Seòmar agus comataidhean

Time is marching on and I have loads more questions. I will ask only a couple more, or possibly three, to enable my colleagues to come in.

At a time when universities are struggling due to a reduction in student numbers, the student support and tuition fee payment line is falling by 10.5 per cent. Is the tuition fee payment stuck at £1,820 per student for the 18th consecutive year? If so, how does that enable universities to be globally competitive?

In his submission to the committee, Professor Alastair Florence, director of continuous manufacturing and advanced crystallisation at the University of Strathclyde, pointed to analysis by UK Research and Innovation that shows that

“£63 is generated for the wider economy for every £1”

that is spent on research. Even if that number was out by a factor of 10, it would still represent a huge return on investment. Should we not direct a fairly modest resource, as needed, to ensure the long-term growth of facilities such as that at the University of Strathclyde—which, like all universities, seems to be under the cosh at the moment?

You touched on the £265 million figure. Local government has said that there will be another £85 million oncost through procurement. I am not convinced that local authorities have the resilience that you mentioned—that is certainly not the message that I am hearing from them.

I will open up the session to colleagues round the table. Ross Greer will be first.

Will that lead to savings, ultimately, because people will not have to run around all the time?

Okay. You will be glad to know that we have concluded questions from the committee. Thank you very much for answering them. I suspend the meeting for two minutes, and then we will move into private.

Good morning, and welcome to the second meeting in 2025 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. We have received apologies from Michelle Thomson.

The first item on our agenda is an evidence-taking session on the Scottish budget 2025-26 from two panels of witnesses. First, we will hear from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body on its budget bid, and then we will take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government.

I welcome our first panel of witnesses. Jackson Carlaw MSP, member of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, is joined by Scottish Parliament officials David McGill, clerk and chief executive, and Sara Glass, director of finance and resilience. I intend to allow around 75 minutes for the session.

I invite Mr Carlaw to make a short opening statement.

Craig Hoy’s question prompted me to recall that, in 2000, John Swinney turned down a £21,000 salary increase when he was the leader of the Opposition only for there to be a double-page spread in a newspaper a week later about how his office was spending £3,000 on furniture and computers. He effectively got no credit for turning down that salary increase and was then slagged off for buying equipment for his office. That kind of hair-shirt approach does not necessarily go down particularly well or get appreciated.

Regarding salaries, are you aware yet whether ministers have refused a pay rise for the 18th—or the 17th or whatever—year in a row, or have they, this year, finally decided to accept a pay rise? What, if anything, does that mean for the corporate body?

Obviously, with a relatively fixed budget, if you are spending on A, you cannot spend on B. There is a concern in local government and other areas that they are not getting as much as they would otherwise receive, because money is being spent on areas that are reserved to Westminster, for good or for ill. There is a feeling that perhaps the Parliament should focus on its devolved responsibilities. If people are unhappy with Westminster policies, they have an opportunity to vote one way or the other at an election.

On the issue of welfare, which you just touched on, the Scottish Fiscal Commission has, understandably, expressed concern that social security spending continues to rise steadily. Next year, it will be £1,334 million higher than if welfare payments remained at UK levels. When one removes social security spending, the overall funding in real terms is going down by 0.3 per cent—in a moment, I will touch on one or two areas where that is happening. In the following year, social security spending is expected to rise to £1,608 million. Given that the Scottish ministers will not change tax rates, and although fiscal drag will impact all but the two lowest bands, how can that be funded without cuts to existing services?

Were you to use CPI, as happens in relation to benefit increases, that might make life a lot easier for everybody.

That is very interesting. I am not one of them, so I am particularly interested in that.

With regard to staff numbers and keeping the complement the same, my understanding is that there was a significant uplift in staff numbers at that time because of our having to adapt to post-Brexit arrangements. Are we still wading through those or have they been resolved? If so, do we still need the same number of staff to deal with that issue?

One of the recommendations that we made in our report last year was that the SPCB should

“focus on optimising value for money in its budgetary decisions and delivery. As part of next year’s budget bid, we would therefore like to see additional information on how the SPCB makes the most effective use of its funds, including setting out where savings have been identified and how projects have been prioritised”.

However, as the Presiding Officer said in her letter to us, the annual report does not specifically identify savings or set out how projects have been prioritised. Why not?