Interim finance chief at cash-strapped university quits after days in post
Chris Reilly, who took on the role on an interim basis days at the start of last week, has left the university by 'mutual agreement'.
Dundee University is grappling with a financial crisis which has resulted in the Scottish Government using special powers to award a further £40 million to the institution.
Faced with a £35 million deficit, the university is looking to cut hundreds of jobs.
Professor Nigel Seaton, Dundee's interim principal and vice chancellor, confirmed Mr Reilly's departure in a message to staff – saying the institution is 'moving quickly' to replace him.
Prof Seaton, who himself only took on the role after the previous interim principal quit last month, said Mr Reilly's replacement would help take the university through the 'next steps' of its recovery plan.
Previous interim principal Professor Shane O'Neill quit the post in June after a report by former Glasgow Caledonian University principal Professor Pamela Gillies was critical of him and other former senior Dundee University figures for their actions before the scale of the crisis became public.
That report found members of the university executive group, which included the 'triumvirate' of Prof O'Neill, former principal Professor Iain Gillespie and ex-chief operating officer Jim McGeorge, had 'failed' to 'properly respond to the worsening situation' with the institution's finances in 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Is reform of the welfare system still possible?
During the chaotic debate that led to the implosion of the government's disability benefit reforms, Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, acknowledged: 'Welfare reform is never easy, especially perhaps for Labour governments.' The question after her full-scale retreat on disability benefit cuts is whether it is possible at all. How did we get here? Alarm has been growing over the surge in sickness benefit claims since Covid, with total spending of £81 billion this year, almost £30 billion higher than in 2019. Numbers claiming both for incapacity, because they cannot work, and disability, to compensate for the extra costs of sickness, have been rising. But the jump in the latter is been particularly stark: a thousand people a day start claiming, double pre-pandemic levels, and another two million claimants are projected by the end of the decade. The Conservatives announced plans to deal with it shortly before losing power and Labour took office pledging to control spending. What was Labour proposing? As well as an overhaul of Jobcentres and employment services, Kendall is pledging contentious reforms to benefits to get people back to work. This included a new requirement on the long-term sick to discuss plans to get back to work, and halving of incapacity benefit for new claimants to increase incentives to get a job. But the most controversial were cost-cutting plans that would have made it harder to claim personal independence payments (PIP), the main disability benefit. These were junked in a chaotic climbdown in the face of a mass revolt from Labour MPs. What's left? The universal credit health element will still be halved for new claimants deemed unfit to work, costing 730,000 people about £3,000 a year, while Labour MPs have largely accept the long-term sick do need to do more to consider work. A ban on those under 22 claiming incapacity benefits also remains. But so too does extra spending from boosting the standard rate of universal credit for 3.9 million people who get an extra £265 a year, cancelling previous Tory cuts and boosting spending on employment support by £1 billion a year. What happens now? Sir Stephen Timms, the disability minister, will lead a review into the future of PIP, promising that this will be 'co-produced' with disability groups and will not set out to make savings. Tom Pollard of the New Economics Foundation think tank, said it was possible this would lead to plans that could enjoy widespread support while controlling costs, but warned: 'There has been a lot of trust lost, and disability groups will go in alert to the idea that the government wants to save money, so the risk is you end up with a stalemate through lack of trust.' Campaigners said that the cuts to public services and restrictions on social welfare would be detrimental to people receiving disability assistance CARL COURT/GETTY IMAGES Politically will Labour MPs accept welfare reform? Most Labour MPs agree that Kendall's case for reform is strong. One loyalist said that PIP has 'become totally unmoored from its original purpose' and that more fundamental rethinking is now needed. But no one can agree who should lose out: squaring the circle of pleasing disability groups while saving money appears all but impossible. Ben Zaranko of the Institute for Fiscal Studies warns that 'there is no way to save big sums without taking big sums off people who are currently classed as disabled', and many Labour MPs have shown they will not accept this. Even the loyalists have been burnt by repeatedly defending contentious changes which were subsequently junked. What happens if welfare is not reformed? Spending on sickness benefit is back on course to top £100 billion by the end of the parliament, leaving less for public services. Zaranko warned that the benefits system 'clearly isn't on a sustainable trajectory' and that any government would have to make changes. 