Chamber and committees

Given what it sets out, we almost wish that we had had the report before the recent review of the fiscal framework. That would have been valuable.

I could not agree more.

My last wee comment, which I suspect is probably moot, is about ranges. I will look at a range and the scale of the range will add to my confidence. In other words, if a range is significant, that makes me less confident. A range is entirely acceptable because we realise that we are talking about estimates rather than final figures. I noticed that the estimated upper cost of the bill’s provisions was 2.7 times more than the lower figure. Do you anticipate, or is it your intention that the ranges will be more acceptable in the updated financial memorandum that will come back before the end of stage 1?

Does that mean that the police thought that it could be absorbed based on conversations that had taken place by that point? Why did the available information lead them to that decision? Logically, that can only be because a lack in the information that was given to them led to a lack of understanding and because, as they gained more understanding, they were able to update their figures. That goes back to the point that my colleague Liz Smith is making, which is that people are making up numbers without having any clue about what the legislation actually intends.

Good morning to the witnesses, and thank you for attending the meeting.

I want to pick up on that last point and reiterate what my colleague Liz Smith and the convener have said. It is absolutely necessary that we have an updated financial memorandum before the conclusion of stage 1, and certainly before the production of any report. That is because the satisfaction of the Finance and Public Administration Committee critically depends on the numbers being within certain ranges and as accurate as they can be. I add my voice to that. That is very important.

As well as the finance side, we have responsibility for public administration. I must admit that I am quite surprised at how we have ended up where we are in respect of organisational culture. My colleague Liz Smith set the backdrop. We have seen an increasing number of framework bills. Such bills carry significant risks to the public purse in that a lot of the costs are put in past the stage at which the numbers bods—that is, us—are able to look at them in detail. From a public purse point of view, they represent a significant risk of a waste of money. What conversations are going on in your area about the risks against the backdrop of chronic shortages in public sector funding? What are the risks that are actively being considered of using framework bills?

Does any other project management training take place or is it just all in-house, as you have articulated?

How many FMs have you undertaken for framework bills?

That leads on to the perennial challenge that always comes up with this committee, which is the need for a much more strategic long-range look at public sector finance. That is often expressed as the need for multiyear funding.

Do you anticipate that you will have any discussions with the UK Government, given the critical dependencies that you have set out, in the sense that one needs the other? Do you anticipate that you will be able to have discussions with the UK Government and/or the Treasury?

As you alluded earlier, your report refers to working with a debt to gross domestic product ratio of 90 per cent as a normal baseline, as against the startling figure, if it was all public investment, of 289 per cent. That figure, more than anything—I know that it is the OBR’s figure—makes clear the need for private investment as well.

Does your report accentuate the fact that the volatility in the public sector funding environment will have a direct influence on the confidence of private sector funding to come to the fore? Am I correct in that assumption?

As a relatively new member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee and, what is more, as a parliamentarian with a deep concern about the future, it is a great pleasure to participate in the debate and to welcome the report that the Scottish Government published yesterday. As we know, today’s motion focuses on widening access to higher education and, of course, references the recent report from the commissioner for fair access.

Taken together, those two reports clearly identify the progress that has been made in the development of lifelong learning in general and widening access in particular. However, we face significant challenges in the modern world, and high-quality education for all is central to our success.

Twenty-three years ago, the then Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, under the convenership of Alex Neil, launched a major and what proved to be hugely influential inquiry into lifelong learning, echoes of which are reflected in yesterday’s report. The challenges that we face today—not least the impact of a global pandemic, Brexit and artificial intelligence, for example—could not be foreseen then but are key issues, and students are at the centre of them.

Last month, the National Union of Students Scotland published a report that detailed concerns that students face today. They include accessing affordable student accommodation and the cost of living, notwithstanding free tuition and grants. Such are the stresses that there are concerns about how the wider economic environment compromises the education experience and can lead to mental health challenges. We have to take those concerns seriously as well.

Last year, Sir Anton Muscatelli described in an essay the costs that Adam Smith faced when he was a student in the early 18th century:

“When Smith was a student himself he probably lived in University accommodation which cost around £1 per year, he would have subsisted on around £5 per year and paid course fees of £3, 10s. All in amounting to £10 per annum—around £3,000 in today’s money.”

Real-terms inflation has been huge since then, not least in accommodation costs, and students face a significant economic burden. Despite those economic challenges, we need to find ways of investing more in our higher education system, not only to keep on widening access but because, as Sir Anton further argues,

“We need a productive and efficient workforce to drive GDP, but in doing so we mustn’t leave behind those marginalised groups in our society. In economics, there is evidence that labour productivity, and thus overall output, could be improved by increasing worker wellbeing. Much of this relates to the need for a workforce that is informed and equipped with all the necessary skills, as well as the opportunity to build on these skills and learn throughout their working life.”

Society benefits from a highly educated population. The well educated are more likely to participate in the democratic life of our nation and to be more resistant to conspiracy theories and some of the madness that, all too often, seems to afflict our modern society. In that respect, we must strive to ensure continued breadth of access for all. I support the Government’s endeavours in that regard.