 We will now resume business and I would ask all programmes to the members who are not wishing to sit and listen to the debate to ask those who do not stand talking to members in the gallery please. But to either sit and listen to the debate or to leave the chamber quickly and quietly. The next item of business is a debate in motion 1, 2 or 6, 4 or 2 in the name of wedi llaeefedd defnyddio w NCAT provides an opportunity for us to reaffirm our collective commitment to widening the access of university for people from our poorest communities and to ensure that everyone has the full potential for their full potential and no matter the background. All we have nothing but an opportunity for all finished members to reflect on what has beenいwaith danger forward along with the considerable progress that has been made. That is what is important, and we have to explore the work that we have to undertake in collectively, in Government, universities and wider societies to complete this journey. We intend to complete the journey. Having met the previous interim target, we turned our attention to the next interim target for 2026. The final target of having 20 per cent of entrants to higher education coming from our 20 per cent most deprived communities by 2030. We have done so in the knowledge that the opportunities are there. There were places in the system available to domestic entrants this year that went unfilled. As we thank the sector for all their hard work so far, I would ask them to reflect on whether there is anything more they can do. If that requires action or assistance from the Government, then we gladly have that discussion. We recognise how challenging moving this on is going to be, and that adjusted approaches will almost certainly be required. I welcome University Scotland's 40 face campaign, given that it will allow us to hear the views of students and graduates. In a similar vein, I am looking forward to hearing contributions from members this afternoon, because, as always, I am happy to consider genuine constructive solutions from anywhere. Presiding Officer, I am pleased to commend to Parliament the report by the Commissioner on Fair Access. Let me place on record my gratitude to Professor John MacKendrick. I met Professor MacKendrick last week to discuss its conclusions and widening access more generally, including the progress that we have made so far and how we can make the further progress required. I broadly welcome the report's recommendations. My officials will work with the Commissioner and other interested parties to consider how we take those forward. In terms of the report, I want to take a moment to reflect in particular on his finding that increasing the share of students from the most deprived areas has not led to fewer students progressing to higher education from less deprived areas. That is an issue that has been raised both inside and outside this chamber in the past. However, as the Commissioner states, at present, increasing the share of students from the most deprived areas has not led to fewer students progressing to higher education from less deprived areas. The number of entrants has increased for all SI and D quintile cohorts since 2013. I am glad to see that this myth has been conclusively put to bed. I am very grateful to the Minister to give way. On that point, he also pointed out that there were some high-profile courses where there was a challenge, in particular one thinks of law at Edinburgh, which is where this all started 18 months ago. As Mr Whitfield, I am sure, is aware that he is right to cite that example, but it was an isolated example and I think that Edinburgh University has recognised the errors that were made there. Those students from our poorest communities are not taking a space that would otherwise be reserved for someone else. They are there on merit. The latest statistics show that, in 2021-22, we again had a record number of students from deprived areas. That represents an increase of 80 on the previous year. That is a huge 41 per cent increase since the final report of the commission on widening access in March 2016. It is a considerable achievement. Let me express the gratitude of this Government to everyone who has played a role in making it happen. Our universities, colleges, schools and, most importantly, to the young people themselves. With 16.5 per cent of full-time first-degree entrants coming from deprived areas, we have also once again achieved the interim commission on widening access target of 16 per cent by 2021. In 2021-22, 19.1 per cent of all undergraduate higher education entrants to both universities and colleges were from the 20 per cent most deprived areas. It is even higher if we look at just full-time courses where over a fifth are from the most deprived areas. The gap between the 20 per cent most and least deprived areas in terms of positive initial destinations after a leaving school is now at a record low. That is real progress and progress that I hope will be welcomed by colleagues on all sides of the chamber in their contributions today. It is also worth reflecting on some of the recent changes that will continue to drive this agenda. Since 2021, all universities measure the academic achievements of learners from our most disadvantaged communities against access thresholds rather than standard entry requirements. That ensures that those who have the potential to succeed in higher education will have that potential recognised. People with care experience who want to go to university are no longer deterred by debt. They can now access a non-refundable bursary of £9,000 each year, increasing to £11,42425. When they apply for a place at university, if they meet the new thresholds, their institution will guarantee them the offer of a place. The Government is determined to keep the promise and we will do everything in our power to ensure that care experience people have the same opportunity as they appear. We are not giving way to Brian Whistle. I agree with him that it is extremely important that we give equal access across all SIMD areas. The progress is welcome. Is there a concern now that the income coming into universities now is increasingly coming from abroad? I heard that Glasgow University is now sitting at over 80 per cent of their income comes from students from abroad, specifically China. Minister. We are aware of the reliance on international students, but I do say gently to Mr Whittle that one of the biggest threats to our university sector—I am not just in Scotland across the UK—is the policies of the UK Government on Migration. That is where the biggest worry currently lies. We are not going to rest in our laurels. I am not going to give way. I want to make some progress. The widening access agenda is too important for this. Let me reiterate that I accept that kicking on from here presents a challenge, but it is a challenge that we intend to meet. We are going to have to do more faster to drive progress to identify students who need support to access education and to give them the help that they need. We are clear on the value of SIMD as a measure of deprivation and the impact of the national SIMD targets can be seen in the progress to date. For that reason, I agree with the commissioner when he says that retaining SIMD as the central metric to indicate national progress in achieving for access is necessary. However, our approach should not be to the exclusion of those facing similar barriers but living in areas where their address is less likely to be classed as deprived. The access data short life working group was established in 2023 to assess which other measures should be used. In their final report, the working group recommended that both free school meals and Scottish child payment continue to be considered as possible individual level widening access measures. Officials are currently considering how we can overcome data sharing issues to introduce eligibility for free school meals as a measure of deprivation. We are working with institutions in the north-east to pilot this. We will also continue to look at Scottish child payment data and school clothing grant data to see if they identify students who may benefit from the widening access approach. Again, I am clear that I am very happy to engage with anyone with additional ideas in this space. I have to admit to being concerned by recent suggestions from elsewhere on the political landscape, which, if implemented, would completely undermine the central tenant that access to higher education should be based on the ability to learn not to pay. As a Government and as a Parliament, the decision that we took to abolish tuition fees should be one of our proudest achievements. The fact that, in recent weeks, we have had senior front ventures from both Labour and the Conservatives suggesting that the reintroduction of fees is, in my view, something to be firmly rejected. Whether those fees are up front as they are in Conservative run England and Labour run Wales or by the back door, as they were when Labour were in Government in Scotland, this Government is clear that it would be completely unacceptable. Free tuition is vital to widening access, and under this Government, tuition fees will never be reintroduced in Scotland. The Labour amendment, which I urge members to reject at decision times, calls for increased funding for the sector, as they are perfectly entitled to do. However, given that Labour has been against almost every revenue-raising measure that this Government has implemented, where would this money come from? There are two options. Either Labour would cut