 Hwnna bengyl emerginga gwneud y gweld y Shcymeth gyda'r 8th gyfnod i'r Gweith geisiad a'r Cymru ar lŵr 2018, gan y bydd ychydig yn ogylched mewn gweld y gweithio i gyd y ffermwys yng nghymru, aeth i'r cyd-rhyw hwn yn gwneud yn ei ddwyledd ar y dyfodig gyda'r gweith. Rwy'n gwybod ei pawb i'w meddwl yw'r gweith i gyd, gyfarfodd ychydig i'r Flockhead Richard oherwydd ei ffamil ei ddweudau, a'r adws yn i'r adws i fynd oedd yn Ieol. Mary Fee has indicated that she were alive later in the meeting as she's currently attending another committee that she sits on. The first item of business is the decision on whether to take agenda item 3 in private, which is a review of today's evidence. Is everyone content that agenda item 3 is taken in private? Thank you. The next item of business is the first of our series of three ask the minister evidence sessions. Today we will hear from the minister for further education, higher education in science and government officials. The session will mainly focus on widening access, and I welcome Shirley-Anne Somerville, minister for further education, higher education in science, Dr Paul Smart, head of colleges, Young Workforce and SFC sponsorship division and Dr Roddy McDonald, head of a higher education and science division, Scottish Government. I understand minister that you would like to make a short opening statement. Thank you, convener, and I'm very happy to appear before the committee this morning to discuss widening access to higher education and other issues that the committee sees fit. As I set out in Parliament yesterday, I believe that education is by far the most effective means that we have to improve the life chances of our young people. The Scottish Government is firmly committed to equity and excellence in higher education and to ensuring that every young person, no matter their background, can access learning that will provide the qualifications and the same should apply for adult returners to the system as well. I'm also clear that widening access is not just about access to fresher's fare but to graduation day and beyond. Ensuring that students from the most deprived communities in Scotland are supported to achieve their aspirations into, through and beyond higher education is core to that. As you are aware, the commission on widening access reported in March 2016, making 34 recommendations that were accepted in full by the Scottish Government. Since the publication of the blueprint for fairness, we have made good progress by appointing the commissioner for fair access, embedding our targets within university outcome agreements, introducing a full non-repayable bursary of £7,625 for young care experience students and establishing an access delivery group to oversee delivery. The purpose of that group, which I chair, is to enable quarterly reporting on the co-ordination and implementation of delivery of the commission's recommendations, as well as providing a forum for strategic discussion with sector-wide stakeholders on widening access. The group brings together all those with a responsibility for delivery of the recommendations, those leading delivery projects and other key stakeholders. Members include representatives of higher education and further education sectors, students, schools in early years and the commissioner for fair access, who is an observer. As you will be aware, the commissioner published his first annual report in December, which made 23 recommendations. Those were mostly built on areas that were in the commission on widening access but identified some new areas for consideration. Those recommendations for the Scottish Government, Scottish Funding Council and universities present challenge to us all to drive further and faster with widening access, and rightly so. I set out my response to the commissioner's report in Parliament yesterday, addressing the commissioner's request for clarity on government priorities with regards to our targets and ambitions for access. I made clear that our priority is for access for learners of all ages and our current priority is for access to university, where the greatest inequalities lie. I also made clear my support for his recommendations on articulation, bridging programmes, contextualise admissions and fully accepted the commissioner's recommendations for the Scottish Funding Council. To support the Scottish Government, the Scottish Government has delivered a real-terms increase in the budget for higher education, protecting the principle of both free tuition and widening access, and ensuring that further progress can be made. As I said, good progress is being made. Last year, we saw a 13 per cent increase in the number of Scots from our most deprived communities getting a place at a Scottish university. That means more than 600 additional people from our most deprived communities being accepted to study at university. Figures published last week also show that the percentage of school leavers going to higher education from the 20 per cent most deprived areas in Scotland has increased to its highest level in six years. However, I am clear that there is more to do if we are to reach our targets and realise our ambitions, so I will continue to ensure that I do all that I can to make that happen in Government, in the funding council and across the sector itself. I am happy to take members' questions. You will be aware that the committee invited suggestions from members of the public for today's session with you. Before I invite questions from members of the committee, I would like to start by asking a question that we have received from one of those members of the public. Rachel Davani would like to know what work has been carried out to ensure that students who obtain university places but remain at home and commute to university or work part time are able to access the full range of services offered by higher education institutions and other agencies, such as mental health facilities and financial advice, as most of the work seems to be focused on those who move away from home? It is very important that any institution looks at all of their students, regardless of where they live or where they have come from, universities and colleges have an obligation to look after their students. We would expect services to be available whether they reside on campus or stay at home. There will be different challenges for a student who does not reside on campus. I have spoken to young people in their sixth year thinking about going to university, whether they want to leave home to go into halls or whether they want to stay at home. We know that, if you are commuting back and forward to university, you may feel that you are missing out on some of the social supports that are there. I know that this is something that universities take very seriously as well. I think that Rachel raises a very important point. I think that it is something that the universities are aware of and that we are very keen, as a Government and through the funding council, to ensure that we are analysing when it comes to, for example, mental health or the equally safe project to protect students within their study environment. I can get the whole social thing, that is clearly just the price you pay for deciding to stay at home. Why would there be any difference in mental health facilities or financial advice? There should not be, but there may be a perception that young people, because they simply commute in, go to a class and then travel home, that they are not taking part in the wider campus experience, which gives them, perhaps, a greater feeling of belonging to a community. The universities and the ecologies are very keen to ensure that that community feel is brought to all students. If there is a feeling within students that they do not have the same access, that is something that needs to be dealt with, because there certainly should be universal support for all our students. I appreciate that. A number of questions have come in from members of the public, and I am sure that they will not all get asked today, but our intention is to write to you, minister, with the questions and then get the responses back to those who participated in it. Thank you very much, Liz. Thank you, convener. Throughout Sir Peter Scott's recommendations, there has been the need to look at the bigger picture of higher education and the fact that the widening access policy does not focus necessarily on SIMD-20 students so that it can affect a whole range of students. Given what you said yesterday, is the Scottish Government minded to free up the number of funded places, to increase the number of funded places in the system, so that there is no potential displacement? As I said yesterday in the chamber, there is not an evidence of displacement at the moment, there is a fear of displacement, and that is indeed something that the commissioner said. I would, however, suggest that we need to get back to basics slightly on this, and what we are needing to do when it comes to widening access is to change the system. You can extend a system to infinity and it does not necessarily make it fair. We have an unfair system at the moment and an unfair displacement when we look at the publicly funded places when it comes to universities. That is why we need to look at making systemic change within it. When you look at the system that we have at the moment, we see a variety of different ways that institutions can look to tackle widening access. We have universities that are taking the pace very quickly, for example Abertaith, who are looking at contextualised admissions and making those changes. The recent correspondence that I have had from Abertaith suggests that they had 107 students joining them in September receiving an offer of reduced qualifications. 