'We do need to have a view about slowing that rise and targeting support at those who need it most,' he said. When can the government expect savings? Most now accept that any reforms are going to take too long for the government to persuade the Office for Budget Responsibility to bank savings in the short term. Deven Ghelani, director of the consultancy Policy in Practice and one of the architects of the universal credit system, said the reforms were 'bungled because Treasury-led reforms don't work. While the government can score the savings at the start of the parliament, they are never able to deliver on them.' MPs and experts point out that welfare reform is notoriously slow — universal credit was introduced more than a decade ago and many claimants will not move on to it until next year. What other ideas are there? With MPs saying that 'tinkering' has not worked, there may be appetite for more radical options. The Centre for Social Justice has suggested those with milder mental health conditions should no longer be able to claim, with a portion of the savings ploughed back into NHS therapy. Joe Shalam, its director of policy and former DWP adviser, said that 'all is not lost for welfare reform', arguing: 'By targeting mental health benefits and investing in therapy and back-to-work support, ministers will save money and change lives'. Zaranko said PIP was 'designed with an old-fashioned view of disability when a lot of the fastest growth has been for mental health conditions'. He suggested that it should be 'redesigned from the bottom up. We need to think about what the most appropriate kind of support is, which for some people may be counselling'. What about addressing the underlying problems? While benefit claims have outpaced the rise in disability, there is no doubt we are becoming sicker. 'What's going on in the benefits system is symptomatic of an ill society where there is poor health, poor public services and a lot of poverty,' Pollard said. 'Ultimately the path to savings is to have fewer health problems because you're spending more on prevention.' Yet in the short term, that too is very costly. Whatever the future for welfare reform, the certainty is that there is no quick fix.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Lenders must probe joint borrowers for signs of exploitation
Economic manipulation as a form of domestic abuse has attracted rising recent attention, but fears remain that the law is not protecting the most vulnerable. The Supreme Court highlighted the 'damaging effects' of the problem in a case ruling last month that a bank had a duty to investigate whether a woman faced undue influence from her partner when the couple took out a mortgage that would be used partly to pay off his debts. The judges ruled unanimously that staff at One Savings Bank knew that money loaned to allow Catherine Waller-Edwards to remortgage her home would be used in a way that did not benefit her financially and it should therefore have checked to determine whether Nicholas Bishop had put her under undue influence.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Don't overlook crypto when splitting assets in divorce
As digital currencies such as bitcoin, ethereum and solana become common holdings among the wealthy, they are increasingly used to conceal assets in divorce cases. In many ways, crypto functions like a digital offshore account — decentralised, borderless and often anonymous. Its pseudonymous nature makes it uniquely difficult to trace, value, or even prove it exists. Unlike a share certificate or bank statement, a crypto wallet might exist on a USB stick in a drawer, or be locked behind a password and 12-word seed phrase known only to the holder. If someone claims they have lost access, that may be the end of the trail. Even when crypto is disclosed, it still poses difficulties. These assets can be highly volatile, particularly altcoins, so unless both parties agree to share that risk, valuing them fairly becomes problematic. It is also relatively easy for someone anticipating divorce to open a crypto exchange account on a phone and quietly move funds there, sometimes years in advance. Yet disclosure typically only covers the past 12 months unless there is a clear reason to investigate further. This murkiness creates a growing blind spot in divorce litigation. There is no consistent UK legal framework for disclosing crypto and limited case law to guide lawyers and judges. That opens the door to disputes and grey areas, particularly when disclosure is incomplete or suspected to be dishonest. For international cases, the complexity increases significantly. If digital assets are held on overseas exchanges, especially in jurisdictions that do not co-operate with UK courts, there may be no practical way to obtain information or enforce a financial settlement. Tracing crypto that has been moved, converted into privacy coins, or hidden through tumbling services — a process of mixing identifiable funds with nonidentifiable — can be incredibly difficult and sometimes impossible without specialist forensic expertise. Solicitors must look for tell-tale signs of concealment, undeclared exchange accounts or large unexplained transfers. And when red flags arise, lawyers increasingly rely on forensic investigators who understand blockchain analysis and can follow the money. But it is not just a technical problem, it is emotional too. When one party believes assets are being hidden in crypto, it fuels mistrust and escalates conflict. Relatively straightforward financial cases become emotionally charged battlegrounds once digital asset concealment is suspected. As more wealth is stored digitally, this will only grow as a challenge for the courts. Until the law catches up, crypto will continue to be a grey area that some exploit, others fear, and many don't fully understand. For divorcing couples, the message is clear: do not underestimate the role crypto may be playing in the financial Maguire is the managing director of Maguire Family Law
