
University of Dundee bosses quit after 'scathing' report into financial crisis
The interim principal of the University of Dundee and two senior members of its governing body have stepped down following a scathing report into the institution's financial deterioration that led to a £22m government bailout.
The independent investigation into the university's finances was ordered after it announced there would be hundreds of job losses to address a £35m deficit.
The Scottish Funding Council (SFC) - an arms-length public body of the Scottish government - provided a £22m support package.
Key findings from the Gillies Report for the SFC include poor financial judgment, inadequate management and reporting, and lack of agility by leadership in responding to a fall in income.
Interim principal and vice-chancellor Professor Shane O'Neill quit in the wake of the report.
The university also said Tricia Bey, acting chair of the university court, and Carla Rossini, convenor of the finance and policy committee, who were both due to step down this summer, are now bringing this forward and leaving with immediate effect.
Professor O'Neill said: "It is with a very heavy heart, having committed myself fully to the recovery process over these past months, that I have decided to step aside from my position and will be leaving the university.
"It is important that the university can move on and I recognise that this will be easier with new leadership."
Members of the university executive group (UEG), which included the "triumvirate" of Professor O'Neill, former principal Professor Iain Gillespie and ex-chief operating officer Jim McGeorge, were found to have "failed" last year to "properly respond to the worsening situation" and disclose the looming crisis to other university officials.
The report found the root causes of the financial issues included the decline in overseas postgraduate students coming to the university and the growth agenda proposed by leaders.
According to the report, the "credibility and accuracy" of reports given to senior leaders regarding the financial situation were "poor".
The report said there was "insufficient corroborated evidence" to suggest members of the executive team had sought to suppress information about the scale of the crisis, while there was "circumstantial" evidence.
Prof Gillespie, who left the university last year when news of the crisis became public, was described as someone who "did not welcome difficult conversations".
An email sent by the former principal in March of last year, claiming the university was "moving into a surplus position", was branded "misleading" by the report, while his management style was criticised, particularly in how he dealt with women.
The report stated: "Female members of staff in particular reported being spoken over, sidelined or discussed in public as being obstructive if they attempted to be heard, and there were reports that the university policy on dignity and fairness was not upheld in a number of instances."
Dr Ian Mair, deputy chair of court, the university's governing body, said: "There is much in this report on which we have to reflect. We will take a short time to digest the full implications of the report but we will act on the findings."
Education Secretary Jenny Gilruth said it was "evident" from the report's finding that "there are serious questions which must be answered by the University of Dundee's management team".
Ms Gilruth added: "Whilst the university is an autonomous institution which is ultimately responsible for decision-making around its day-to-day operations, the Scottish government will do everything possible to secure a positive future for Dundee.
"I will be updating parliament with a more detailed statement on the findings of the report and on future government support next week."
MSP Miles Briggs, the Scottish Conservatives' shadow cabinet secretary for education, branded the report's findings "damning".
He added: "The report is scathing about the inexcusable failures by those in leadership roles.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Will Starmer have to agree to war?
👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈 Is Donald Trump about to join Israel in attacks on Iran, and will he ask Keir Starmer to help him out? If he does - would it even be legal? A lot has happened since Beth, Ruth and Harriet last got together, with further significant developments expected before a big NATO summit next week - a gathering we don't even know if the US president will turn up to. So how did we get to the point where we're asking whether the UK will allow its ally - the US - to use its airbases? And how does the current situation compare to the invasion of Iraq in 2003?


Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
BBC threatens legal action against AI start-up Perplexity over content scraping, FT reports
June 20 (Reuters) - UK broadcaster BBC is threatening legal action against AI search engine Perplexity, as it seeks to crack down on tech companies scraping its vast content archives to train artificial intelligence models, the Financial Times reported on Friday. Reuters could not immediately verify the report.


