The principal of Edinburgh University has defended his six-figure salary to MSPs at the same time as he refused to rule out making compulsory redundancies as the institution seeks to make £140 million of savings.
Professor Sir Peter Mathieson insisted that paying the senior management team at the university “nothing” would “make largely no difference to the size of the expenditure challenge we face”.
Pressed about the cuts the university is planning, including a £90 million reduction in the wage bill, Sir Peter said: “I’m confident the action we’re taking now is in the best interests of the university and I am proud of the leadership my team and I are providing in delivering.”
He told Holyrood’s Education Committee he does “not know the precise numbers” of his salary, telling MSPs when challenged on this: “I don’t carry that figure around in my head.”
Sir Peter however accepted he is “very well paid”, with committee convener Douglas Ross pointing out the principal’s reported salary of £418,000 is more than the combined wages of both First Minister John Swinney and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.
Sir Peter however said when he had checked the salaries of the heads of organisations with a similar turnover to the university, “for one of them it was £5 million, for another it was £17 million”.
He then added: “I was made an offer by the University of Edinburgh when I was appointed and I accepted it, and I am very satisfied with the package I was offered.”
He said his “basic salary” is “about £350,000”, adding there is a pension supplement on top of this.
Asked by Mr Ross if given the “massive cuts” the university is planning there could be a reduction in his salary, Sir Peter said: “You could pay the senior team of the University of Edinburgh nothing and that would make largely no difference to the size of the expenditure challenge we face.”
Edinburgh University has already confirmed about 350 staff will leave under a voluntary severance scheme, which will save it about £18 million a year.
Sir Peter said while he would “very much hope” future job losses could be made on a voluntary basis, he could not rule out compulsory redundancies – something trade unions have urged the university to do.
“We have not done so because we genuinely don’t know if they are going to be necessary and it would be dishonest to pretend that we do know,” he said.
He was pressed on how many jobs would have to go to make savings of £90 million, with the principal saying: “We don’t know the answer to that because it depends entirely which jobs. We have staff paid a wide range.”
Challenged by Mr Ross to say roughly how many posts could be lost, he said: “We haven’t done that calculation.”
He stressed however the need for action – saying income from international students had come in at about £20 million below the university’s target for the past two years.
“We have intervened because we felt we needed to,” he told the committee.
“We’re taking pre-emptive action to try and make sure the university remains in a sustainable position, we’re not waiting to be in deficit before we do it.”
Mr Ross however suggested the principal could “lead from the front” by giving up some perks of his job, including free use of the university principal’s house, where his utility bills are also paid for him, and a driver.
The convener said: “The driving service, the house, the utility bills, you could put that forward to say ‘this is a saving we can make’ to show you can lead from the front with your organisation.”
Pressed further on whether the principal’s house could be included in the review of properties the university is carrying out as it looks to make sayings, Sir Peter said: “All of the buildings of the University of Edinburgh are under consideration as to whether we need them or not, that is for sure.”
Asked directly by Mr Ross if he needs a principal’s house – a five-bedroomed property in Edinburgh’s Regent Terrace – Sir Peter said: “That’s not for me to comment.
“If I thought selling off the principal’s house would solve the problems of the University of Edinburgh, then it is certainly something that could be considered, but it would be a tiny contribution to what is a massive challenge.”