elsewhere in the budget, whether from the NHS, from schools or social security. Again, that would be a choice for them. Or they would increase funding by bringing in some form of tuition fees, as the finance spokesperson suggested only a few weeks ago. Since the policy was introduced, we have seen the number of first-time students in Scotland increase by 31 per cent. The average level of student debt in Scotland is three times lower than south of the border, and record numbers of students from our poorest communities are going to university. We on these benches believe that it is something worth defending and will never allow tuition fees to be imposed in Scotland. As I have said, we need to go further in the widening access agenda. We have to unlock the potential of all our young people. That is not just the right thing to do, but it is vital for our economy and our public services to have the skills needed. I look forward to hearing the contribution of colleagues and how we continue to build on the progress that has been made. I move the motion in my name. I cannot imagine anyone in this chamber who would disagree that those who want to go to university as part of their life plan should be able to do so, regardless of means or circumstances. Aside from personal benefits, the consequences are social. They are economic. They are fair. I welcome the tone of the minister's contribution particularly on working together. It inexorably follows that we must constantly ask if we are achieving that end-game and whether we can improve. In today's motion, and many of the remarks that we have just heard, the Government is in danger of revealing itself to be selective, dogmatic and dangerously siloed in its thinking. For example, it sets an arbitrary target that students from the 20 per cent most deprived communities will make up the 20 per cent of entrance to higher education by 2030. As so often, it reveals that it has little idea how to achieve that, nor undertakes meaningful reflection on what is working, what is not, and ultimately what can be improved. Let's not forget—in two seconds, Minister—the fair access report does say that progress has stalled and the Scottish Government is not on track to meet its widening access targets. Forgive me, two seconds more, Minister, because I think that the minister is to be commended in his remarks concerning something that commentators including Lindsay Patterson and Commissioner MacKendrick have made clear that reliance on SIMD is something of a blunt instrument. I would hope, not only in my tone but in the content of what I have said, that I have recognised a number of the points that the member makes. I would very much welcome, as I have said earlier, contributions from across the chamber and further additional dialogue to look at measures, because, as I said in my opening speech, we are absolutely committed to exploring what else can be done. I recognise the approach that the minister is taking to this portfolio, and I welcome it very much, because what we have seen for far too long is a very restrictive approach in an absence of whole systems thinking. I think that that is demonstrated by what is being done currently to the college sector. Professor MacKendrick, the commissioner on fair access himself, highlighted just yesterday how important colleges are to the fair access agenda, describing them as offering people who want it as a gateway to university. He went on to describe the impact of what Neil Cowey of Nescol told this Parliament only a few weeks ago was a £32.7 million reduction in revenue funding to being cuts to the number of places available in the next academic year and courses withdrawn. That is on top of the over 120,000 places already lost since the SNP came to power. When the principle of Dumfries and Galloway College describes the upcoming cuts as devastating to students from deprived areas and says, for those students who wish to progress on to higher education, we cannot provide the same volume of opportunities, we should be very concerned indeed. I think that similar lack of foresight is manifest in the decision, for example, to axe the flexible workforce development fund or failing to agree the budget, which would allow for new funded modern apprenticeship places from 1 April 2024, and on that point I would hope the minister will pick up in his closing remarks and tell us when that will be agreed. That leads to the fundamental issue, Presiding Officer, because you do not widen access by blundering on with a cut of at least 1200 places at universities. You do not widen access by having what amounts to an arbitrary cap on Scottish students. You do not widen access by failing to talk about part-time students and the commissioner's proposal to keep a primary focus on full-time undergraduates, in a context in which, in 2021, 30 per cent of all Scottish domiciled taught university enrolments in Scotland were part-time. We really need to nail this myth about the 1200 places. It has been explored multiple times in this Parliament and it is still pedalled by some. The 1200 places referred to were additional places introduced in 2021 to take account of the pandemic and the SQA assessment process. The Government committed to funding those places for the duration of the students' studies. That cohort will largely exit the system at the conclusion of this academic year. Therefore, the funding for those extra places will no longer be required. The finance secretary stood in this chamber and conceded that there were 1200 plus fewer places available to students going forward. In terms of widening access, you can look at the official record minister. Shona Robison stood there and conceded the point. In terms of widening access agenda, when University Scotland points out that the cost of living crisis has the biggest impact on those who were already most disadvantaged and that this is particularly acute for mature students with caring responsibility, estranged students and students with care experience, the minister cannot come to this chamber and talk about widening access without mentioning the cuts of over £23 million to student support and tuition fee payments or lifelong learning funding by almost £24 million. But the real issue, Presiding Officer, because I can understand why the minister would want to bury that news, is the Government's response to the picture. We all recognise that something isn't working quite as it should. We all recognise that funding is tight, though we differ on the reasons underlying that. But it is a deeply irresponsible government that closes its mind for ideological reasons to even discussing what we might do to address that. When we acknowledge that the average funding per Scottish student is over £2,000 lower than universities in England, the right response is surely to collaborate and discuss how we can work to improve it rather than get into a situation such as when Professor Sir Peter Matheson gently suggested that, as the current system can see, talented students leave Scotland, an alternative methods might be worthy of calm consideration. He gets absolutely pilloried. Presiding Officer, those of us who bother to interrogate the data and the metrics underlying the outcomes can all see something isn't working as well as it should, whether that be to widen access to levels desired, whether to properly fund the universities and or whether to ensure that young people can take the direction which best suits them and fits their ambitions. What those from disadvantaged backgrounds need, what our universities need, what Scotland's economy, outcomes and future need is for the Parliament to put the politics aside, find a way to end the underfunding of Scotland's universities and ensure that a world-leading university education can be offered to all who want it, regardless of means and background. That's why I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. It's a privilege to open this debate for Scottish Labour today and I thank the minister for bringing it because widening access to education is close to my heart and it is a priority, I believe, we all share. And so it is right that we take the opportunity to celebrate the progress that our institutions have made. They met the interim targets of entrance from students from disadvantaged backgrounds. There's a rise in the number of young people entering university from care experience backgrounds. More disabled people are going to university and more and more young people are progressing from further into higher education. But we also have to accept the reality. I know from conversations that I've had with institutions and students and staff how committed they all are to this cause. But like me and my colleagues on these benches, they are becoming increasingly concerned that progress is stalling and the challenges they face and that lie ahead will make regaining momentum ever more difficult. The SNP Government have looked to use today's discussion to pat themselves on the back, but this is not a time for complacency. They talk about widening access and supporting higher education institutions, while signing off on a budget that cut £100 million from the sector and at least 1200 places. Cuts that the Government's own analysis has warned could have a direct impact on widening access. Cuts to funding, cuts to places over reliance on cross subsidy from international students and institutions facing impossible choices. That is this Government's record. The President of the United Nations called it rightly when she said that if education is this Government's priority, then they've got a funny