Chamber and committees

That is fine. It sounds like something that may have potential for growth in providing more inclusive services or access to more public services, as part of a wider strategy, if the infrastructure is already there.

The second half of my question—I am sorry to be cheeky, convener—is on the social tariff issue, which I am still trying to get my head around. Around 5 or 8 per cent—I was not sure which—of those who are eligible to take up a social tariff are doing so.

I had a quick look, and those tariffs range from about £12 to £25 per month, depending on what sort of speeds you want, from 15Mbps up to about 150Mbps. It is not bad; it gives you basic access. Is there a place for Government subsidy in that area, even at a basic level? For example, 100,000 households connected at basic speeds at £12 a month would cost the Government £14 million per year, but it would bring 100,000 households straight into the digital sphere. Is that the sort of intervention that you think would be helpful and which we should be probing the Government about?

Is that not part of the problem, Auditor General? The language that you use in the report and which you have repeated in your opening statement is relatively harsh in its analysis. You say that

“leadership ... has weakened”,

that

“momentum has ... slowed”

and that there is a lack of an action plan and a lack of lines of responsibility. These are common themes that we on the committee hear arising from a wide range of public services and from Government management and oversight of them. Do those things come as a surprise to you? Is there a feeling that it is perhaps not that the Government has taken its eye off the ball, due to pressures on public finances, but that its eye was never on the ball in the first place? I am trying to get a feel for whether the direction of travel is towards a worsening situation or whether the strategy was never there in the first place.

That is great news. I was really taken aback by the statistic that one in six Scots lack foundation-level digital skills—not advanced digital skills, but basic digital skills. How does that compare with other parts of Europe and the United Kingdom? Are we faring well, or is that the world average at the moment?

I might come back in with other questions later.

Probably not that long.

That is great, and it is good news. That leads me sideways into another question, which is about your ways of working. The paragraph on that in the annual report is relatively short and does not really say much. We have had a lot of conversation about your high rent costs across your three offices, yet, post pandemic, you seem to be operating a much more hybrid model. Is there no way that you could reduce running costs rather than see them go up? They should surely be coming down.

I believe that you were here, David, for the earlier evidence session, so you will have followed that line of questioning. At any point when you were looking at the accounts, did any of the issues that we identified in relation to where there was quite large variance in the accounts raise questions?

I will refer to two examples that might help you come to an answer on this. The travel and subsistence budget went from £500,000 to the reported figure in the accounts of only £82,000, which raises the question of whether there was just a change in the way that things are reported—that is, whether the line that such things appear in has changed due to changes in accounting practices—or whether there has been a huge reduction in the forecast figure versus the used.

The depreciation figure almost doubled from £500,000 to £1 million. Did those things raise flags as you went through the accounts, and were there any conversations around them?

Are you generally content with the rationale and explanations that have been given, including what you have heard this morning?

It is just that there is a variance of 15 per cent between what was approved at budget and what was spent, which is stark. I guess that I was trying to get under the skin of why the costs went up so much. I wondered whether some of the external firms charged higher rates or different multiples, such as double or triple time, in order to get work finished. I am a little further forward in understanding the 15 per cent figure, but I still do not fully understand it.

We look forward to seeing those savings on the balance sheet in due course.

My substantive question—I am sorry that I got sidetracked with some other questions, convener—is a specific one about the amount of money that is being paid in fees to external firms. That has increased considerably from just over £7 million to £8.1 million. Your annual report seems to suggest that that increase of more than £1 million is due to a lag in the completion of audits, if I interpret that correctly. You can correct me if I am wrong about that. However, the amount of audits that have been completed has marginally reduced by a couple of percentage points, so it does not seem to quite add up. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to why there has been such an increase in the amount of money that is being paid to external companies.