Chamber and committees

How many FMs have you both, and, indeed, the wider bill team, developed? What is the typical experience? Is it part and parcel of what you do, or is this your first encounter?

Is the effectiveness of the FM—the question of how much an FM hits the mark—included in your annual review? I mean for bill teams generally, not you specifically.

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.

So that statutory responsibility was not known about prior to that. The fact that there was a statutory responsibility that brought associated costs was not known at the point of the original conversations. Is that what you are saying?

My specific point is that, as a direct consequence of the co-design process, there is a risk of overspending, of inefficiency in spending and of sunk costs. That is against a backdrop of significant public sector cuts. Understanding that, and any understanding of how money operates in such programmes, goes against the use of framework bills, because those bills bring significant risks. Within your hierarchy and your understanding of what is going on in the Scottish Government, what active discussions have you had about the risk that adopting that approach might lead to inefficient spending?

It is not part of the standard process, but it sounds to me as if you are saying that quite a number of departments inside the Scottish Government have not got the message about the chronic shortage of public funds. It sounds as if people might get round to thinking about that at some point. In all honesty, if that were me, I would be developing a detailed assessment of the financial risk of using a framework bill for this sort of legislation and would be disclosing all of that.

You may be picking up from the committee that this all plays into confidence. If, in your preparations for today’s meeting, you and others in your directorate looked back at the committee’s deliberations on a number of bills, you would quickly and easily have gleaned that we have concerns about framework bills, which would have prepared you adequately for that question. It is a significant concern.

A lot of points about the FM itself have already been picked up. After I heard your opening comment, I realised that all the questions that I had were, in effect, moot.

Can you explore a bit more how on earth we got here? I notice and acknowledge that you have clearly had conversations with Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Federation and so on. I am interested in understanding the nature of those conversations, given that they suddenly had no meaning when we got to giving evidence. What happened and why are we where we are?

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?

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.

I apologise for not joining you in the room. I have to leave early and did not want to disturb the flow of the meeting.

I want to ask a framing question that will support some of the later questions. We know that we have had increased inputs into the education system in general—average spend per pupil for primary and secondary has gone up, there are more classroom assistants, and so on—yet there is still a perception of a lack of support for pupils with ASN. I am, as you are, mindful of the increased demand, but I would appreciate your reflections on why that perception persists, despite the increased inputs that we have had for a long time.