way of showing it. Their actions are risking progress. We know that students, staff, colleges and universities know. It's not just about places and admissions. We need to support students on their entire education journey. There has long been a retention gap between the most and least affluent students, but worryingly retention rates are beginning to fall again, particularly for those with widening access markers. Prospective students considering university today need to know they'll get the support so that they can emerge at the other end of their studies ready to contribute to society and move on to successful careers. By the impacts of the past few years, the pandemic and the cost of living have meant that now more than ever students require increased levels of support. The pressures of academic life, financial worries and isolation are taking a heavy toll on their wellbeing. NUS talk about this in their report with the five powers of education and they're right. It's not just what happens in the classroom that matters and we can't forget that. Against this backdrop, Scotland universities have been grappling with successive years of real terms cuts from this Government at a time when outside pressures necessitate more support for their students. The result is that vital support services are overstretched and under resourced. The number of students requesting mental health support at universities increased threefold between 2010 and 2021. Whilst universities are doing their best to meet that challenge, they are being asked to do more with less and this is having an impact on retention rates. What we have as a sector held back by this Government and a funding crisis not just isolated to university but that extends to colleges too. A crisis students and staff at colleges have been telling this Government about for years but they have refused to listen. I say today to the Government, listen to staff and students at universities and colleges desperate for their sector to be saved. If they won't listen to them as I do on the picket lines across Scotland, surely even this Government can't ignore Audit Scotland's concern that balancing high quality learning with the expected volume of delivery all the while contributing to other Government priorities is a monumental challenge. I'll take the minister's intervention. I could point out the increase in student support, etc. Let's cut to the chase here. We're now almost four minutes into Labour's opening. We've had a long list of demands. We're still waiting to hear how they would fund them. Tuition theory introduction? Pam Duncan-Glancy. I thank the minister for that intervention on his first point about the increase in student support. The IFS has said that there has been a 16 per cent reduction in student support over the last 10 years. On what we would do, I'm coming to that next in my speech minister. My party and I are unwavering in our commitment to shattering the class, glass and step ceiling. We're dedicated to ensuring that our education and skills system work in tandem, collaborate seamlessly to create opportunities for all, equipping our young people, regardless of their background, with the necessary tools to access the well-paid, secure jobs of the future so that no one is held back by where they come from. We know that to meet that ambition, we're in dire need of a sustainable tertiary education system. We offer a different approach to further and higher education than what the current Government offers. We understand the value of the tertiary sector and we refuse to stand idly by as our once world leading education system faces managed decline. We need a Government focused on sustainable economic growth and ambition, not stagnation and settling. That's why, across the UK, Labour has laid out plans to bolster universities, committing to investing 3 per cent of GDP in research and development and establishing 10-year research deals to facilitate long-term planning. We're building robust support frameworks to encourage the successful spin-outs. Here in Scotland, we're determined to elevate standards in our schools and boost the number of students progressing to positive education, employment and training. And we know how pivotal education, based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay, is to ambition. Scottish Labour introduced free tuition and it remains one of our proudest achievements from our time in government. We have reaffirmed that commitment time and time again and that position has not changed. We support the delivery of free tuition for Scottish students who attend Scottish universities. In contrast, the current implementation by the Scottish Government is not working and under a funded system lets down students, staff and institutions. I'm afraid I don't have time, Cabinet Secretary, and institutions. The only thing preventing that is the tenacity of universities, not this Government. Universities working day and night to do all they can to fill funding gaps created by this Government. The Scottish Labour stands united in our resolve to provide every student in Scotland with an equal chance at success. We will not rest until the doors of opportunity are wide open, until the path to higher education is clear and unobstructed for all, regardless of background. The future of Scotland depends on the empowerment of young people through education and we are committed to making that future bright, equitable and prosperous for all. To advise the chamber, there is no time in hand and members will need to stick to the speaking allocation. I call Willie Rennie up to four minutes, Mr Rennie. It's a rather sensitive subject for Liberal Democrats but just to be clear, we voted for the abolition of tuition fees in this Parliament and we remain opposed to tuition fees. The widening access debate is so much broader than just tuition fees and I want to thank the commissioner for quite a considered report. There has been progress made over the last few years but it has stalled as the minister recognised in the last period and that is a moment of concern. For this country to reach its economic potential, it needs to tap into the talents of everyone. We cannot afford to ignore the latent potential in our midst. Where you are born and how you are brought up impacts on your job, the job that you secure and the impact that has on income and the house that you live in and that impacts on your life chances of your children, which impacts on the economy and the cycle goes on and on and on. The widening access targets have clearly had an impact in focusing the minds of everyone in the higher education sector to develop mechanisms that work to widen access but not drop the highly cherished standards that is the hallmark of Scottish higher education. That is the real test and I have seen it in action. I was pleased with Paisley College, my former institution or Paisley Tech as it was known at the time and now the University of the West of Scotland. I was pleased to see the UWS Foundation academy that does some really interesting work in reaching right out into schools to prepare students who are just on the cusp of being able to get into higher education, to help them to prepare them, to give them the skills to be able to make a successful application. In 2022, I was pleased to see that they have reached 1,500 pupils across 25 schools in West Central Scotland. That is good, solid work to try to attract people from disadvantaged backgrounds and then switch over into my constituency in North East Fife where St Andrews has made some really impressive work and I have witnessed again where they have managed to get students from disadvantaged backgrounds into the institution. How they make sure that they graduate, that they do not want their drop-out rate to increase, that they want to maintain a very high standard, so they give them direct education and wellbeing support. At both ends of the spectrum, you have the direct, practical, pragmatic support that gets more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds through a higher education. I think that that is much more valuable than some of the other work and debates that we have on this subject. I can see that the sector is still learning which methods work best and why it is right for the commissioner to conduct a review, to try and establish what works best, but we also need to use better, more personalised information to target the right people. There is an implied criticism. I do not think that he really meant that on the sector. I think that circumstances have changed. We have a cost-loving crisis, we have a pandemic that has made it tougher, so I do not think that it was the measures or the approach of the universities. I think that it is circumstance. I think that we are all just learning as we go along with this to understand exactly what works best. I think that we have solved with Paisley and Andrews the two ends of the spectrum about what can work, but we do need to look at more sophisticated data, perhaps free-school meal data, and we will require to have some data-sharing agreement to make sure that that works. Although it is right that higher education institutions play an important role in widening access, we also need to look at what happens before they get to university. That is why, on colleges where previous ministers have made great play of the particularly Scottish route of getting into higher education, we fund colleges. We need to close the poverty-related entertainment gap, and two-year-olds' access to nursery education needs to improve quite dramatically. We now move to the open