63 needed that lower offer to get admitted to university. They have changed their system systemically because they recognised that the system was unfair. I would compare that to another university, which I will not name, when they were concerned about widening access, suggested to me that the best way to tackle that was to give them more places. You can either change the system to make it fair, such as Abertaith, or you can look to just continue extending an unfair system system. I want to change the system to make it fair, and I think that that way people will be reassured about who goes to university and it is based on a fairness and a level playing field, regardless of where you come from. Thank you for that minister. Having said that, there are many who think that there is an unfairness in the current structure and the funding structure, because obviously there are Scottish government funded places and there are places available to those students who are playing fees from international and from the rest of the UK that I mentioned. There is an inherent difference in the way that the money comes into the university. The point that Sir Peter is raising is that, if there are specific targets of the 20 per cent from SIMD 20 by 2030, unless there are more funded places available, there will be displacement. That is a fact. What is the Scottish Government's answer to that? My answer would be that last year we actually saw a 13 per cent increase in the number of students from the most deprived communities, as I said in my opening statement. We also saw overall a record number of Scots accepted to university, so that would tend to counter the argument that people were displaced. We saw an increase in the number of those from deprived communities and we saw an increase overall in the number of Scots going to university. I hear the concerns around displacement. I understand that there will be those concerns there, but I think that the way to deal with that is not to continuously look to tinker with the system but to make the system fair. I hope that we all want a system that is fair for every young person or adult returner to get into a university place. What we are looking at is using the publicly funded places that we have in a fair manner to create a level playing field that will ensure that everyone has the opportunity to get to the university of their chosen ones. With respect, there are students out there who have come out of school who are very well qualified, domiciled Scottish students, who are finding it increasingly difficult to get into university, despite some of the improving trends. Because they are finding it more difficult to get into university, some of those students who are well qualified will be displaced by the system unless there are more funded places available. Is that not correct? When you look at qualifications, you have talked about people who are well qualified. I would caution against the fact that qualifications are the only way to determine whether a young person or adult returner should get to a university. It has been widely accepted that qualifications are only one part of a person's story when they are applying for a university. Qualifications are exceptionally important and we should encourage young people to continue to aspire to gain high qualifications. However, there are only one part of the story. This is about ensuring that we have a fair system that those who perhaps do not have the same level of qualifications but have an equal ability to go to a university and succeed in a university have that ability to go to a university. That is about taking the qualifications, but looking at the wider picture of what a person presents to a university is a fair way of looking at it rather than just looking at one more traditional aspect, which is the only way to measure the success that a person has through the exams that they have passed in their school time. Minister, I completely accept that it is not just all about qualifications, it is about the much broader picture of a student than that has always been the case. What I am getting at is that that story, as you describe it, could be a very strong story for some students who are very well qualified, who, because of the widening access policy, within a very severely capped policy, will not have the same ability to get into university as they have just now. What would you say to a student or their parents or a teacher who finds that they are displaced by that system? We have a cap within places for Scottish and EU students. We have increased the number of places since 2013, and we have particularly made an increase in the numbers for those from widening access and articulation. That is something that we will continue to look at. What I would say to any young person, adult returner and their families is that this Government is determined to create a fair system where everyone will have an opportunity to go to university if it is the right avenue for them to go to. That system will be a fair one. If we have a fair system, that would surely be a level playing field that we can all agree, I hope, is the right way to go about things. In that context, you are not ruling out removing the cap in increasing funded places. As I said yesterday, the decisions around capping and the number of places are taken through the annual budgetary process. That is the way that those decisions are carried out on an annual basis. What I also said yesterday is that universities and the sector should not wait and hope that there will be a change to a cap, a change in a decrease in demand from elsewhere as a way to widening access. We are requiring systemic change within the system, and that is what we are determined to see. I am not quite sure why the cap should be determined by the budget process, rather than by educational policy, but that is something that we can explore further. I think that there is a danger of conflating two separate issues here. One is about the consequence of actively choosing to address the question that some young people are not operating a level playing field, and that is how I see widening access is restoring the balance and making it fair for them. On the other side, if you have a cap in places, I wonder whether you would accept the view that the dangers end up in a place where this is not about displacement because young people are unfairly getting access to a place. There is competition for certain courses, which means as a consequence that we are having rationing by qualification, so that maybe five or ten years ago you would have access to a course that you can no longer do simply because of the cap. Is this something that the Scottish Government is prepared to look at? The reason that it is connected to the budget process is, obviously, that the number of places therefore has a financial requirement for us to fund, so we need to look at any decision that would be changing on the cap. We would obviously have a financial implication, and that is for the Scottish Government and indeed for opposition parties to put forward proposals if they wish to see the cap increase. So there is a financial respect follow policy decisions. You make the policy decision and then you work out the funding. You do not say, well, we do not have a view on the cap. The budget will determine that. I am asking that the serious question here is that a young people are telling—or I have been told—that it is more difficult to get into university or certain courses now than it was ten years ago if you are a Scottish student. I am assuming that you do not think that that is acceptable. Are you willing to look at the unintended consequences of a cap that is resulting in competition for places and therefore rationing by qualifications that were not applied five or ten years ago? I am certainly not saying that the budget determines what we do within the university. What I am saying is that if any party wants to change the level of capped places, that has a financial implication. So absolutely, we should determine the policy but then recognise that there is a financial implication to that. I do appreciate the point that Johann Lamont is making around what is sometimes being called grade inflation, where the challenges of getting on a particular course have increased when demand has increased. That is why it is very important that we look at minimum entry standards, when we look at contextualised admissions, that the universities are starting to take that on board. We want to see further an increased pace of change in that. To deal with the same concern that Johann Lamont has around the ability to get on to different courses, there are different methods of achieving that. One of the aspects around widening access is to look to what the minimum entry standards that a young person or adult returner would require to be successful on that course. That is something that has been looked at within the framework of widening access. I will ask more about articulation later on in the session, but it seems to me that there is a situation here where we have only got five universities really getting involved in articulation of HND and HNC into getting into university later on, maybe the second or third year. If more than universities did that, we would not have a situation where the funding could be allocated in different ways to allow a situation where you would have more places available in the first year, because you are getting at this articulation route. Would that be a fair comment? I think that articulation has a number of benefits. It benefits the student because it recognises the level of study that they have already completed and does not require them if they have full articulation to repeat necessarily a year within that. It is the right thing to do for the student. You are also right to point out that it makes a smarter use of the system. If you can ensure that a student can get into second year or indeed get into third year within a course, we are making better use of the funded places that we have available. You are also right to point out that there are relatively few universities that have widespread full articulation. The more that we can encourage that, the more that we can see that being taken on board by the colleges and universities, which they are indeed looking at, the better it will be for the students, and I would suggest that it would be better for the colleges and universities as well, in terms of the usage of publicly funded places within the entire system. Liz, you were wanting to ask a question. No, I want to come back later if I may. It is on the question about data. Yesterday, Minister, we had an exchange about some of the data set that universities told the committee, as did some of the principles that were in front of us last year. That they feel does not exist. In relation to what you answered to Joanne Lamont's question about minimum entry requirements, I think that what the universities are looking for is, even if it is not last year's information, about the number of S6 pupils in the SIMD quintile that want to know what their actual qualifications have been as a trend so that it makes it easier for the universities to assess what their minimum entry requirements could be. That data, I would have thought, should be available. Could you tell us what the timescale is when you think that universities will get that? I think that that is a very important point about offering minimum entry requirements to SIMD 20 pupils. Absolutely. Following our exchange in the chamber yesterday, I did look into that further with officials. Unfortunately, this is one of the aspects that seem to have been dealt a blow because of the poor weather last week. There was due to be a data working group on Friday, which was to take some of that attainment data to the data working group, which has universities Scotland representation on that, and start