Seòmar agus comataidhean

How is your engagement with the trade unions working if that is their position? You say that you want to improve the culture and you want to be transparent, but there has clearly been a breakdown in communication.

Thank you very much, convener. Before I start, I put on record my entry in the register of members’ interests as rector of Dundee university and, therefore, a member of court. I will keep my questions within territory that does not overlap with that interest.

Good afternoon, and thank you both for your contributions so far. We have heard about a range of topics, and I want to pick up on a couple of different areas, the first of which is finance. I do not know whether this question is best directed at Lee Hamill in the first instance, but I note that you have talked about the areas where you can cut costs—capital investment, operating costs and staff—and have not really talked that much about income generation. What conversations have you had within the university community about income generation that is not about international student numbers, bank loans or money from the Scottish Government?

Sorry—yes. I left off three zeros there.

Are you able to provide updated student numbers? Everyone has gone through matriculation, and my understanding is that the numbers are better than expected or are not as bad as projected.

Okay. My follow-on question, which I appreciate you might not be able to answer, concerns what role the unions had in the discussions around the creation of that statement. I ask that because, at a meeting to discuss the fair work statement, union representatives pushed back and challenged it, because it did not refer to the Gillies report and the clear recommendations therein, and did not mention the need to improve relationships with the trade unions. However, those discussions have been ignored—those points have not been incorporated into the statement or into the recommendations that flow from that.

Okay—thank you. I could go on, but I will not.

That would be helpful.

My next question about numbers is on job losses. Nigel Seaton spoke earlier about the total difference in staff numbers being 275. The numbers that I have been able to get, looking across the past 15 months or so, show that, in August 2024, there were 4,367 staff and that, after the voluntary severance scheme this year, there were 3,698 staff, which is a change of 669. I appreciate that some of those staff will have been part time, so the headcount does not equal FTE posts. It would be helpful if the committee could get clarity—not necessarily now, but in the coming days—on that detail. What role will the more than 200 unfilled vacancies play in the figure of 669, or in the way that you describe or define the 275 figure?

However, there is clear agreement that RME is distinct, and you said in your opening remarks that RME and RO are distinct. RME is a core part of curriculum for excellence, so why not take the opportunity to separate them in law? I am not saying that we should put one of them on a statutory footing; however, as CFE suggests, RME is core to young people’s understanding, education and development when it comes to learning how to be citizens and how to interact with, learn about and understand other faiths, belief systems and ethical questions.

Why give people the option to withdraw from that, given that some of our witnesses have suggested that doing so could be the thin edge of the wedge? If people do not like some of the science courses, can they opt out of them? That is the kind of question that we have wrestled with when gathering evidence. I am curious about why the decision was taken not to separate RO and RME, not necessarily about whether one or the other will not be put on a statutory footing.

It is interesting that you talk about strengthening children’s rights and yet you are not proposing to give children that independent right. However—

I want to follow up on Rhoda Grant’s questions on the impact of part 2. Given the unlikelihood of incompatibility arising—we hope that, from now on, all bills will be drafted to be compatible with the 2024 act—how does the cabinet secretary see the exemption in part 2 affecting young people’s access to justice? You talked about that in the letter that you sent to the committee during recess, but could you explain a bit more how access to justice for young people will work following the exemption, if it is enacted?

I suppose that, if young people are feeling othered or will not have those kinds of conversations with their teachers, that is a concern. Maybe that goes back to why RME is so important. How do we foster an inclusive culture of conversation, understanding and acceptance of difference? I wonder whether the cabinet secretary thinks that there is more that we can do. Maybe that is not about legislation at all, but about building a culture of inclusivity and acceptance. Are there other things, elsewhere, that we need to look at? The committee has looked at the public sector equality duty on local authorities and, therefore, on schools. Are we joining the dots on this?