debate. I call first Bill Kidd to be followed by Liz Smith up to four minutes, Mr Kidd. I welcome today's debate as the issue of widening access to higher education and especially equality and fair access is a hugely important one. I believe to everybody in this chamber. Much of the work in progress that we are discussing today was borne out of the 2016 report, A Blueprint for Fairness, the final report of the commission on widening access. That report was a response to the 2014-15 programme for government, where the Scottish Government set out its ambition that every child, irrespective of socioeconomic background, should have a equal chance of accessing higher education. A result of that was the commission on widening access that was established to advise ministers on the steps necessary to make an achievement. Since then, while I believe that clear progress has been made, I also agree with a number of my colleagues that we need to keep working tirelessly to do even more. The Scottish Funding Council noted that, according to its latest national report on widening access, 5,595 learners from the 20 per cent most deprived areas in Scotland began a full-time first degree course in 2122. It also noted—I have got a very little time, but if you would please hurry up, thank you. How will £107 million cut to the Scottish Funding Council improve that situation? Bill Kidd, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer down at Westminster. It also noted that the figures confirmed that universities and colleges once again met the commission on widening access's interim target of 16 per cent of all Scottish domiciles full-time first degree entrants being from the 21st century. Further, the report also highlighted where we can do more and I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to increase its efforts in conjunction and partnership with higher education institutes working towards the next interim target of 18 per cent by 2026 and achieving the 2030 target of 20 per cent. Universities Scotland noted the need to take a more holistic approach in their briefing for today's debate, suggesting that the Parliament's education committee is ideally suited to take this on and I tend to agree. I think that those targets are achievable but we will need to be innovative in our approach and provide further support to those organisations whose contribution perhaps gets overlooked but are essential to providing necessary support and environment needed by our young people if they are to succeed. Those organisations are many and I am sure that members here today will know of some great third sector local groups or indeed individuals in making a real difference in their areas. I apologise for focusing on only one for the moment, however, only the other week at one of the regular stalls here in the Scottish Parliament. The pleasure to speak to Into University, which is one organisation aiming to boost people's educational chances by providing centres which offer a welcoming home from home for young people to realise their ambitions, achieve their academic potential, develop vital skills and gain experience of the world of work from seven years onwards. It was a pleasure to meet them, speak to some of the young people who had gained so much through their experience and learn about their expansion plans plus the existing centres such as the one in Maryhill in Glasgow. In terms of figures into university supported, over 50,000 students across the UK and 61 per cent of their 2023 school leavers progressed to higher education compared to only 28 per cent across the UK. As they and others grow across Scotland, their success will grow too and will contribute hugely to our aims for the future. To achieve that, we need to bring their contributions into the mix, analyse them alongside other metrics and then look at how we can best recognise, support and enhance their contributions. Something I'd be happy for the committee to look at or indeed hear the view of the Cabinet Secretary and Minister in their summing up. Thank you, Mr Kidd. I call Liz Smith to be followed by Michelle Thompson up to four minutes. I bring my remarks to start with saying that the main strategic challenge that the higher education sector faces is trying to make the balance between the increasing economic and social demands from government with the academic excellence to which we are so accustomed. This is the age when the pressures on universities are intense because of the financial constraints that they are under. At the same time, the percentage share of private sector funding that supports our universities is increasing and the state funding is decreasing. As a result of that, the accountability lines change. In Scotland, we saw attempts by ministers some years ago to provide much more direction to our universities promoting economic and industrial strategy. It was an attempt to merge the Scottish Funding Council, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands, Enterprise Skills Development Scotland, but that was defeated in the Scottish Parliament because it was seen to undermine the autonomy of the sector. In social policy, quite understandably and quite rightly, it has all been about widening access. No one at all can argue against the principle of widening access since it enhances social mobility. It promotes better job prospects, it is inclusive for more vulnerable groups and it can help to reduce poverty. Of course, it is also essential that we look beyond just exam grades. Widening access, however, should not just be about very specific rigid targets. For example, the insistence from government that each of our 19 higher education institutions must take 20 per cent of their 2030 intake from the lowest quintile of SIMD. For the start, SIMD is by no means perfect, but such an arbitrary target can create a negative externality. To evidence that, in his report about fair access some years ago, Professor Peter Scott flagged up the central problem about widening access within the current model of funding. I quote from Professor Peter Scott, he said, the fixed cap inevitably raises concerns that the drive to recruit more students from an SIMD 20 background may reduce the opportunities for other students. That point was agreed by Audit Scotland. In other words, unless university places increase, there will by definition be displacement of some other students from more traditional university backgrounds, and we know that that is happening. Can I come to this issue about what really needs to happen here? Firstly, there has to be a radical improvement in school education. Indeed, if there wasn't such a wide attainment gap between pupils from rich and poorer areas, the Scottish Government wouldn't need to demand such rigid widening access targets. The reason that the Scottish Government is going to struggle to make the artificial 2030 target is because, even with minimum entry requirements, there is no guarantee whatsoever of a broad enough pool of students with sufficiently strong attainment to merit a university place. That is coming from University Scotland, not from me. The second thing that needs to happen, and I would like to see that on a wide cross-party basis, because the current funding system is simply not sustainable in financial terms. I believe that there is growing evidence across all the political parties in this chamber that that is the case. Yes, it is very nice to say that we would like to offer entirely free education. I absolutely understand that, but if you are going to do that, you have to change the current structure. That takes us back to the key question about what a modern university is for. This debate is not just about how our universities maintain the traditional role of being custodians of academic knowledge and their research, but how far they should be the agents of government, economic and social policy. The debate about funding and the structure is far too important to get it wrong. We have to agree on a cross-party basis. I now call Michelle Thomson to be followed by Martin Whitfield up to four minutes, Ms Thomson. As a relatively new member of the Children, Education and Young Peoples Committee and more so as a parliamentarian with a deep concern about the future, it is a great pleasure to participate in this debate and to welcome the report published yesterday by the Scottish Government. As we know, today's motion focuses on widening access to higher education and, of course, references the recent report from the commissioner for fair access. Taken together, those reports clearly identify the progress that has been made in the development of lifelong learning in general and widening access in particular. However, we face significant challenges in the modern world and high-quality education for all is central to our success. 