Thank you, convener, and good morning ladies and gentlemen.
The last time I was here I talked about setting this inquiry in the context of the college merger process. The merger policy was instigated by the Scottish Government, and once the groupings of colleges that were to be merged had been finalised, very little direction was given as to how the process should be managed. College groupings were left to get on with the process in the best way they could.
In Lanarkshire, the proposal started out being for a federation structure. It then changed to a merger proposal, and in the middle of that Cumbernauld College and Motherwell College agreed a merger without involving Coatbridge College or South Lanarkshire College. Coatbridge eventually capitulated and was, in effect, taken over. South Lanarkshire College, as I understand it, is still not an integrated part of New College Lanarkshire.
As the process evolved, many discussions took place on process and rule setting, particularly with regard to severance payment arrangements for the many staff who were clearly going to lose their jobs through no fault of their own. The board policy from the start was to try to ensure that Coatbridge College staff were fairly treated and given proper job opportunities in the new structure, and that there was a realistic severance scheme for those who would be forced to leave.
As far as I am concerned, the severance arrangements when I left are clearly described in the remuneration committee and board minutes of 23 October 2013. At no time was any suggestion made by anyone that the payment to John Doyle, in particular, was excessive or should be stopped or reconsidered.
In short, the important points for me are that, at the end of the day, all staff in Lanarkshire colleges who lost their jobs were to receive the same compensation. There was no proposal for any enhanced payment to senior managers. There was only one scheme.
For the principal, the contractual entitlement to six months’ pay in lieu of notice is a contractual matter and is totally separate from any severance pay agreement. There was no payment made regarding his pension.
The funding council made it clear that it would fund only up to the guideline amount and that if the board wanted to exceed that amount that would be its responsibility, and the college would have to fund any balance that was required. That was understood by the whole board and was agreed without question at the meeting.
I want to clarify one or two other wee points. John Doyle never asked me for a severance package, either verbally or in writing. I served as chairman of the board for almost 12 years without remuneration. I was not entitled to any severance payment and nor did I receive any—contrary to some reports.
The funding council confirmed that other colleges had made severance payments in excess of the guideline amount. Did their auditors comment on that, and will those colleges be subjected to the same audit process to which we have been subjected? I leave those questions with the committee.
In conclusion, I believe that there was on my part no failure of governance at Coatbridge College. The Auditor General for Scotland clearly did not examine the situation in sufficient detail before commenting in her report; she clearly did not see all the relevant documents and, in particular, she made no approach either to John Doyle or to me for explanation or clarification. The Auditor General’s comments have no foundation in fact. Her conclusions are entirely her own: they were insulting and damaging and should now be retracted. If they will not be, I would like to know the reason why.