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
US weighs in with concerns over China's proposed ‘super-embassy' in London
A US intervention over China's proposed new embassy in London has thrown a potential resolution 'up in the air', campaigners have said, amid concerns over the site's proximity to a sensitive hub of critical communication cables. The furore over a new 'super-embassy' on the edge of London's financial district was reignited last week when the White House said it was 'deeply concerned' over potential Chinese access to 'the sensitive communications of one of our closest allies'. The Dutch parliament has also raised concerns about Beijing's ideal location of Royal Mint Court, on the edge of the City of London, which has so far failed to gain planning permission. The ultimate decision lies with the government, which has taken control over the stalled decision after permission was initially rejected on security grounds two years ago. Labour is expected to make a decision over the proposed 2-hectare (5-acre) site opposite the Tower of London after an inquiry was held earlier this year. Those who have long campaigned against the move over security concerns have criticised the row's revival, saying it has sidelined their views. 'They seem to be struggling to make the right decision,' said Dave Lake, the chair of the local residents' association and lead of the local campaign. 'It's got too political now. It was a straightforward inquiry but because of this, that and the other, particularly the Americans getting involved, it's made it all up in the air.' The intervention comes after the signing of a US-UK trade deal with Donald Trump at the G7 summit in Canada this week. Before the deal was signed, a US official told the Sunday Times: 'The United States is deeply concerned about providing China with potential access to the sensitive communications of one of our closest allies.' In the Netherlands, MPs have raised similar security concerns. A state department official said they had full faith in the UK to ensure the safety and security of their diplomatic mission in London. Nevertheless, for those who have long opposed the embassy site, what was once a campaign focused on security concerns from local residents and communities in exile has been overtaken by geopolitics. Lake has lived near the proposed site, bought by the Chinese government in 2018 for £255m, for 35 years. On Saturday he attended the latest demonstration there, fearing that building an embassy could attract further demonstrations and political attacks. Recent concerns have shifted to cables underneath the sites, which serve as an arterial link between the City of London and Canary Wharf, London's two financial centres. Lake said: 'We know there are cables running underground, and we know the capabilities of the Chinese. In the early conversations it was never part of it, it was just completely our security.' Charles Parton, who spent 22 years working in and on China as a UK diplomat and has advised the UK parliament's foreign affairs committee, said it was 'a big problem' if there were very sensitive cables running directly under the site. He said: 'There are two ways to be seen with it: one way is to say, well, you can't use the site; the other is to say reroute the cables. How difficult is it to reroute the cables? I don't know the answer to that question.' Parton said the British embassy had been wanting to rebuild its Beijing site for as long as he could remember. The building had not been fit for purpose for several decades, he said, and the wishes of both countries for newer embassies was 'normal diplomatic business' as relations had greatly expanded. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'There are many things we should worry about with the Chinese,' said Parton, mentioning Beijing's geopolitical agenda and strangle on rare earth exports. 'But we need to choose the important ones and not the unimportant ones. And all goes back to the nature of these cables. What is crucial is the security issue. If that is resolved satisfactory, then why shouldn't we both go ahead and build new embassies?' The government, which has said it is committed to 'robust' and 'evidence-based' decision-making, is expected to issue its verdict by 9 September. Among those worried that the embassy plans will go ahead is Rahima Mahmut, a leading Uyghur activist. 'It is really unbelievable when not only the US government but also the Dutch government express their concerns,' said Mahmut, who lives in exile in the UK. Also concerned over increased surveillance and espionage is Simon Cheng, the founder of Hongkongers in Britain and a former Hong Kong consulate worker. Cheng, who in 2023 had a bounty issued for his arrest, said: 'The UK government need to think twice because it's not only just the closest ally that has given a warning and grave concern, but also that to many other people, especially us as part of the exile community … we have concerns about our security here.' A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy said the planning application had taken UK policy into consideration as well as the views of all relevant parties. Building a new embassy would help them 'better perform' the responsibilities of 'mutual beneficial cooperation' between the two countries, they added. The spokesperson said: 'Anti-China forces are using security risks as an excuse to interfere with the British government's consideration over this planning application. This is a despicable move that is unpopular and will not succeed.'