23 years ago, the then enterprise and lifelong learning committee under the convenership of Alec Neill launched a major on what proved to be hugely influential inquiry into lifelong learning, echoes of which are reflected in yesterday's report. However, the challenges that we face today, not least the impact of a global pandemic, Brexit and artificial intelligence, for example, could not be foreseen but are a key part of those challenges and our students are at the centre of those. Last month, NUS Scotland published a report detailing concerns that students face today. These include the problems of accessing affordable student accommodation and the cost of living, notwithstanding free tuition and grants. Such are the stresses and concerns about how the wider economic environment compromises the education experience and can lead to mental health challenges. We have to take those concerns seriously as well. Last year, Sir Anton Muscatelli, in an essay, described the costs faced by Adam Smith when he was a student in the early 18th century. When Smith was a student himself, he probably lived in university accommodation, which cost around £1 per year. He would have subsisted on around £5 per year and paid course fees of £3.10 shillings, all in all amounting to £10 per annum, but about £3,000 in today's money. Real terms inflation has been huge since then, not least in accommodation costs, and students face a significant economic burden. Despite those economic challenges, we need to find ways of investing more in our higher education system, not only to keep on widening access because, as Sir Anton further argues, we need a productive and efficient workforce to drive GDP. In doing so, we must not leave behind those marginalised groups in our society. In economics, there is evidence that labour, productivity and overall output could be improved by increasing worker wellbeing. Much of that relates to the need for a workforce that is informed and equipped with all the necessary skills, as well as the opportunity to build on those skills and learn throughout their working life. Society more generally benefits from a highly educated population. The well educated are more likely to participate in the democratic life of our nation and be more resistant to conspiracy theories and some of the madness that seems to be all too often afflicting our modern society. In that respect, I conclude by saying that we must strive to ensure continued breadth of access for all, and I support the Government's endeavours in that regard. It is always a pleasure to follow the former member who so well articulates the environment that our higher education finds itself in, and in particular the challenge of accommodation, mental health and financial support. When we look at higher education, we are looking at such a broad range of vocational and academic qualifications, ranging from the sort of certification, the higher national certificate diplomas covering foundation courses, undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate, that the environment that we are looking at is enormous. Although it is very welcome to have a debate today for which the Scottish Government well prepared the intervention on Pam Duncan Glancy, it is also a good opportunity to discuss the needs that are out there. With regard to Bill Kidd's speech, which I find again very interesting, one of the fascinating things when you get into figures is that when you look at the progress towards the next target, that is effectively now stalled, falling from 16.7% to 16.5% this year. I think it's important when we bandy around figures and Pam Duncan Glancy called it the Scottish Government patting themselves on the back, and to do that I think pays a disservice to both our current students in higher education, but all those who want to aspire to higher education irrespective of where they come from. I think it's worth the Scottish Government noting its own budget statement in the Equality and Fairer Scotland statement that there is a significant risk that the reduction in the HE resource budget will increase competition for remaining university places, which could disadvantage learners from socio-economically disadvantaged areas with lower prior attainment. That is important because, as a number of speakers have said, in many ways we all want the same thing. The question is how do we take the journey towards that. I welcome this debate because it allows me an opportunity, as Willie Rennie did, to mention the University of West Scotland and their very good outreach work and also Harriet Watt. From within East Lothian to talk about the East Lothian Educational Trust, which provides grants and lump sum payments by way of a scholarship to students who are unable to afford some of the day-to-day requirements to be a student. I also want to talk about the Lothians Equal Access programme for schools, LEAPS, as it's known, which goes back to 1996, when they identified the challenge of young people going through education in certain high schools being at a massive disadvantage of having any of the strategies that they need to get themselves to university. Their widening participation programme encourages and advises students from those underrepresented classes and works with people across the whole of the south-east of Scotland to support their aspirations and to start that work at late primary school and through high school to say that they can achieve that. That is important because young people will only follow success if they see success or identify with it. It is a powerful programme that I would recommend to the Minister simply as a way of something else to see that takes the arguments out of perhaps what we redact them to within this chamber to other areas. The final point that I would like to make actually follows on from Brian Whittle's intervention, because although I may not expect a response, I think that we do need to take cognisance of the comments indeed of Mr McDonald MP of the SNP about the risk of China, about the risk of the economic models when he said, particularly in Scotland, our universities are massively over-dependent on money that comes from the Chinese state. I think that we should heed that warning, not scream and shout, consider it properly, but engage as I know the minister will do in his convening capabilities to sort that. I am grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. Ben Macpherson, to be followed by Ross Greer, is up to four minutes, Mr Macpherson. We are all aware of the difference that fair access to higher education can make in our personal lives and stories. While I have not benefited in terms of free tuition because I did my undergraduate in England and did not receive funding for postgraduate, my parents, in terms of social mobility, would not have been able to give decades to the NHS and small business if it hadn't been for fair access to education and higher education. As an MSP, I think of all the times that constituents have sat in front of me over the last eight years and expressed how important free and fair access to higher education has made to their lives. It is a public good, the ability to learn and not the ability to pay. It has made us a more confident nation in our 25th year of devolution. I also welcome the statistics from the commissioner for fair access that not only show an increase in deprived students entering universities but also that that has not come at the expense of students from more affluent areas, that the balance is being achieved and that social contract is being upheld. That is good progress. How do we build on that? I want to put forward three aspects in the time remaining that the Government is considering that I will be interested in the minister's thoughts on. First of all, tuition fees are not the only consideration when it comes to the affordability of university. The housing crisis here in Edinburgh is real. My constituents are facing it. I would be interested in how the minister is collaborating with housing ministers to seek to make a difference for students that are struggling to find fair and affordable accommodation. I would also want to highlight the fact that the Scottish Government's carers support payment that will replace carers assistance, since that process has begun, will be available to carers in full-time higher education. That is something distinct from the UK benefit, something that I was proud to play a part in and for a small amount of people it will make a real meaningful difference. So there is good work going on but there is more to do when it comes to the wider questions of affordability. The second area that I wanted to raise is regard to the future of the workforce. The current system is good but it is not perfect. This morning the Scottish Government commendably announced a record number of junior doctors taking up posts, but the BMA highlighted that unfortunately many of these professionals, not just in medicine but in other areas, leave Scotland. Increasingly it seems to me unfair that the Scottish state is paying for the workforces of other countries. I wonder if we need to look at a mechanism if, say for example, an individual is away for more than five years, should they pay back half of their fees. I think that we really need to consider this growing issue of challenge and it's important for not just education but the workforce more generally. Finally, also regarding international issues, the questions around the sustainability of higher education have rightly been raised across the chamber. The University of Edinburgh is approximately 70 per cent reliant on foreign fees. Much of that does come from China. China is a great place that I actually talked conversational English in for three months but we don't know what the geopolitical situation ahead may bring and such vulnerability not just in terms of higher education but regarding our economy more widely in terms of its engagement with China does concern me. We have made good progress but let's stay focused on the challenges ahead, be collaborative and be calm, as others have rightly emphasised. I thank the commissioner for his work in the report and to start by celebrating the progress that has been made. There are more students from disadvantaged backgrounds than ever at our universities, both as an absolute number and a share of the overall student population. The targets, the interim targets that