 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 10339 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme for today and tomorrow. I ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to date or now, I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 10339. Formally moved. Thank you, and no one is asked to speak against the motion. The question therefore is that motion 10339 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is topical questions. We start with question number one from Ian Gray. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to UCAS recording a fall in university applications by 18-year-olds from the most deprived areas. Minister Shirley-Anne Somerville. UCAS figures published yesterday show that the number of applicants of all ages from our most deprived communities, particularly those in their 20s, are actually increasing, and that is welcome. However, we have also seen a small decrease of around 70 applicants from those who are aged 18, and that is of course a concern. In 2017, we saw a 13 per cent increase in the number of people from the most deprived communities getting places to study at university. If we are to see a similar increase in 2018, there is clearly much more work to do. The commission on wedding access made a clear recommendation for universities to try and maximise applications from disadvantaged learners by promoting access thresholds to pupils, parents and teachers. Universities must do all that they can to make learners aware where there are still opportunities to apply before 30 June, deadly. Ian Gray. It is indeed the case that the modest progress that has been made on closing this gap makes it all the more important that we examine the reasons why that progress appears to have stalled. The widening access commissioner late last year in his report pointed out that not only are students from more deprived areas less likely to apply, they are also less likely to be accepted and less likely to complete the course, so we should be concerned indeed. One factor Sir Peter identifies is support for living while studying. Will the minister not agree that a worthwhile response to those figures would be to restore the cuts to grants that her Government made in 2013? Mr Gray is absolutely correct to point to the commissioner's concern around not just who gets into university but who completes it. That is something that I have made clear to university principles and, indeed, to college principles since I became minister. It is something that we are intensifying through our outcome agreements with universities, so when they are looking at this and making good progress, we will encourage them to do so, and when we believe that we need to pick up the pace of change, not just on widening access for applications and the entrance but also completion rates, we will do so through the outcome agreement process. The commissioner pointed to a variety of different issues that may impact on application entrances and completion rates, student support being one of them. As he knows, the Government has recently increased the income threshold from £17,000 to £19,000, ensuring that an extra 3,000 students get a non-repayable bursary. We will increase the payment threshold and reduce the payment period for loans. The Government has taken action and will continue to take action to ensure that we support the poorest students at university. I think that the Government and the Minister do know that student support matters in this, that it is one of the factors that drives the gap in applications. If it did not, why would it have commissioned the independent review into student support, which it did? That review reported with some modest proposals to improve the circumstance for students in both HE and FE back in November. Will the minister please tell us when the Government will respond and, in due course, is not a good enough answer? The Government will respond in due course to the review. That is because I would disagree entirely with Mr Gray when he talks about the modest proposals. As I said to him in this chamber last week, the review is asking us to look at, in particular, an entitlement benefit for further education students. That has an implication for their ability to access social security. As I said to him last week, we may very much get into the situation in which the Government makes a rushed decision to ensure entitlement to make changes to FE bursaries and then see the DWP coming along and saying, that is great, thanks very much, and we will now take that money off the benefits from social security. We are continuing to ensure that we discuss our progress on this with the national union of students. We are ensuring that we are discussing progress with the DWP to see how the interaction between what the review has asked us to do and what the social security benefits system will do. However, I will not take that for the sake of an easy headline. If, actually, at the end of the day, we would see students losing out. Emma Harper Yesterday, I met the principal of Maxverton High School in Dumfries, and she told me that students from less privileged backgrounds often take time out of education before going on to university. For example, one student took a year out before enrolling into UWS for mental health nurse training, so she is now attending university, but the numbers do not recognise that. Does the minister agree that there are different routes for young people into higher education and that the figures quoted do not take account of that? Emma Harper It is very important that we bear in mind the different ways that people can get into university and, indeed, to higher education at our colleges. It is very important to recognise that it may not be the right track for a young person to leave school and directly go into university, and we should respect them and allow them the flexibility in the system to make that decision if it is right for them. That is entirely the point of us looking at this through the prism of what is right for the learner and not necessarily what is right for the statistics or, indeed, for institutions. It is an approach that we intend to continue to encourage. The figures from Ucast suggest that more people of all ages are applying to go to university. The number of Scottish domiciled applicants is 21 to 24, which is increased by 4 per cent, and the number of those who are 25 and over has increased by 7 per cent. That is welcome news. Liz Smith On the education committee, there are issues about careers guidance in school, and the real focus, if we are going to improve the situation, is to talk to youngsters who are perhaps much younger than the university application age. Does the minister agree that much more work has to be done about that careers guidance and to ensure that there is not the patchy advice that we have had and that the evidence shows from our committee? Liz Smith is very correct to point to the work that we need to do long before we get to a young person sitting with an application form. That is about encouraging young people to decide what is right for them, to recognise that success for that young person may be an apprenticeship, it may be going to college, it may be going to university. It is about what they want to achieve and the best way for them to achieve that. An important aspect of that is careers guidance, and there is a great deal of work continuing to ensure that we are getting better careers guidance out there. We are getting the message out not just to the young people but to teachers and to the parents, anyone who has an influence on those decisions, about the parity of esteem that we should hold for the different opportunities that are available to our young people, university being a very important one of them. Gillian Martin Can the minister advise how the numbers applying to the Scottish higher education institutions compared to the number of applicants in the rest of the UK? Does the increase in non-EU international applicants