were missed opportunities.”
9:35am: Session starts with an apology
The Holyrood session is under way, starting with an invitation to all three former university to reflect on what happened on their watch.
Convener Douglas Ross asks the straight question: “What do you say to students and staff who were so badly let down and failed by each of you individually and collectively?”
Ex-chief operating officer Dr Jim McGeorge is first in the hot seat.
He worked there for 16 years under different principals and says he cares very deeply about the university.
“I tried to do my very best for the university in good conscience and on the basis of the info that was available to me,” he tells the Education Committee members in front of him.
“Where I’ve been wanting or fallen short personally or collectively I am deeply and unreservedly sorry.”
Amanda Millar – the former chair of court then reflects on her time there, saying she is “frustrated and saddened” by the pain that was caused to students and staff.
Former finance boss Peter Fotheringham says he takes his share of responsibility.
The Gillies report findings were clear “and I accept those”, he says.
Mr Ross has shown himself to be a tough convener, not always to everyone’s taste on the cross-party committee.
He’s certainly off to a forthright start here, telling Dr McGeorge: “If this is your very best, it’s pathetic. You are one of the worst offenders in this report.”
The he invites him to blame the man to his left, Mr Fotheringham. Perhaps it’s all his fault?
Mr Fotheringham pauses, without looking at his former colleague to his right, and says some information “wasn’t presented in a way that makes it as obvious as it could have done”.
8:20am: Who are the characters?
There will be three former senior figures appearing before the parliament’s education committee this morning
Amanda Millar – the former chair of court – quit in February 2025. Sources say that of three, Ms Millar, a solicitor, is likely to struggle most in front of MSPs given the findings in the Gillies Review.
Former finance chief Peter Fotheringham will also appear. Given his key role at the moments when the university should have seen the crisis hurtling towards them, Mr Fotheringham is likely to face to tough questions about what he knew and why he didn’t do more to prevent the crisis.
Dr Jim McGeorge, the chief operating officer who quit earlier this year, is also likely to face challenging questions.
Professor Pamela Gillies says Dr McGeorge formed part of the “triumvirate” with former principal Iain Gillespie and his then deputy Shane O’Neill.
6am: High hopes for Holyrood sessions
The Courier’s political editor, Alasdair Clark, explains why today’s hearings are being seen as so crucial.
These evidence sessions in front of the education committee – postponed until after the Gillies review – are eagerly awaited among the university community.
While the report set out the failings of those at the top, the one question many have been left asking is: why did they fail to act to prevent disaster?
But there is some reservation. A previous session in front of the committee with the then-interim principal Shane O’Neill and acting court chair Tricia Bey had an almost immediate impact.
The revelations prompted the university’s bank to cool on its loan negotiations, and staff confidence, already low, fell further.
Conversation