have been set up until now have been met and have often been met early. The 16 per cent target has been achieved two years earlier. I'll come on to the challenges in a moment but I think that we should take some time to be proud of that. It's certainly not the case in every comparable nation and a lack of access to higher education hurts everybody. Think of the countless world-class surgeons, engineers and lawyers that have been lost to society that the contribution that they could have been made that has been lost because a whole class of people faces so many additional barriers accessing higher education. So many people have never had their potential realised. Education, including higher education, benefits the individual and our society as a whole and that's a key principle behind the policy of free tuition that the Scottish Greens like others support. One area that I want to give particular credit to both the college and university sectors for is the significant improvements that they have made in the matriculation process over recent years. Colleges don't just exist as a stepping stone to university, they are transformational places in their own right, but they are a key route to university for those who wish to access it. I'm frustrated by the disruption that has been faced by what is now the annual tradition of industrial, nationwide industrial action in that sector and that's something where the cycle needs to be broken for the sake of all students. It's a huge challenge for the minister because there is a need for reform here based on the lessons learned report but I appreciate the challenge for the government not being the employer in this situation. That being said, colleges are public bodies who are ultimately directed by government. I would urge my friends on the union side of those negotiations to reconsider the proposals for an independent chair. I think that we've seen with recent redundancy processes at City of Glasgow College that the unions have certainly articulated to me the benefits they found when they engaged with the regional board, essentially a third party in that dispute that was able to help resolve the dispute. However, there are much bigger changes that are required from university, from college management rather. Many of the problems that college employers Scotland can be traced back to a few, often just one, individual college. There is a need for significant governance reforms there that I believe will have a knock-on effect on widening access given the role that colleges play. There are huge industrial relations challenges in the higher education, the university sector should say as well, but trying to stick to just those where it's relevant to widening access. I want to congratulate the UCU branch at Aberdeen University for saving the 26 lecturing posts in the languages department. Languages is one of the many areas with a huge disparity in access. Returning in the limited time that I've got, there are two colleges. I think that there is a key widening access point that we need to address through the financial challenges facing the universities. There's no value in just making statements about the need to fund them more without explaining where that comes from. I do think that we need to look seriously now at increased private sector funding for our colleges. Not private sector control is really important that these are public bodies and indeed they welcome the additional direction that they've received from government in recent months. But I think it's fair that companies will profit as a result of having a workforce of the right skills should contribute towards their workers gaining those skills. In the absence of a coherent devolved set of powers over a business taxation, this is an effective way to ensure that the private sector is paying its fair share. Many businesses are willing to do so. They are keen to pay for their workers to receive the skills development that they need. I welcome the minister commenting on that when summing up on how we can ensure that we are striking a balance of private sector contributions without colleges simply being seen as a way to produce efficient units of labour. I think that that is key to the widening access debate for universities as well. The lives that are transformed by access to university that simply wouldn't have been the case before we embarked on this process are unquantifiable as is the contribution made to our society as a whole. But I think that we can all be proud of the journey that we've made so far and if we are a bit braver of what we can still achieve in the years to come. I am pleased to follow Ross Greer. Can I begin on a note of consensus with him? I absolutely believe that education and training is transformative in the lives of everyone who embraces it, and that is a fundamental value that I hope we share across this chamber. Can I also remind him that businesses contribute to the cost of their apprentices and others who receive training through whichever avenue that training is delivered? I thought that Ben Macpherson struck the right note when he called on us all to be collaborative. I very much hope that we can have an ideological free zone when we come to talk about education in this Parliament. That we won't have either or scenarios painted in different corners. That we will work together in the spirit of the collaboration that Ben Macpherson recommends and which I support. I feel this afternoon, and I hate to do this because it singles out a colleague. Of course, all my colleagues are my favourites in the famous phrase of Bruce Forsythe, but I'm surprised that the cabinet secretary is quibbling with Bruce Forsythe being mentioned in the chamber. I have to say that Liz Smith gave a masterly speech in this debate. She did do well because she spelt out with great eloquence the argument from this side of the chamber about the need for us to embrace that pragmatism and collaborative approach that is vital for the future of our country and its people. I absolutely restate that we have to get education investment right and we have to give every young people in Scotland the opportunity that is equal to their ambition, talent and work ethic. There should be no descriptor that goes with one avenue, one approach, one post-secondary education route being a high road and one being a low road. In fact, there's a danger that this very debate might actually produce that impression. I know that the minister is nodding, and I think that he agrees with the idea that we should have a disparity-free set of choices for our young people, but that's not happening currently. I think that we all know that. Although I completely endorse and embrace the whole concept of the SCQF, it is vitally important that the level of support that every young person gets along that pathway that they choose is equal and it isn't currently. I will give way. I appreciate Stephen Kerr. Can I offer him assurance that that parity of esteem approach is what will underpin the work that we are doing to reform the career service, for example, so that the message for young people is that there is no lesser path? I give him that assurance. I take that assurance on the basis that it is given in this chamber by this particular minister who I know is sincere and passionate about the issue that is his portfolio. I would have to say to him gently that the SNP, under this SNP Government, young people are not getting an equal opportunity and I think that he knows that. There have been references made in this debate to college funding. Just on maintenance backlog alone, there's over £300 million of work. What does that say in terms of our young people are aspiring to go to college? The parallels between the apprenticeship sector and colleges are striking as well. I see him running out of time and I won't respect the four minutes. There are many things that I want to say. I probably laboured Bruce Forsythe and I shouldn't have. I suggest to the minister that we can change the graduate apprenticeship to be called the degree apprenticeship, because that in itself describes better what the opportunity is for young people. They don't have to be graduates to be on the apprenticeship scheme, but they will get a degree. I think that that is a significant descriptor. With the time that I have, that is one ask of Graham Day that he would give that serious consideration because of the importance of creating the equality of opportunity that we all want for Scotland's young people. I welcome this debate. It is clear that there is a huge amount of work being carried out in some higher education institutions such as the University of West Scotland to widen access to students from non-traditional backgrounds. There is no doubt that there has been a significant widening of access to higher education over recent decades across the UK with large increases in the number of people who are able to attend university. We also have to say clearly that there is also a significant class divide in education with very large numbers of working-class young people attending further education institutions. We hope that many of them will progress into higher education. I think that some of the points that have been made in relation to further education are very relevant to this debate. We have to be honest in terms of the position that we are in. The higher education sector in Scotland is facing significant challenges with higher education providers receiving 23 per cent less funding per student than institutions in England. Higher education funding, having fallen by 19 per cent in real terms per student over the last decade, is set to be cut again this coming year. As I say, the debate is about higher education, but I think that the funding of the further education sector, which we know has been historically underfunded with no parity of esteem or indeed funding, is also a significant issue in this debate. Audit Scotland says that funding for colleges fell by 8.5 per cent in real terms between 2021-22 and 2023-24. As we hear repeatedly, the further education sector in Scotland is in crisis and indeed industrial relations are very poor. As has already been said, the maintenance backlog is £321 million. Those cuts to both further and higher education take place, while the attainment gap between primary school pupils from the most and least deprived areas of Scotland remain stubbornly high, with a gap of 20.5 per cent in relation to literacy and 17 per cent in relation to numeracy. I believe that we have to consider that when we are looking at the issues of widening access. The commission on widening access, as we know originally reported in 2016, on steps to achieve equality and access to university between Scotland's most and least deprived backgrounds, and the most recent target of 16 per cent was achieved. However, there is concern that progress towards the next target of 18 per cent by 2026 has stalled. Last year, I understand that the share of entrance from the most deprived quintile fell from 16.7 per cent to 16.5 per cent, a small reduction but in the wrong direction. As the minister has said, however, the current commissioner for fair access has said that there is no evidence that the fair access agenda has prevented young people from affluent areas going to university, suggesting that access was only a problem in certain particular courses. That is an important point that needs to be made in this chamber, given the attacks on that policy. As I said, the finance secretary recently confirmed that at least 1,200 funded university places were to be cut. I think that it is quite appropriate in this debate that we think about what all of these wider issues are going to impact in terms of the number of young people from non-traditional backgrounds that are going into our education system. I am pleased that there is a cross-party consensus in this chamber that that is something that we wish to deliver. Rona Mackay, to be followed by Jackie Dunbar up to four minutes. I am delighted that the recent report by the commissioner on fair access highlights a 45 per cent increase in students from the most deprived communities entering universities from 2013 to 2014. That is so welcome, and it highlights the fact that the SNP and the Greens are the only parties that can be trusted not to put a price on education. Access to university should always be based on the ability to learn and not the ability to pay. In our newly published paper in the Building a New Scotland series, we include a proposal to enshrine the Government's policy on free tuition in Scotland's permanent constitution in an independent Scotland. The paper also sets out how new powers could be used to make the conditions and foundations for learning even stronger so that every young person has the best chance possible of succeeding at school and in post-school education. We should all have the opportunity to continue learning throughout our lives. We know that poverty contributes to the lack of attainment and in an independent Scotland we could tackle poverty and other inequalities with full powers over employment and social security. When I sat on the children's panel in the east end of Glasgow 15 years ago, a social worker told me that their measure of attainment was actually getting a child from a severely deprived area to go to school every day. Poverty is cruel, divisive and disempowering. With independence we could ensure that children's rights are upheld, protected and respected with the full incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law. The facts speak for themselves. Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have repeatedly broken their promises on tuition fees. Those fees are spiralling. They tripled to 9,000 a year by the Lib Dem Conservative Coalition in 2016 and have been raised again to 9,250 per year. Personally, I am lucky that my children, nieces and nephews have all had the chance to go to university. The eye-watering sum that my family would have had to pay had we not lived in Scotland under an SNP Government, honestly doesn't bear thinking about. We have world-renowned universities and excellent colleges in Scotland and despite what some would have us believe outstanding schools and teachers up and down the country. I visited two of them, Lensie Academy and St Nenis in Kirkntillach, over the last few days, to present them with awards. As ever, I was amazed at the ethos and achievement of our teachers and pupils. Pupils who came from every background and each one of them equally deserving of going on to higher education. Scottish Labour's hypocrisy and supporting students is pretty staggering. They claim to remain committed to supporting free tuition but refuse to hold gearstammer to account yet again for his slip-flopping on the matter. I do hope that Pam Duncan-Glancy will stay true to her commitment that she made in her contribution. It is getting harder to distinguish between Scottish Labour and the Scottish Conservatives when it comes to education policy, be it graduate endowment fees or new formulas. Interestingly, the sixth annual report of the commissioner for fair access also shows that the increase in deprived student centering universities has not come at the expense of students from more affluent areas. The SNP is committed to ensuring that a wide range of support opportunities are available for students from all backgrounds as they pursue their educational careers in Scotland. I am very proud that unaccompanied children who are asylum seekers as well as the children of asylum seekers are entitled to free tuition in Scotland. All of Scotland's young people should have the same opportunities to progress in life. High-quality learning and teaching is crucial to help to disrupt the impact of poverty in our education system, and I know that we will all agree on that in the chamber. Only the SNP can give a clear commitment on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. Long before Aberdeen established itself as an energy capital, it was known as a seat of learning. The city that I represent is home to one of Scotland's four ancient universities, the University of Aberdeen. It has been home to a university for over 500 years. For most of that time it has actually been home to two. Today we have the University of Aberdeen and the Robert Gordon University, and for about a quarter of a millennium we also had King's College and Marshall College until they merged in 1860. In fact, for a time Aberdeen had as many universities as all of England had put together. So academia has always been important to the city that I represent. In my constituency of Aberdeen Donside lies some of the most deprived communities in Scotland, and access to university can make a world of difference to young folk growing up there. The community that I live in is one of those less well-off places, where a lot of the bairns would often get asked what they wanted to do after school. I have heard the question worded differently in better off areas and in private school. There it is what are you going to study at university or such like, all carrying the expectation of going to university. For those in the poorer areas there needed to be encouragement and support, because far too many saw that university just wasn't for them. I remember when up-front tuition fees were introduced in Scotland and when they were later replaced with backdoor tuition fees. They put up a barrier to education that left many from less affluent backgrounds questioning whether a university education was worth the cost. It meant that young folk were making decisions about going to university based on their ability to pay rather than their ability to learn. I am proud that the SNP Government abolished backdoor tuition fees and that it is committed to keeping universities free. At the time, the commitment was attacked as a handout to well-off households, but with a 45 per cent increase in students from the most deprived communities entering university compared to 10 years ago, I think that it has been an investment in building a more equal fairer Scotland. As I mentioned at the start, academia helped Aberdeen to establish itself on the world stage, so let me just focus on how UK Government policies are starting to cut those universities off from the world and how that hinders their ability to close the attainment gap. I know that the number of students from across the EU coming to Aberdeen has fallen quite dramatically since Brexit. That was offset somewhat for a time by students coming from the rest of the world, but immigration policy has changed again to stop folk bringing their dependence, and many students are choosing not to study here rather than be separated from their support networks or from their children. The overall message is horrible that the UK, including Scotland, and Scotland's university is closed to the world. The resulting fall in student numbers means that the courses are seizing to be viable, and we are starting to see some, such as the modern languages at Aberdeen University, no longer being offered as standalone degrees. That means that less choices and fewer chances for young folk in some of our most deprived communities, including those that I represent. It is not stopping the boat, it is stopping young folk from succeeding in life, so let us commit to keeping Scotland tuition fee free. Let us reopen our universities to the world again, and let us ensure that those universities are a gateway to the world for the young folk growing up in some of Scotland's poorest communities. I am glad that we have had the time this afternoon to reflect on the success of the sector and to thank the commissioner for his work, as my colleagues will or any others have pointed out, but also to look at the challenges that lie ahead. I went to university in the year 2000. I went to university because I had a council that had a budget to support me to get there. I had a Government that was bringing in the education part of the Disability Discrimination Act, which looked to widen opportunity to higher education. I had institutions that were fully supported to make it happen. I will never forget the opportunity that education and widening access brought me and my family—I was the first person from my family—to go to higher education. I will never forget that, which is why it saddens me so much to see the serious concerns that are raised across this chamber about what is happening in further and higher education today. The Government does not really take cognisance of that. Yes, the gains that we have made, many of which I have talked about in my open speech, are a testament to our institutions, and I want to say that again. We have embraced their duty to open up education and tear down barriers that historically allowed background and not ambition to determine them. As Ross Greer noted, I highlighted in my earlier contribution increased articulation from college to university, and I am pleased that the minister commented positively on parity of esteem in that regard. My colleague Bill Kidd noted a great example of widening access, the N2 university programme in Govan and Mary Hill in my region of Glasgow, a project that he cares passionately about. It was also good to hear the breadth of the debate today include schools, because they are crucial, as Liz Smith, Rona Mackay and Katie Clark and others have all mentioned. I agree, which is why the proposal of Glasgow City Council to cut 450 teachers and the MCR mentoring scheme cuts to education are of a huge concern to me. They have come as a bitter blow to pupils, staff and volunteers. I have been inundated with complaints from parents, pupils, teachers and mentors alike. I know that the cabinet secretary cares about this, so I will give way. John Mason. I thank the member for giving way. Would she accept that there are not cuts as yet to the MCR pathways, but it is a review that is going on? Pam Duncan-Glancy. I thank the member for that intervention, but that is not how it has been characterised by the volunteers who know that they are unlikely to be supported. I am also quite concerned that the member made reference to the fact that teachers were a luxury in Glasgow, which is something that I would completely disassociate myself with. I would urge the member to reconsider that. I know that the cabinet secretary cares about this. When parents and carers say that the constant passing of the buck does not give parents and carers comfort while their children suffer, they continue, they want you to do your job, and if it is not your decision, they ask that you are part of the solution. I hope that the cabinet secretary will respond by taking action to step in and save those services, because that is exactly the sort of support and services in schools that we need to be able to widen access. While schools, universities, staff and students have worked tirelessly on their commitment to widening access, this Government has become complacent, disregarded warnings and now put in jeopardy progress. I am afraid that I have not heard much to allay those fears today, with UCAS data showing the fewer people from disadvantaged backgrounds at applications accepted in 2023 than in 2022. Ten years of successive real-terms cuts have taken a toll on the sector. Student support is more important than ever, but universities and colleges are scrambling to provide that because they do not have the resource to meet the demand. The risk has been further exacerbated, of course, by cuts to cost of living support for the poorest students. I can remember a time when the Government, this particular Government, said that they would dump debt, it's doubled. Support, of course, has declined, as I said in my earlier intervention, by 16 per cent over the last decade. I appreciate Pam Duncan-Glancy treating the intervention, but, once again, as in her opening, we have a long list of demands from Labour and no indication of how they would meet the costs associated with those demands. Pam Duncan-Glancy. I thank the Minister for that intervention, but I set out our plans in my earlier contribution. I also suggest that we would grow the economy in a way that the Government has failed to do over the 17 years that they have been in power. I also remind the SNP that, without change to this approach, there is a real risk that the hard work put into expanding opportunities through widening access will be undermined. As members including Katie Clark, Stephen Kerr, Michelle Thomson and others have noted, this must include colleges. We need a new approach that enables the entire sector not just to survive but to thrive and expand. Members across the chamber have made suggestions—interesting ones, including, as always, from Ben Macpherson. Scottish Labour introduced free tuition. We are proud of that, but it saddens me to watch that principle of education based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay, eroded. Underfunding from this SNP Government has meant less places for students, threats to the quality of education, for those who do get places, and received an assistance that is struggling to offer the support and resource that young people need to thrive in their academic journey. That is not something that we can accept. In closing, the Government must now set out its plan to meet its commitment for the 2023 programme for government to lead the development of a post-16 education funding model. The education sector and the Scottish public deserve a world-class tertiary education system, and they need their Government to step up to the challenge and set out their plans to do that. If they accept that challenge, we will support them on the way. I am pleased to be able to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives this afternoon on widening access to higher education. I also appreciate the tone of the debate. I want to begin my contribution by highlighting an important point that was made by my colleague Liz Smith MSP in what I thought was a characteristically thorough speech. The principle of widening access to higher education is something to which we rightly are all committed to across the chamber. It enhances social mobility, promotes better job prospects and is a crucial factor in reducing poverty. However, the Scottish Government's insistence on meeting arbitrary targets such as SIMD measurement, which I will come into later and I know was commented on, is simply failing our young people. The uncomfortable fact for the Cabinet Secretary and Minister is that even on the Government's own targets they are failing. Professor MacKendrick, the man tasked with championing an increase in university students from Scotland's most deprived areas says that things really have to change. Progress towards widening access stalled, progress towards interim targets stalled, all from the report that we are debating this afternoon. All evidence that, despite some progress, the Scottish Government is not doing enough to widen access to university at all levels, including the most deprived students. Again, I agree with my colleague Liz Smith that raising attainment across secondary education is instrumental in getting things back on track. The report also highlights the lack of support on our further education sector, which is the springboard for some students to go on to attain a higher education institution. Continued cuts to college places and funding by the SNP Government over the last 17 years are having an impact on the ability of the sector to enable students to reach university. It is no surprise that four of Scotland's colleges are facing significant cash flow issues. Appearing before the Scottish Parliament's Public Audit Committee, Scottish Funding Council chief executive Karen Watt spoke of the deteriorating financial situation that colleges are faced with, as well as the perfect storm of inconsistent funding and rising costs. The sad fact is that the SNP funding model has starved universities and colleges of resources, forcing them to rely far too heavily on international students. It is imperative that we recognise the cap on Scottish students, which means that many intelligent, hardworking, diligent young people will be denied access to higher education. I would like to make a couple of comments on some of the contributions of which I think a lot of them were excellent, but I have only got time for a couple. The minister himself welcomed the contribution, especially the warm words on further education and higher education for care-experienced young people. Unfortunately, numbers that are attending are reducing. I will highlight that a little later on. I am pleased to hear from the minister and Willie Rennie that we are looking at other measures, rather than SIMD, which I commented on, for ensuring access to further education. Ben Macpherson, