Chamber and committees

To go back to the point about trying to apportion some amount to the loss as a result of that bidding, it strikes me that that might be a useful exercise, because I am concerned that it is happening more frequently.

I want to pick up on another point. You may be suggesting where the differences lie between funding from the UK Government to the Scottish Government and from the Scottish Government to councils, in that the Scottish Government, with its universal policies, is not subjecting local councils to bidding. It is simply saying, “This is a pot of money that has to be spent in the same way.” To go back to Liz Smith’s point, we are not actually comparing like with like, are we?

I suppose that that is what I wanted to explore. I apologise for using the term “sleight of hand”—what I meant was that, in my understanding, there is an accounting mechanism to reflect that the loans are not truly loans in a traditional sense, and the public accounting of them is slightly different.

Notwithstanding that, I still do not understand the direct relevance to the Scottish budget of that treatment, which has been applied across the board. I would also like to know how, specifically, it is being applied to the Scottish budget. Are those real numbers, in a technical sense? Are they really based on Scottish loans or are they an apportionment based on population share? In other words, is the number that we are discussing real, and what does it really mean for us?

I get that. I have a last wee question, because I am aware that my colleague wants to come back in and explore this area.

With regard to the loans themselves, I note what you are saying about the historical situation in Scotland; that applies to Scottish loans simply because they run over 30 years, as I understand it. It does not have any relationship to Scottish students who, for example, studied in England and have now come back and become Scottish taxpayers. I am assuming that it is simply a picture of the loan book at a point in time when those loans were taken out.

Thank you for all that—it is helpful. I have a last wee quick question, which I hope that you can answer quite quickly. How confident are you in your ability to bring down the bill for contractors? I am thinking specifically about your budgeting for keeping the show on the road. From my experience in a previous life, I know that that is always extremely difficult, because IT bought-in costs are always going up and it is difficult to keep people.

A quick answer is fine.

I hear what you are saying about the transition—it is very clear. It would be helpful for me to understand what applications and coding skills you are talking about. I guess that your ability to grow people, particularly when you get into complex bug fixing, is an essential part of keeping the show on the road, but is there a bespoke application? What sort of coding skills are required?

Thank you.

Yes—good morning and thanks for coming along, Jennifer. I want to explore a wee bit more about the IT contractors. Your annual accounts give the costs

“primarily to meet the digital requirements of updating legacy IT systems and evolving our IT estate onto a long-term sustainable basis”

as about £132,000 a year, which looks to me like folk working for 11 months a year on a day rate of £600, roughly.

How, specifically, do you plan to do what you have set out and get the crossover that you have alluded to—building the skills of the permanent staff while starting to move the fairly high numbers for contractors. Can you tell me a wee bit more about that?

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 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?”