working through that system. I understand that that has now been rearranged for this Friday. That will be the first opportunity that that working group will have had to meet. That is not the only aspect in which that working group will look at. There are a number of issues when it comes to data that that group will want to investigate. The request from universities to look at attainment data is something that will be presented to that working group. As I said, it should have been done last Friday if anyone had been able to make it to Glasgow. I think that that is very helpful, Minister, because presumably there is that data available from the last eight, ten years, I would have thought. It is important that, when different institutions are setting their minimum entry requirements, as distinct from the thresholds, that data would be extremely helpful to the universities to know what SIMD students are likely to have. The more that that can be speeded up, the better it will be. The information is not easily available. The analysts have worked very hard to ensure that that is made available from the request from universities, but I would go back to the point that I did make to Liz Smith yesterday. We do not have to wait to get this data to get moving on widening access. Universities may wish to see the data so that they can look at attainment levels. They may want to see the data so that they can analyse where they think that the demand for places will go. However, that does not stop them from changing to minimum entry requirements. That does not stop them from moving on widening access. While that data may be interesting, I am sure that it will be insightful, and it may indeed assist universities in the future, there is absolutely no reason—as demonstrated by the Abertau example, which I mentioned earlier—why universities just cannot get on and deal with contextualised admissions and minimum entry requirements with that data not being available to them? To be fair to them, I do not think that they are actually saying that they want to stop that process, because I think that a lot of them have worked very hard to get there. What they are asking for in context of what Sir Peter Scott said when he said that the dataset was not complete, and that is what Petra Vend and Sally Mapstone and Susan Stewart said when they came to this committee that they feel that there should be more data available, and it is particularly relevant to get that data that we are talking about for the SIMD quintile. I gave the commitment to Sally Mapstone at the first, perhaps not the second, meeting of the access delivery group, which she sits on along with Petra and Susan to ensure that we will do everything that we can to make sure that data is made available for them to analyse, but we will progress in the meantime with the information that we have, because we know that we need to make those changes now. I have been reading up on some of the evidence that has been given to the committee, not being a committee member, on a full-time basis. I was really interested in some of the evidence around the social index of multiple deprivation that we have talked quite a bit about today. I understand that we need to be able to benchmark, measure and evidence the success of the process of widening access, but there will be people—because that is a geographical definition and not a personal experience definition—who do not fall into that category, but may well suffer from deprivation in every sense that someone living in those areas would. I just wondered if there was any plan to widen the reach of the fair access to cover people in those situations, just to get your own views on the strengths and weaknesses of that as a benchmark? The commission on widening access looked very much into the strengths and weaknesses of it, and it would be fair to say that it recognised that there were weaknesses in a system that is based on area deprivation, and it recognised that that provides some limitations to how we can analyse and develop policy from that. It did, however, come to the conclusion that it was the best available data source that we had, and that is why the commission recommended that it was used for targets and for analysis of widening access. However, we do recognise that there needs to be further work on that. The data working group that I mentioned to Liz Smith is the group that will look at other aspects, whether they are free school meals or individual indicators, to analyse that different data to see what analysis of that brings out. Again, I go back to the point that, however, it does have its limitations when we use SIMD. Yes, it is not the perfect measurement of it, but the commission has determined that it is the best measurement that we have, and we should continue pressing on at pace with widening access. While the data working group looks at different aspects to see whether there are different individual markers that can be used and whether there are different ways of analysing the system so that we are getting a better range of information out, both for the funding council, for government and for making its policies, and for institutions to be able to meet their targets and to ensure that their outreach work is working properly. Ston Grant, on the learning journey, can I ask about the unique learning number, is it still a commitment and be when? We are committed to looking very seriously at this issue. I know Sir Peter Scott discussed it with the committee in a fair bit of detail when he was before you a few weeks ago. Officials are looking at how that can be taken forward, but it is a very complex issue. Sir Peter Scott and other stakeholders have suggested some of the advantages that a unique learner number would have, but I would, however, say that it is a very sensitive issue. We are, in essence, looking at considerations around what data is collected, who it is seen by and, in effect, we are talking about data sharing across the education sector. That is not something that should ever be taken and done lightly. We need to be very aware of the sensitivities of that. Yes, stakeholders have seen advantages to a unique learner number, and they are absolutely right to do so. Officials will also look at those sensitivities around that and the challenges of bringing a system in. We will look at both the advantages and disadvantages of that, and ministers will take a decision on that in due course. I would like to understand that there are, as there were, small l-liberal arguments in terms of data sharing, which we have been through in other areas, shall we say, of late and that kind of thing. Professor Scott set out some pretty decent arguments in favour of it, including the tracking of any individual through the system, so that we understand the best way to support that individual and the best choices that individual can make. Do you think that those arguments outweigh the concerns—quite understandable concerns—that do exist on data sharing and, indeed, in fairness, the complexity of a system, but it is pretty complex at the moment? We do not track people at all at the moment. I appreciate where Sir Peter Scott is coming from on this issue. He is looking at this through a policy perspective of what would make it easier to track a young person or, indeed, someone who is returning to the education system to track them through that learner journey. However, I would not, in any way, diminish sensitivities and complexities around data sharing, as I am sure I do not have to tell the committee in particular. What I would reassure the committee about is that we are ensuring, when we are asking officials to look at this in great detail, that we can complete our widening access outcomes, we can complete our learner journey outcomes, even if a unique learner number was not in place. Although there may be advantages to it, it is not a barrier to widening access, it is not a barrier to what we are looking at through the learner journey work for those to actually happen. You used that wonderful ministerial phrase in due course, which I may have used in the past, but what does that actually mean? I mean, I would rather we took a decision and decided that this was not the right thing to do for the reasons that you may or may not yet fully have, or because there is no point in us still being here a year's time saying that this could be one option for when Peter Scott comes again and says why haven't they done anything about it? Is this going to be something that we will try to make a decision on in the course of the next number of months? The Deputy First Minister said recently that we are looking to report back on some of the learner journey work or, indeed, the learner journey work within the coming months, so I would expect the unique learner number to be part of that work as well. I hope that that helps. Was there any luck before the summer recess so that Parliament is updated as to what is happening on the learner journey work? Indeed. I would like to ask you a bit more about retention and then there is another question that has come in to the committee. I think that one of the things that struck me the most were the fact that our students from disadvantaged or non-traditional backgrounds were less likely to stay until second year, more likely to obtain a general degree rather than honours and less likely to get a first or a 2-1. You were quite clear in your statement that widen access isn't just about Freshers Week, it is about success at university. I would like to hear a little bit more about what the Scottish Government is doing and can do, in particular in the chamber yesterday and answered one of my own questions. You said that you were looking to intensify the outcome agreement process and that would include more ambitious and challenging targets around retention. I wonder if you could just expand on that. It is something that I have made part of my discussions with university principals right from the very first meeting that I had with them. There is a level of understanding and awareness of that within the sector that it is something that needs to be looked at. One of the areas that I have been keen to encourage intensification on, therefore, is around retention and the outcomes of graduates. When we are talking about intensification of the outcome agreements, Audit Scotland, when it has previously looked at outcome agreements, have suggested that we need to look to use those in a more robust manner sometimes, that we need to ensure that they are detailed enough without being too wordy and asking about anything. When we are looking at intensification, what we are trying to do is focus down on key issues and ensure that we are driving very serious progress on that. Now, there has to be a clear line of sight from my policy priority about retention and outcomes to the