Chamber and committees

Yes. I do not know whether I am right on the day rate, because it was just a quick calculation. I am asking about types of skills, because people who have skills such as Java will be picked up. Although your plan to get your staff up to speed on those skills addresses one problem, it also introduces a new organisational risk, because those staff will have skills that are sellable at a daily rate of £600, which most people would consider useful. Can I assume that the risk side, from an IT perspective, is also in your personnel planning?

I have not forgotten that it was an utterly disingenuous vote leave campaign led by Michael Gove and Boris Johnson that has led Scotland to this point. Although I await further developments with interest, as it stands, the UK structural funds are a mess.

As I see it, there are five summary issues. First, there has not been—and I still have limited confidence that there will be—any meaningful engagement with the democratically elected Scottish Government to ensure that the funds are compatible with Scotland’s economic policies. Secondly, there is no effective governance in place. For example, there is no sensible approach to a nationwide evaluation of impact. It would seem that, in place of robust governance, we are to have Mr Gove whispering “Trust me”.

Thirdly, the methodology that is in place for categorising areas of need is, at best, amateurish. Fourthly, the UK funds set up a competition in which our local authorities must compete with one another, rather than work in concert towards nationally agreed goals. Fifthly, the most sensible solution was readily available, but for political reasons it was rejected—to continue with the precedent that was already set by EU structural funds and allow our Scottish Government and those of us in this Parliament to shape the best use of funds for the people of Scotland.

When I challenged Mr Gove in the Finance and Public Administration Committee last week about the methodology for funding projects, which had placed Orkney, Shetland and the Highlands in the lowest category of need for transport infrastructure—along with the City of London—he obfuscated. He asked the Scottish Government to provide him with more information and transparency, while at the same time he sought to impose an approach that excludes that Government from control.

Let us consider Mr Grove’s track record on transparency. As reported in 2017 by Peter Geoghegan, writing for openDemocracy, Gove and others were closely tied to the Legatum Institute, a Mayfair-based think tank that is funded by a tycoon who made his money during the wild capitalism period in post-Soviet Russia. When asked about his connections to people at Legatum, Mr Gove’s belief in transparency led him to give this florid reply:

“The blessed sponge of amnesia wipes the memory slate clean.”

However bad his memory was, it did not stop the appointment of Legatum’s Matthew Elliott as chief executive of vote leave.

After the referendum, the infamous letter from Gove and Boris Johnson to the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, encouraging a hard Brexit, was widely reported as having been assisted by the involvement of Russian-funded Legatum personnel. Gove and Johnson’s hard Brexit is costing Scotland dear.

Furthermore, Gove advocated against and lobbied to avoid publishing prior to the 2019 election the Russia report on election meddling, money laundering, cyberattacks and the buying of influence with dirty Russian money. To this day, we have never seen the full report, thanks to Mr Gove.

Finally, I note that the tycoon who is behind Michael Gove’s favourite institute is reported to have been behind the board coup that saw an associate of Vladimir Putin become chair of Gazprom, the huge energy company that is fuelling Putin’s war in Ukraine.

Therefore, no amount of fawning by the Scottish Tories over Gove can hide the fact that he is a charlatan with a demonstrable lack of concern for the democratic will of the Scottish people—trust him, and his assurances on the UK structural funds, at your peril.

Can the cabinet secretary provide further information about the underpinning methodology and the analysis that was undertaken to inform the strategy and which, ultimately, led to the key themes that have been identified in order to deliver improvements?

Will the member give way?

I have a couple of questions for you, Eileen. A number of times, the committee has had a discussion about the benefits of multiyear versus single-year budgeting. In principle, everyone understands that issue. How aware are you of the challenges that the Scottish Government has had because of its inability to undertake multiyear budgeting?

That leads me on to my main question. The committee was helped ably by the clerks in devising the call for evidence for the inquiry. One of the questions that was asked was:

“Does the framework properly reflect the current economic and political context?”

I was a bit surprised that neither the SCVO submission nor the Universities Scotland submission reflected on the political context. In the answer that you just gave, you clearly highlight a political context: the rest of the UK has gone down a fees route and levied loans on students, but the Scottish Government has elected not to do that. I do not know whether this figure is correct—it is probably a few years out of date—but in Holland, for example, the aggregated figure for funding to universities from central Government is 61 per cent. There is clearly a stark difference.

I was surprised not to see a reflection of the political context in the Universities Scotland submission, given the comment about

“attracting a working-age population from outside our borders”.

As we know, Scotland has been greatly affected by Brexit.

Paul Bradley mentioned SNIB. I agree that £2 billion in capital expenditure is a low figure. I would like it to be much higher.

My question to all three witnesses is: what makes you avoid that political context? I am well aware that we live in polarised times in Scotland. I understand that, and I do not see it from one side of the fence; I merely recognise it as a fact. As a relatively new member, I see that people who give evidence to this committee and to the Economy and Fair Work Committee are reluctant to tell it how it is for fear of getting into a debate that is quite polarised at the moment. From my point of view, as a member of this committee, which is interested in the numbers and the financial transactions, that reluctance inhibits understanding. We saw that earlier when we talked about COSLA and CIPFA.

In the light of your comments this morning, would you like to add anything that is not in your submission in relation to the question:

“Does the framework properly reflect the current economic and political context?”

Now you are on it.

What is the aggregated figure?

I think that that message has come through clearly.

Within COSLA, how commonly understood is the budget process that the Scottish Government goes through? For example, do you understand that there are 11th-hour changes and that those have an impact on financial flow-throughs?

Alastair Sim, you quoted a figure per head for students. What is the overall percentage of Scottish Government funding for the universities sector? I ask because I am not sure of the figure.