Seòmar agus comataidhean

The situation feels more urgent than a transformation fund, because the universities are acting now. We see strikes and industrial action across the country on campuses, and there are significant job losses. Is there a mismatch between what you are describing, which seems to be a more gentle approach, and what your member organisations are doing, where there is a state of panic?

I was struck by the call for a transformation fund in the Universities Scotland submission. Back on 24 June, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills said in the chamber:

“I recognise that many institutions have, over recent years, worked proactively in response to a challenging operating environment to rationalise their operations, including their staffing levels. However, there is a need for our universities to reflect on the levels of growth that we have witnessed in some institutions during the pandemic in particular. Some of the planned job losses that are currently being experienced relate directly to that uncapped expansion; the costs that are being paid today are the unsustainable jobs that were created as a result of that.”—[Official Report, 24 June 2025; c 14.]

I think that that is essentially a green light to universities across Scotland to shed jobs, which is in contrast to your call for more investment to try to bridge the challenge, which Liz Smith rightly pointed to. Where do you think things are alighting now? Are universities taking the cabinet secretary’s advice, or are they waiting to try to find funding that can help them to make the change?

I am not sure that I buy that, to be honest, nor the point that was made by the convener on instability. Business and enterprise research, development expenditure and investment in business and capital in Scotland have been low for decades. It was the subject of the very first economic development policy under devolution, but those numbers have not shifted at all.

As much as I recognise the current global situation—we see what is happening in France and in other countries—and the challenges that people have, such as shifts in interest rates and political instability generally, we need to look at this more fundamentally. Part of my analysis of that is that there is a very high rate of foreign ownership of companies in Scotland. The owners would not typically invest in satellite operations in other countries, but your solution seems to be more foreign investment rather than trying to find means by which we can capitalise domestic firms and use our financial sector to make sure that people are taking on that investment and making longer-term returns. I understand the challenge behind some of that, but I am not sure that your prescription feels all that current.

There is another part to my question on capital, if it is okay to come on to that—

I am certainly not opposed to FDI—it is an integral part of how we make sure that we have a functioning economy. In essence, the more of it there is, the better. My point is about the longer-term shape of the economy. There is a higher number of SMEs in Scotland in comparison to other parts of the UK and a smaller number of corporates. That exposes the part of the challenge that you put as well.

I want to ask Andy Witty the other part of my question on capital, if that is okay, convener. The submission from Colleges Scotland touched on some of the issues that we have been talking about—productivity through investment in information technology and other areas. However, it did not touch on the fact that there is an £800 million backlog in maintenance alone for colleges in Scotland, nor your ability to make the kind of transformations and changes that you are talking about. I would compare that to our university sector and the challenges that it faces at the moment. For example, you can go to the west end of Glasgow and see the huge number of new buildings that are there.

Is there a more fundamental challenge about taking on debt and structuring the businesses? Colleges do not seem to have that option, because they sit underneath that. Are you hearing any alternatives or ways that the Government will deal with these issues? This sits with the Government.

It would be interesting to know, because I want to explore the issue of deterrence and what happens if a court is making a decision about fraud, in which somebody has stolen money from their fellow taxpayers and citizens. You are talking about recovering moneys, but the question is whether that separate amount can accrue. It would be appreciated if you could come back in writing with detail on that.

Cabinet secretary, in your evidence so far, I have not picked up what you are going to do to get the money back. You have rejected the Westminster approach and have given some grounds for that decision. What action will you take?

This is what I am interested in: you have rejected the UK Government’s approach of trying to drive up the amount that can be reclaimed, so what will you do to drive up the numbers? You say that you have to look at the numbers and get more detail, which I understand, but how long have you known about the issue?

Are those mechanisms sufficient to deal with the issue?

What is your success rate?

What is that as a percentage of the overall amount of money?

I am sorry, cabinet secretary, I am asking you, because it was your decision to not take on board the UK Government position. That was up to you, and you have set out your reasoning for it. Are you happy with that figure, and do you think that 10 per cent is a reasonable outcome for the taxpayer?