funding council through my letter of guidance and then to separate institutions through their outcome agreements. We are ensuring that decisions on funding and activities in key areas are therefore looked at through that letter of guidance and through the outcome agreement process. We are being very detailed in the work that we are doing around retention and outcomes to challenge the universities to go further than they are at the moment. Now, as I say, many universities are already doing exceptionally good work around retention, but we need to see that on a systems-wide basis. The figures that the commissioner brought forward in his report make for very sobering reading. That is why I will continue in my letter of guidance this year to look to see whether more needs to be done around intensification for retention and outcomes in particular. In giving evidence to the committee, the commissioner mentioned that some of the changes would almost need to be in attitude and culture. He spoke about the notion in the states of stepping out of education rather than dropping out in that thing of being able to return. I suppose that the key thing is that the challenges that you have as a young person if that is around your life, they do not disappear when you go to university. Do you think that there needs to be a more flexible approach? One of the fascinating examples that I have had when we have been doing work in the learner journey, which Tavish Scott mentioned, when I have been speaking to young people within the work groups, is around young people who have came back to university because either they went on a course and decided that it was not the right one for them, or they should not have been to university in the first place. The best place for them was at a college because that was where their career wanted to develop. The idea that we have a system in many ways that presumes a linear projection through fifth year, sixth year, up through four years of universities is not how real life is for many of our young people, and it certainly does not make it easy for adult returners to get back into it. There is nothing in the system that prevents young people from leaving a university and coming back in, but it is not necessarily easy and it is not necessarily transparent. Through the learner journey, I think that it is showing up how we have a system that often assumes a nice simple linear projection for people as they work their way through the education system, and if that is not how real life is for a young person, the system needs to be flexible enough to allow them to do that. I found Sir Peter Scott's discussions around the phrase dropping out exceptionally interesting and it is something that we should look at within the access delivery group. Thank you. If I may, I will do one of the questions that was sent in to us. That resonated with me as I have a young constituent at the moment who is looking at his next destination having been at the blind school. The question is from Elaine Brackenredge, whose headteacher at the Royal Blind School in Edinburgh. She emailed it in and her question is disabled pupils, including those who are vision impaired, still need more support to ensure that they have the same chances to progress to university or college as other pupils. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure pupils who are blind or partially sighted are provided with the independent living skills to allow them to study at college or university and to support more disabled pupils into entering further and higher education? I know that disability is an area that the commissioner has said that he will look at within his work programme this year, but it is very important that we support every young person, and that includes those who have a disability to get into college or university. For example, there is the disability support allowance that is available for young people or for anyone who wants to get to university. That is a demand-led budget and therefore it is available for any student who needs to access those funds to go to higher education. We also, through the Scottish Funding Council, provide another £2.5 million to universities directly to ensure that they are making changes to assist those with a disability to go to university. There is absolutely a commitment to ensure that all the students, regardless of their background or what school they are at, have an ability to get to university and, of course, include that school too. My question is the same question that I asked the commissioner a couple of weeks ago. Consistently, my time in the committee now and previously, the situation where UWS in Paisley and Glasgow Calais and OU are consistently good at getting pupils from the lower 20 per cent band to attend UWS have hit the 20 per cent figure on numerous occasions. There would be an argument made by those institutions that should there not be—when you are looking at funding and taking things forward—a case in which they are delivering the Government policy and, at the same time, they are giving the support that is needed in the second and third year when those young people are going to university. Their argument would be that there is not a way that we could look at that to support them more to ensure that they can continue delivering what the Government wants. As I said yesterday in my statement, I am very clear that when we are talking about widening access to universities—I mean all universities—I recognise that the level of SIMD-20 entrants into universities varies quite significantly. You are quite right to point out to me the strides that have been taken by UWS and others around this area. It is therefore very important, as we look for each institution to fulfil its target that it has been set by the commission, that each institution will be asked to do that. We will not achieve our national widening access targets solely on the hard work that has already gone in through UWS or Glasgow Caledonian and continue to ask them to do more. We will ask them to continue to do more on the widening access agenda but recognise the work that they have gone before. I think that each university has its own challenges within whether it is around the applications, whether it is around entrants, whether it is around retention or outcomes. We will ask each university to look at their statistics and to see what more can be done. However, there will be a specific push to ensure that those universities who are perhaps achieving their 10 per cent target already are encouraged to do so. When we look at the number of people that it would require some of those universities to get up to their 10 per cent target, it is actually not that many. That is why we will continue to push every single institution. We will, of course, be in discussions with UWS and, indeed, every other university through the outcome agreement process to ensure that, when we are doing so, we are taking into consideration the work that has already gone on before and continuing to ensure that everyone does the best that they can through those four measures that I spoke about. One of the things, minister, that when I asked the same question to Sir Peter Scott, that he brought up was the fact that he suggested that UWS, Glasgow, Calais and OU, might have been a cultural thing as well, that people from poorer backgrounds would be able to identify more with these institutions than other ones. I think that he used the line that robes and bonnets are not maybe for people from the likes of me to go to. I can understand that argument, so as they are not a role as well while keeping the ancient traditions of many of the institutions back at the same time, maybe looking at the cultural role they can take and not being so threatening to individuals going to some of the cases that have been away from home from the first time? I did hear Sir Peter Scott's evidence around robes. I am presuming that he is meaning St Andrews in that context. We do not want any of our ancient universities to lose any of their tradition, any of them that makes them world-class institutions where people from across the world want to come and study, but we also want people to come from Paisley or my hometown, Kirkcaldy and feel that they are also welcome in St Andrews or indeed any other of our ancients. The new principal at St Andrews is a lady who takes this issue very seriously. She is looking at what more can be done to ensure that people see St Andrews for the great institution that it is, and I am encouraged to go there. Individuals will pick their universities for a variety of different reasons. It is a very individual choice that young people and adult returners will make, but they need to know that they will be welcome and indeed supported throughout their course wherever they choose to go. Just one final question, just that it is on. SIMD, in my constituency, Ferguson Park has constantly said that it is the area of worst deprivation, but SIMD by its very weight measures is the fact that it is only two or three streets in Ferguson Park. My question is more along the lines of how do we use Ferguson Park as an example, how do we make sure that that young person dreams and aspirations that they are born with, that everyone else has, how do we make sure and how do you as a minister ensure that, by the time they are 15 or 16, they are still looking aspirationally to universities, possibly St Andrews or somewhere else, how do we culturally get that young person, that young man, that young woman into that position? It is important that we look at this in a whole systems approach. That is why we are looking at the access delivery group. We are very sure that we have people on that that represent secondary schools, primary schools and councils, because what we want to do is ensure that the work that we are doing around outcome agreements, the work that we are doing around outreach is genuinely effective. The Scottish funding council has work where it goes into schools. Each university will have its own outreach work where it goes into schools. What the framework for fair access will look at is the effectiveness of what is going on. There is an exceptional amount of hard work that happens at every institution, but do we know if it makes a difference or if it changes a young person's perceptions of themselves and of their ability to go? I would also, in that context, stress a point that I made yesterday. It is about ensuring that everybody at school, from a very early age, has the confidence to pick what is right for them, and in some cases that will be university, in other cases it will be a college, an apprenticeship or it will be moving into employment. Each of those is equally valued. Each of those is the correct course for that young person to go down if it is right for them. We need to ensure that