have an impact on the places that are available for students applying from Scotland? All applicants to Scottish higher education institutions have increased by 1 per cent to 114,160, including a 13 per cent increase in non-EU international applicants. It is something that we can be exceptionally proud of as a country, and our universities should take great pride in the fact that we have seen an increase in numbers from non-EU international applicants. The numbers for non-EU international applicants do not have any impact on the number of places that are available for Scottish students. Both the Scottish domiciled students, those from the rest of the UK, from the EU and international students all play an equally pivotal role in making our campuses the proud diverse campuses that they are today. Christine Grahame Thank you, Presiding Officer, for perhaps declaring an interest as convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare. To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it does not support a ban on the export of live animals. Fergus Ewing The Scottish Government is committed to the welfare of all animals during transport, whether within the UK or for export purposes. Animals should only be exported in line with strict welfare standards, ensuring freedom from harm and sufficient rest and nourishment to ensure that transport welfare rules are fully complied with. The current EU regulations and standards provide the rigorous framework to protect and promote the welfare of animals. Those have been adopted into our law through the welfare of animals transport regulations 2006. We have been clear since the outcome of the EU referendum that we wish to maintain adherence to current EU standards and regulations, particularly regulations on animal and plant health and food safety, because those are essential for our reputation and access to EU and other international markets. We will not therefore support any move that creates further challenges or difficulty for our livestock sector or places Scottish agriculture at a disadvantage. Christine Grahame I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer. I refer the cabinet secretary to an answer 10 years ago, albeit at S3W-08002 by Richard Lochhead. We would prefer to see a trade in meat rather than live export. That avoids long-distance travel of live animals, while ensuring better returns across the industry from added value product. Can the cabinet secretary advise why he thinks better returns for the industry are secured by live exports, which seems to depart from what he has previously said, quite apart from the not insignificant matter of animal welfare? Richard Lochhead No, I do not agree with that. I agree with Richard Lochhead when he made comments to the effect that animal exports for breeding are vital for pedigree livestock sector. When he expressed the sentiment that, ideally, we would want animals to be killed as close to their farm of origin as possible, the important thing that I wish to stress is that animal welfare is paramount and that the rules and regulations cover very detailed provisions in order to secure that objective. They do so by making provision for nourishment, making provision for rest and making provision for hydration. Those must be strictly complied with, and that is the approach that the Scottish Government believes should be taken. It is also one that is supported by the NFUS and other key stakeholders in the sector. Christine Grahame I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer. I think that some of the issues about animal welfare in these long transportations will be disputed and is disputed by many welfare organisations. Can I, at the very least, reconsider a consultation on banning live exports because we are exiting the EU and will not be tied to the regulations? I have to say to the cabinet secretary that I would hate, by default, to become a fan of Michael Gove. Michael Gove I am not really responsible for whose fan clubs the member is in, but I am responsible for agriculture. I can absolutely assure the member that those matters are taken with the utmost seriousness. The position down south is very confused. There is talk about a ban of live exports for slaughter, but there is no talk about it. Actually, there are very few or no animals that are exported for slaughter from Scotland. The export of live animals from Scotland is carried out for other reasons for breeding and production. The HMRC has indicated that the value of that totals £50 million a year. Unless one takes the view that that £50 million should be reduced to zero overnight, it would be better to concentrate on ensuring that we all support the high standards of animal welfare that are required by the regulations and rightly so. Mark Ruskell I declare an interest as an honorary member of the British Veterinary Association. What evidence does the cabinet secretary have that a UK-wide ban on live animal exports would damage the livestock sector specifically in Scotland? Does that mean that the cabinet secretary will be opposing the ban on the export of live animals from other UK countries, in fact that the Scottish Government is leading a race to the bottom in animal welfare standards? Mark Ruskell No, that is a complete nonsense. The proposals from Westminster are, first of all, not clear. However, I understand that the manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party was to restrict the ban to those animals that are exported for the purposes of slaughter. We have taken the view, and I think that the vast majority of members would take the view that most animals should be slaughtered as close to their farm as possible. That is why it is so important that we continue to see our abattoirs functioning properly. Of course, 95 per cent of the OVs who work in our abattoirs are EU nationals. Therefore, the greatest practical matter that she should be considering at the moment is to ensure that those EU nationals—many of whom are from Spain who come to work in Scotland—are able to continue to staff the abattoirs. Otherwise, the practical problems of ensuring slaughter of animals, if Mr Ruskell cares to litter rather than chatter incessantly behind me, will continue to be available locally, provided that there are people from the EU who are working there and are able to stay there to carry on their good work. I emphasise to Mr Ruskell that we are all concerned with animal welfare and the considerations about that remain paramount in consideration of those matters. Nevertheless, Mr Gove is reported as wanting to see a ban on the export of live animals from UK ports. On a very practical question, if that occurs, if that went ahead, what are the practical implications for exports from Scotland? The question is what is he proposing. I am afraid that I am not clear. I do not know if Mr Rumbles is clear what is in Mr Gove's mind, but I am not. That is because he has not set it out clearly. However, the manifesto commitment was restricted to a ban for the purposes of slaughter. No animals, as I understand it, are currently exported to other member states for the purposes of slaughter. Therefore, the impact of that would be at the moment zero. The impacts would result if the ban were to extend to export for the other purposes, namely pedigree, breeding or production. Those impacts would be felt by the poultry sector in particular, by pigs and other livestock. The value of that to Scotland has been estimated by the HMRC in 2015 as £50 million. If those figures are accurate—I have not had time to study them quite frankly because this is a topical question that was raised just yesterday—the answer to Mr Rumbles' question is that there would be a very considerable impact on farmers and farming, and especially in the islands of Scotland, where, by nature, transportation of animals, albeit at intra-state, is a fact of life. That is necessary. I thank you very much, and that concludes the topical questions. We will move on now to a debate on more—