Audit Committee, 07 Nov 2007

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Official Report 96KB pdf

---

“Estate management in higher education”

For agenda item 4, responses from Universities Scotland, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council and the accountable officer have been circulated to members. Do members have any comments?

I picked up an important issue from Universities Scotland's submission. In the final paragraph of the preamble, it says:

"Universities Scotland feels that the recommendations of the report, if implemented, will lead to a more interventionist and bureaucratic monitoring and compliance regime by the SFC."

It goes on to say that that

"would be an inefficient direction of travel."

It seems that Universities Scotland, which represents the sector, is not entirely happy with the approach that is taken in the Audit Scotland report. Does the Auditor General want to respond?

The comment that we made in the report was that, in view of the substantial and increasing level of public funding that goes into the estate, it would be reasonable to expect higher education institutions that work with the funding council to report publicly on their use of capital funding and demonstrate the link between funding and national priorities. I am reluctant to accept at face value the concern that Universities Scotland expresses. The answer will be found in the systems that are put in place to make such reports. We adhere to the view that it is not unreasonable to expect public performance reporting about the contribution that the investment makes to the strategic priorities of this Parliament and the Scottish Government.

From what you have seen of the responses and the focus of our discussion, which has not been about whether there is sufficient money or the spending review per se, are you persuaded that the systems that are in place between various individuals and organisations are sufficiently robust to ensure that we minimise duplication of effort and maximise the benefits from the investment, that we will see effective use of the investment—whatever its level—and that rigorous steps have been taken to ensure that our universities are sufficiently prepared for the significant challenges that they face, not least that of having to compete with universities in England?

Our report was lengthy, as I am sure you recall. We attempted to summarise the great deal of activity that is going on in the sector. Much of that is explained in more detail in the Universities Scotland submission.

Unfortunately, it requires foresight rather than hindsight to provide an assurance to the committee that the systems and procedures will be robust in practice. In developing the report with the clearance from the Scottish funding council, we had some useful conversations, and the Scottish funding council by and large welcomes the report. Frankly, the people from the funding council are the best people to answer those important questions, because they have to oversee the systems into the future.

If we were to put those questions to the funding council, it would enable us to close consideration of the report. It appears that members agree that there is nothing further to be done at the moment.