the people that are growing up within your constituency and across Scotland know that universities for them, that they can go to university, but then they pick what is right for them and what is right for what they want to do. We need to give them the confidence to do that. That is why we are looking at our outreach work through the funding council and also the framework for fair access group will look at what happens in the totality to ensure that that money is being spent wisely. Can I just say before I move on to Oliver, that I saw a photo of George on a bonnet yesterday, and he looked very fetching. It was not St Andrew's one right enough, but don't do yourself down like that, George. Oliver. Thank you, convener. I am interested and I do fully support the position that the ministers set out in terms of inspiring confidence in young people. Is there not also a practical consideration that goes alongside that about giving them the opportunities to get the qualifications that they actually need to get into university? I asked yesterday about advanced hires, and I just wondered if any analysis had been done on the provision of advanced hires and hires in schools in SI MD20 areas and also from a constituency perspective, what provision there was in smaller rural secondary schools? It is something that is very important that we analyse again, going back to the whole systems approach, that when a young person decides that they want to go to university to study a particular course, they are able to access the courses at school that will allow them to do that. We are seeing a lot of collaboration between different high schools. We are seeing, for example, in Glasgow, within the Glasgow Caledonian hub, another way of ensuring that there is access to advanced hires. I think that I said yesterday, so apologies if I am repeating myself on this point, but it is something that we are looking at within the work that we are doing on the learner journey to see whether there are any barriers to a young person picking a particular career or moving forward based on what is available in their senior phase. We recognise that that is a very important part of a young person's journey through school and on to a apprenticeship college or university, so it is something that has been taken part of the learner journey work. As I said to Tavish Scott, we will report back in the coming months on that. I want to go back briefly to the previous issue about displacement. I was interested, because my understanding was that at the moment there are thousands of students who apply to university in Scotland who do not get any place at all. I wondered what analysis had been done to look at why those students were missing out. It is very difficult to determine why a particular individual does not get a place at a particular university. It is one of the aspects that the commissioners looked at around the requirement for much more transparency around the admissions process. Now, as autonomous institutions, of course, universities are quite rightly responsible for their own admissions process, and they will look at different inputs into that, whether it is examination results, which we spoke about earlier, or personal statements, for example. The difficulty a young person has is trying to work out what they have to do and then how much bearing it is given during that admissions process. It is then very difficult to try and work out why a young person did not get in. Was it because of a personal statement not being strong enough? Was it because of exam results and so on? I think that the work that Sir Peter is doing around transparency within the admissions process will help to look at that. What we have at the moment is statistics. We have numbers of statistics for applications, we have numbers of statistics for applicants, and then we have that broken down by institution. What it does not tell us is why young people do not get a place at one place at another. Quite rightly, the admissions process is very different at each university. We would expect nothing less for autonomous institutions, but we do not have the level of transparency that allows young people to understand and therefore allows them to perhaps learn what they would have to do in the sixth year to ensure that they get entry or at least give them a better chance of entry. The issue around transparency is something that needs to be looked at. I think that that is something that will come back to in due course, either through the commissioners' work or through the access delivery group, because it has been raised by the commissioner in his annual report. What worries me and other committee members is the same thing. I regularly meet young people. I have spoken to headteachers who have young people who have exceeded the entry requirements and have phoned up institutions to ask why young people from their schools have not been successful. Effectively, they are told that the applications were to the required standards, just that the competition was too great. I just feel that those people are also missing out, and in some cases they fall into the SIMD20 groups. We are not seeing those young people go on, so other people from those schools decide that they cannot compete at the level that is required for those courses. It creates a perception that creates a problem. That is why it is important that we look at the transparency to ensure that young people understand why decisions are being made. It is not often as clear-cut as the example in which we are told that categorically. We then have to look at the grade inflation, which I discussed in response to Johann Lamont's question about how we can tackle grade inflation through minimum entry requirements, particularly those from SIMD20. However, if there is a greater understanding of why decisions are made and how they are being made, that would certainly make the system much more effective. I had one final question that was about a more immediate concern. Across the past few weeks, I have had a number of teachers in my constituency who get in touch who are concerned that the new higher exam materials are not going to be ready for them to start teaching in June. Do you recognise that that does create an issue, particularly in state schools, for teachers and pupils in getting through the hires and achieving the best results that they can? Is it something that you commit to look at? That is not something that has come across my desk. Obviously, schools were within the remit of the Deputy First Minister, but we will ensure that I will pass Mr Mundell's comments on to the Deputy First Minister for his information forward from today. I want to talk more about articulation. It was something that I brought up with Peter Scott when he was in, and I noted that in his report that he was particularly strong on the fact that we still have an issue with a lot of universities not having the same kind of culture around accepting HND, HNC graduates into their institutions at a second year or third year level in the same way that maybe some of the newer universities do. Given that universities are autonomous and we have talked about that and it is absolutely right that they should be autonomous, is there anything realistically that the Government can do, or the SFC could do, to encourage those universities to take a fresh approach to that? It is something that the universities are looking at very seriously, obviously, one of the work streams that the University of Scotland carried out following on from the commission was on articulation chaired by Susan Stewart. It came up with a number of proposals for universities to take forward, and it is setting up new working groups with colleges, co-chaired by a college principle, to look at articulation. It is welcome to see the sector taking a much greater interest in its totality on this issue and working hand in hand with the colleges to see that happening. My concern would be around the fact that we still do not know from University of Scotland when they would expect to see change and how much change they would expect to see. That is an issue that we would have looked at when we were discussing the commissioners annual report, which was also cancelled because of the bad weather last week, but we would have looked at the requirement of a little bit more information about when changes are going to happen and how large that change is going to be at different institutions. It is good to see further progress on it, but I want to see the detail about when that could happen. In terms of what can happen from the Scottish Government and through the funding council, again, I will go back to the outcome agreements process where we are looking very carefully at what we can do within my letter of guidance around articulation. Sir Peter Scott, for example, suggested targets around articulation. I am interested in looking into that and will discuss that with the sector and key stakeholders before any decision is made on that. We will be discussing the issue within the access delivery group. As I said yesterday, there is a tremendous amount of work going on within the sector to take up still further the areas around widening access. What we would have looked at last week was the templates and delivery around recommendations that the University of Scotland has put a tremendous amount of work into, but it is to see a little bit more detail about when those changes will be made on that. You will not be surprised to hear that there is a former college lecturer who students, many of whom went on to university after doing their HMD in the course that I taught, that I found that they did particularly well at university because they had college almost as a bridging mechanism school. A lot of them might be quite young students or maybe students that just just maybe needed the college kind of experience in order to perform well at university. Has there been any work done in, I suppose, analysing the success of students who have articulated into second or third year university successfully in terms of maybe their final degree result, but also the retention rate around that? That is one of the issues. Certainly somebody went to university at 17 and found it a bit of a daunting experience. If you have gone to college first and you have had that student experience, then you go into university. Has there been work done around that? I think that there is maybe a perception that students coming from college are not ready for university or are in some way a secondary quality applicant as compared to someone leaving school with five hires at A-grade, but that is actually not my experience. Has there been any analysis of that done? It is certainly something that I can come back to the committee on in terms of analysis of it, but I would agree with your point that sometimes going for a young person, sometimes going to college and then university is the right step for them rather than going directly into university. Indeed, I had a very interesting discussion when I was up in Aberdeen with Nesgall and with Robert Gordon university around the work that they do to ensure that students who perhaps started college with no concept of going to university are encouraged, then, if it is the right thing for them, to go to a university after that. They work very closely as a college in a university to ensure that that works for the young person. There is much made sometimes of the different ways of learning between college and university. There is much made of the differences between colleges and universities as if that should in some way excuse us and make it too difficult. The work that goes on, whether it is Nesgall and Robert Gordon's work, whether it is Forth Valley and Stirling, demonstrates that articulation works very well for students. It opens up new avenues to them as I say that they perhaps would never have thought of when they were 17 or 18 and looking at the prospectuses to begin with. It is certainly something that we will look very seriously at, that the funding council will look very seriously at, to ensure that we are getting over those perceptions of how it is just too hard to align the curriculums in some areas. Yes, it is exceptionally difficult to align curriculums in some areas, it is not, and we should just get on and ensure that articulation progresses, full articulation progresses at a greater speed than it is at the moment. Moving on to another area, I am the European reporter for the committee, so I am going to ask if you are remiss of me to not mention something that colleges Scotland has mentioned to us. They mentioned EU funding programmes around employability, particularly the European social fund, and they have set out just how much colleges in Scotland actually get from the European social fund. They say that, particularly people who are quite far away from the workforce, that a lot of the employment programmes that are run by colleges could be losing out in a substantial amount of money after Brexit. I wanted to bring that up with you and ask about any planning from the Scottish Government for that shortfall. It is a very interesting point, because often when we talk about the implications around Brexit, we talk about it through the prism of universities, and there are undoubtedly major challenges for our universities because of Brexit. However, we have been very aware that colleges are affected by this too, so both myself and Michael Russell have met with College Scotland and different institutions on numerous occasions to talk through them in detail with them. There is, for example, a developing the Scotland workforce funding that comes into colleges, which will undoubtedly have a consequence if such funding is to be no longer made available to our colleges. However, I think that the important aspect that we are doing and continue to do with the colleges is working with them, working with the sector to see what can be done. Obviously, we, as a Government, wish to see exceptionally close collaboration on colleges and universities following on from Brexit in a continuation of many of the avenues that are available to college and university students. It is a difficult area to make a defined final statement on at the moment, but I hope that you can be reassured that we are working with College Scotland and with University Scotland to analyse the impact of Brexit on both sectors. It is also a perception that Erasmus only affects universities as well, but, in fact, as somebody who took students over to Finland many times, when I was a college lecturer, Erasmus is something that is very much embedded in our college programme as well. So, around the discussions, around the continuation of any kind of Erasmus programme, I imagine that you are advocating for colleges as well. Absolutely. Indeed, the work that goes on within our communities as well. I answered a question to Joan McAlpine recently on Erasmus Plus, where I put on record the Government's commitment to Erasmus Plus. The recognition that, again, we often talk about Erasmus Plus being for university students, but the college and community aspects around Erasmus Plus are very important. 2017 was the most popular year for Erasmus Plus in the UK so far. Perhaps that is another example of how our young people wish to maintain close links with Europe. Thank you. Thank you very much. Joan McAlpine and then Ross McAlpine. I would like to add something to questions later about student support, but I wanted to ask a very specific question about widening access and funding and then a more general question about education policy. My understanding is that, in the past, universities would have been funded for specific widening access places. Now, in the guidance, it says that funding has been mainstreamed into core funding. What leverage will you now have on those universities who have basically stepped away from their responsibility around widening access while others have stepped up to the challenge? We provide £51 million a year for widening access and articulation places in the universities. What I wish to see goes back to my point of ensuring that we change the system and make the system fair is that we will do that through the outcome agreements process where each university is required to look very carefully at its aspirations and targets around widening access. The Scottish funding council will hold them to account through that intensification of outcome agreements process. We take the issue very seriously around ensuring that every single university plays its part. That is why we will do that through an outcome agreements process that affects every single university done on an individualised basis. I do not think that I understand that, but that may simply be me. In the past, monies went to universities for widening access places. Now, it is part of their core funding. What leverage do you have on universities who are not stepping up to the plate? I am interested in what is the rationale behind changing the position. We still have funding of £51 million per annum for widening access. That is what the guidance says. The funding is mainstreamed into core funding to universities. It is there as our requirement to ensure that there are places for widening access and articulation. However, when we are looking at the outcome agreements process, the reason why it is important is that I do not want to see widening access as something that we sort or attempt to sort through having a certain number of places for widening access and a certain number of places for articulation through certain funding streams. I want to see the system change. The system will only change if we hold the institutions to account through the outcomes agreements process. While we will continue to look very seriously at our funding about widening access, around retention and around the work that the Scottish Funding Council does through its strategic funds on widening access, we will not solve widening access unless we change the system in its entirety. The way to do that is through the intensification of outcome agreements. Recently, we have published the initial proposals for university and college funding. The process that will be gone through now with universities and colleges is analysis with the funding council about their draft outcome agreements and how ambitious they are. They will work through that process with the funding council and therefore their final allocation of funding will be based on their outcome agreements that are agreed with the funding council. Will there be financial penalties to universities who do not meet targets? As I have said, we have had the initial allocations come out last week. The funding council will now go through every draft outcome agreement with the institutions and, if they are not living up to our expectations when it comes to widening access or, indeed, other strategic matters for the Government, we will see a change in the funding allocation from that through the drafting process. Can I ask if there is any analysis done of what courses young people are going into from more deprived areas? I am sure that you would share my concern that if we have widening access but, disproportionately, we would continue to see the same folk ending up in, say, the professions, medicine and law, where there is a great deal of competition and young people. When you are trying to level the playing field, you do not have access to these courses. Is there an analysis of where young people are going? We can certainly furnish the committee with the information on that. It is an area again in which the data working group, which I have mentioned in a number of answers now, will be looking at to see what more information we can pull out. I would say that, when it comes to the professions, it is an issue that we do recognise. That is why there is specific funding based from the funding council to look at encouraging young people into the professions from high schools that do not have a great background in ensuring that young people get into law and medicine and for dentistry, for example. That encourages the young person at quite an early stage in the senior phase to look at what else they have to do, because it goes back to the fact that it is not just their grades that matter but their personal statements and, indeed, other work that they do around that. There are, through the funding council, already initiatives that go on, particularly to look at the professions of law, dentistry and medicine. The last question that I want to ask is what conversations you have with your colleagues within education on the impact of the budget choices that have been made further down the system, which inevitably will impact on widening access. We know, for example, that, currently, we are seeing fewer support staff, fewer homelinks teachers, people who would support young people who would need at primary school, secondary school to get in bed in the education system. That must inevitably have a consequence for young people, even competing to even think about going to university. So what representations have you made in terms of education ministers to the finance minister on some of the choices that he is making, which, in my view, are very damaging in the longer term for young people to even think about going to university? Of course, the choices around education are for local authorities to make within their budgetary process. We do look very seriously. Minister, did you make a representation to finance secretary about the budget choices that you would like to see, which would enable local authorities to ensure the support at school level that would allow young people even to think about going on to further and higher education? That is a ministerial. It is a wonderful power to have, to have the decision around budget priorities. You have that choice. What representations have you and your education colleagues made to the finance secretary to ensure that young people in school can be supported in a way that can even think about going on to further and higher education? Certainly within the budget process that we have just gone through, we have seen a real-terms increase both for universities and for colleges. What representations did you make as ministers? I am not asking what the budget says. I am asking what your role is in influencing the budget. I would like to think that the information that the committee has through the budget process, which has demonstrated the real-terms increase for universities and colleges, is testimony to the hard work that the education ministers put in in making representations for the finance secretary. Decisions for local councils are for them to make and for them to be responsible for at a local level. The decisions that are made at school level mean that young people are less likely even to be able to think about further and higher education and have nothing to do with them. However, if people go to university, that is your responsibility and your increase in that budget. Do you see the connection between how we fund our school system and the ability to access further and higher education? Do you accept us a connection? We are fighting the budget process. I am asking the minister whether she sees a connection between the investment in school budgets in order to make real our shared aspiration to widen access to further and higher education. We certainly recognise the whole system's approach that we require within education. That is why when we have the access delivery group, we have representatives from primary schools, secondary schools and local authorities within that. We are very aware, particularly within the learner journey work, that we look at how the different sections of the education system work and collaborate. The decisions for local councils are for them to make representations for us. Your budget decisions to local government do not have any impact on that. As I said, we are not fighting the budget that we have already processed. We have already been through, Claire. The previous question touched on the access to particular courses in the competition for the likes of law, medicine and dentistry. Has there been any work done to look at those universities that choose to have an additional application process where students have to pay a fee? It can be refunded to them if they access certain benefits, but there are some institutions that use that as a selection process. I just wondered if the minister had, if the data group was going to be looking at whether that was impacting and creating an additional barrier for young people from SIMD areas to actually aspire to those subjects like the law. It certainly has a concern, as I mentioned earlier, around the epicness of the system and the inherent barriers that are within that, particularly if you are from a high school that does not send a lot of young people to particular types of courses. It is therefore more challenging for the young person and the school to support them. That is why the funding council looks to encourage initiatives based on that. Any barrier that is perceived or actual out there that will stop a young person from applying for a course will need to be looked at. When it comes to admissions, there are decisions for the universities to have as autonomous institutions, but through the access delivery group I am hopeful that we can work together coming around challenging each other where needs be, but working collegiately to find a way through some of the challenges that can perhaps easier dealt with in this would perhaps be one of them. The student support review was published in November. Could you indicate in what month the Government will publish your response? We are hoping to reply to Parliament soon on that. The reason why I will not give a specific number or as a date or a month to that is that we are currently still going through modelling of different proposals that we could bring forward. What I do not want to do is come before Parliament until that work has been complete. We will then get a half answer from the Government on some of them and then have to come back to Parliament to reply to other aspects of it. I am hopeful that we will be able to reply to Parliament soon. I can assure members that I am as keen to get this process moving as others are, but until we look at that financial modelling, I do not think that we are in a position to be able to present to Parliament a full picture on that. The reason why we are doing the financial modelling is, as I said in response to Ian Gray yesterday, that we want to do this with the first principle of ensuring that those from the poorest backgrounds get the support that they require. We will look to see the different changes that we could make and the impact that that would have on different demographics. We do not want any unintended consequences coming through or any decision that we make that we could make in a different way to assist the poorest students the best. In terms of your response, you used the phrase a moment ago about a whole system approach within education. I am looking for an assurance that the whole system approach is something wider than that, because we know from evidence across decades that some of the major barriers to equal access to education are issues around housing transport costs being an example where the Government's response could be through your portfolio to simply increase loans or preferably bursaries to try and compensate for the rising cost of public transport, or you could look at transport policies such as expanding concessionary travel to those in full-time education, fair capping. Could you explain how the Government is taking a genuinely whole system approach to that and not trying to tackle it simply within the education portfolio, because a lot of those challenges occur outwith education and have an impact on it? You are absolutely right to point to the myriad of different ways that those challenges could be overcome. One of the areas that I will have to look at very seriously following the review was that the review group asked the Government to carry out further work on specific areas, so it has not come back with a specific recommendation on quite a few areas. That is by no means a criticism of the group, because it has went through, I think, quite a radical approach to what they are suggesting, particularly when it comes to further education, and quite rightly spent a great deal of time shaping that. We will have to look at our response and see what we need to do as a Government to pick up the requests that the review asked us to look at in more detail, and then absolutely not just look at it through the prism of education but to look at it in a wider aspect. I am very mindful of that as we move forward. I can assume that, when the Government responds, there will be evidence in there that you have taken a whole-system approach rather than an educational approach. I certainly hope that that will come through. I am sure that Mr Gray will pick me up on it if there are aspects of it that we have not looked at. However, it is our initial response to the review. As I said yesterday, there are some aspects around that that will require us to do further work. Therefore, there will be opportunities for members to feed into that process and, indeed, for members of the public and stakeholders as well. I am going to ask one of the questions that was submitted to us by a member of the public. From 2013, the Government made a decision to shift quite significantly from grants and bursaries towards student loans. Has any evidence been gathered on the effect that that has had on student behaviour? The decisions that we took in 2013 were ones that were supported by NUS at that time to look at, for example, a guaranteed minimum income from those from the poorest background. I recognise that times have moved on and that is indeed why we have the independent review for student support. When we are looking at the assessment of the impact, I would suggest that we look at the school leaver destination statistics that were recently published, which showed an increase in leavers from their most deprived communities going into higher education. Some of the statistics that I pointed to earlier examined the increase number of young people from the most deprived communities that are now entering university as compared to previous years. There is a large amount of evidence from the last five years that has been gathered from a range of approaches. Has the Government deliberately gathered evidence to assess the impact of that policy, rather than look to evidence gathered from a range of other directions and try to draw a conclusion? It is very difficult in any policy remit to look at one change in a policy when other aspects have been happening, for example, the economic crisis that befell a couple of years ago. It is almost impossible to look at one policy and say that one policy changed a young person's attitude. What we have looked at and continue to look at very seriously is the school leaver destinations and the amount of young people that are coming through. We also take very seriously our work directly with young people to ask them about what influences their decisions. The work that we are doing through the learner journey has included analysis that Young Scott, for example, took part in and facilitated for the Scottish Government, where we were directly asking young people as best as they can what influences their decisions in life to do an apprenticeship, to do a college course or a university. I think that we have made an effort particularly to go to young people to look at what influences them while looking at the official statistics as well. What often comes through from the young people is a requirement for us to encourage young people to pick what is right for them and not to pigeonhole them too early about those that will go to university, those that will go to college or those that will go to apprenticeship. That came through very strongly in our work. We have done, as best we can, analysis of what determines a young person's views on the education process through our learner journey. However, as I said at the start of my answer, I will not claim that that is in the exact science. I have one brief final question. I will return to Gillian Martin's point about European funding. Do you know what proportion of total funding on widening access projects comes from European funding streams? Has the Government