Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that Mark Ruskell has contacted you. Thank you for that.

On the wider point about reserves, I agree that universities should maintain sufficient reserves for operating costs and that not all reserves are in cash, but the University of Edinburgh’s reserves have gone up by £36 million to £2.5 billion, which is far in excess of six months’ operating costs. You are right that not all of that is cash, but a significant proportion of it is.

Has the Government analysed the reserves that Scottish universities hold and does it have a policy position on that? There is an issue for the public finances. It is right that we give our universities a very large amount of money each year. Some universities use that to be a going concern, but others are banking almost £40 million a year and now have reserves that are about four times what the Scottish Government can legally hold in its reserve at any given time.

The college’s principal earns a salary that is far in excess of the First Minister’s.

I will stick to that and write later to the minister about the outrageous salary of the principal of City of Glasgow College.

The Auditor General’s recent reports on the gap between policy ambition and delivery will, I think, resonate with us all. Those reports also relate to the issue of fiscal sustainability that the committee has been wrestling with, as has the Government.

The issue is relevant to this inquiry, because it relates to the issue of churn in the civil service. Part of that is about civil servants being spread increasingly thinly and being moved from one team to another because new initiatives and policies are adopted. That creates not just a lack of capacity but a lack of expertise and, potentially, in some cases, a lack of the robust advice that ministers might want.

I will round all that up into one question. Is the Scottish Government overcommitted? Are we trying to do too much with the resources that we have, which is resulting in the gap between ambition and what is being delivered?

My point is more that it appears that some of the decisions that were made in the EBR to withdraw and cut services have not had a negative impact on outcomes, which begs the question as to whether those services were the right thing to be spending money on in the first place. The RSR was the kind of exercise that should have identified that and that should have been asking those value-for-money questions. In relation to quite a lot of the services that were on the EBR list, that had not been done in the RSR, or it had been done and the decision had been taken that each service was value for money. Then, through the EBR, we decided that the services were not value for money or that they did not have enough value for money to justify continuing them. Does that not indicate that the RSR exercise did not achieve all its objectives?

On the point about the underspend, I am interested in whether the Government thinks that there is a presentation issue, because the single biggest chunk of the underspend related to variation in the student loan market—not a pot of cash that went unspent. We regularly have stakeholders engage with us who are frustrated that their priority did not get the spending that they believe that it deserves, and they see reports that £2 billion was not spent. Is there a basic presentational issue with regard to the terminology when we talk about underspend?

The resource spending review last year was supposed to get us towards a point of fiscal sustainability. Obviously, that happened during a period where inflation continued to rise. Nonetheless, reflecting on the fact that we had the RSR in the summer and then an emergency budget review and a second round of additional savings in the autumn, it appears that quite a lot of what was in the EBR probably could have been in the resource spending review. Has there been any lessons learned exercise around why the RSR did not generate some of the savings in the EBR that, certainly when I was looking at them, felt very obvious? Some of what was in the EBR was painful and difficult, but not all of it was.

I will drill down on that a little bit. I will try to be brief. Would the outcomes be better if the Scottish Government was doing less, but doing each of those initiatives with more resources available to it? At the moment, there is a huge number of priorities spread across a range of initiatives, and we know that there is a gap between ambition and outcome. Would the outcomes across the board, particularly in relation to child poverty and net zero, be better if there were fewer but better resourced programmes?

From a policy perspective, I completely agree with everything that you have said, and I accept your point that we should not, in general, see this as a unit price thing. However, for the purposes of the financial memorandum, we need to. For the sake of clarification, then, can I confirm that, as far as the costings in the financial memorandum for the additional hearings are concerned, it is assumed that the unit price is essentially the same as the unit price of the current average in the hearing system—or is it more?

Thanks very much. That is all from me.