developed work on contingency planning for whether those streams are not either continued or replaced? When it comes to the college statistics that I spoke to Gillian Martin about, there is analysis through Developing Scotland's workforce, but some of that may touch on widening access. However, I would by no means claim that it is completely around widening access. That is why we are looking at that on quite a granular basis with different institutions to see how it affects them in different ways. Whether it is universities or colleges, they will be affected by different types of courses and different types of academics. Within colleges, we will see a different demand from EU nationals who are already resident here for example, which is a different challenge to what we are seeing at universities where EU applicants tend to come to study here. We are working with the institutions to look at that in a very detailed basis. We can then gain enough analysis and enough knowledge to be able to take the types of steps that you suggest around mitigation. We are working very hard with the sector to see what can be done in a very detailed fashion rather than just looking at a pot of money and deciding what it is spent on. It needs to be looked at by institution, by institution and indeed sometimes by course type. We have been joined by Mary Fee, who has come from her other committee. Mary, I believe that you have a question around STEM. Thank you, convener. I apologise to the committee and to the minister and officials. I was a private bill committee, so that explains my lateness. I just wanted to ask one general question around STEM and a specific question relating to STEM. I wonder, minister, if you could give us an update on whether or not any pieces of work have been done to refresh and update the STEM strategy. We constantly hear that there are issues around people who are interested in science subjects going on to do, whether it is apprenticeships or going to courses, colleges and universities. I wonder if there are any pieces of work going on to ensure that the right support is there so that people when they have an interest in science subjects do not drop out. I am absolutely right that that is an issue that we need to look at. Following on from the STEM strategy, we have not refreshed the STEM strategy, but it is still quite new. However, we now have an implementation group, which I chair, which looks at all the different, in some ways, comparable to the access delivery group for widening access, where we bring all the stakeholders around the table. We are looking at KPIs to ensure that there is progress to deliver the STEM strategy. The point that you have mentioned is one area that we will be keen to look at. We will also look to have an advisory group that will advise the implementation group, which is built up from a wider pool of people, to ensure that we are receiving timious advice on that. Both the implementation and the advisory group are moving forward. We are also very aware of the work that is going through from the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which is refreshing the tapping all their talents work that they did a few years ago now. Officials have met the RSA—I have met the RSA to see and to offer any assistance that we can as they go through that process. I think that we have made progress, but I would readily admit that when we refresh tapping all the talents, it will flush out more challenges that the Government needs to take on. We are very keen to work with the RSA to provide them with any information, any data that we have that will assist in that refresh of tapping all our talents. That is helpful. Of course, sometimes it can be very young children that have a particular interest in science. You will be aware that the Scottish Schools Education Research Centre provides training for primary teachers to teach science subjects, and it also makes sure that primary schools are health and safety compliant. Currently, that centre is funded by all local authorities. Will the education reforms that are currently being looked at have any impact on either the procurement of those services or the centre itself? I certainly do not see any reason why there would be a change to the support that comes to the centre. My understanding is that it receives money from the Scottish Government, and we are very pleased to be able to ensure that that work continues as well. I want to go back briefly to the discussion that you had with Ross Greer on student support. The minister referred yesterday to the Government having raised the income threshold for maximum grant to £19,000. For completeness, of course, the minister is aware that in 2013 the SNP Government cut the income cut-off for maximum bursary from £19,300 to £17,000. Do you think that it is appropriate to pitch not-quite restoration of a cut as an increase? Would you accept that the decision in 2000, the position of the NUS notwithstanding, was wrong because it had direct impact on some of the lowest income people in education? I was asked yesterday what action the Government had taken in the context of the review of student support. My answer yesterday was to demonstrate the action that we have taken from the review of student support in our commitment in the programme for government, but also why we did not wait when it comes to raising the income threshold for the review of student support. It was a demonstration of action within the last few years. As I said in my response to Ross Greer, the decisions that were taken at the time to simplify the process around student support were welcomed at the time by NUS, but I recognise that we have moved on circumstances change, and we need to look afresh at that. The decisions were taken working hand in hand with stakeholders at the time and welcomed by the NUS, but it is right that we look to see what changes need to be made, and that is why we asked an independent review to look at that for us. We will respond in due course. You accept notwithstanding the position of the NUS, that it was wrong because you have tried now to write it rather than to have an increase. You have not quite write it, that it was wrong to disproportionately have an impact on those who most relied on bursaries. You have tried in a way— Those are political slogans now. Can you ask the minister a question that relates to her remit? If you are not able to do it just now, I think that we would be interested in the analysis that brought you to the conclusion that you should not quite restore the cut that you made, as opposed to the analysis that you had at the time that justified that cut in 2013. The decisions in 2013 were around simplifying the system, and we worked hand in hand with stakeholders to ensure that that happened. We are always open to looking at changing a system as time moves on and as the challenges to our young people change over time. That is exactly why we looked at the independent review and why I will respond to that in due course. My apologies, but would you accept that simplifying the system is not the same as having a direct cut to the income of some of the poorest students in their communities? It is not simplifying the system, it is a direct cut to the bursary. We are going to move on because you are here to talk about your remit just now. What do you want to do when you are trying to rewrite history? Thank you, convener. I just wanted to put on record that I am vice-chair of CERC at the moment since it has been raised during the process. I have one question, minister. You talked a couple of times about valuing the other choices, not just universities. I have no doubt that you and the Scottish Government do, and that many other people do, but how do we ensure that teachers, parents and pupils value those choices and not just try to push the university thing A, because it might look good for the school or B, because they genuinely think that it is the right thing for the pupils? Because there are many parents and grandparents and others who would think that the best thing for their child, grandchild, etc. is going to university, but the reality is that it is something else entirely. I think that it is a very fair point. Obviously, particularly in apprenticeship week, I am very keen to encourage young people to look at the different opportunities that are available to them that are outwith my own remit. I had a very interesting visit as part of apprenticeship week to a school on my own constituency, as minister yesterday, where we talked about foundation apprenticeships and the new opportunities that are available to young people at school through foundation apprenticeships. You hit on a very critical point that it is not just the nice words that we say in Government and in speeches that matter on this, but it is ensuring that there is nothing in the system that is pushing or encouraging young people towards one outcome more than another. We are looking at that within the learner journey. One of the aspects that the learner journey has in its heart is about parity of esteem, and it is about encouraging young people and their influencers, whether they are teachers or family, to pick the right course for them. I go back to the conversations that I have had with young people who have went to a university because they had the grades to allow them to do that, but, with hindsight, they left the university, attended a college course and have went on very successfully in a career. We need to ensure that we are all cognisant of the opportunities that are before our young people. It is about what is choosing right for that young person, not what is right for statistics about levels of higher education or further education going up and down, but what is right for that young person. We need to be brave and perhaps make some changes to ensure that that happens in due course. Minister, is that massive disparity in the funding that college student associations receive? I think that the lowest is around £20,000 a year and the highest is around £200,000 a year. Has the Government considered ring-fencing of student association funding in the college funding formula? The funding council is working within the United States to encourage the growth of student associations within colleges. I recognise on the visits that I have within colleges the difference that that makes to having a very strong, confident, robust student body. I saw that when I was at Ayrshire College very recently, I spoke to the student reps who sit on the board at Ayrshire College and it further demonstrates why we need to ensure that students have a strong representation both at college and university level. I will bring that to an end of public part of the meeting. I want to thank you and Mr Smart and Mr MacDonald for your attendance. We will now move on to private session.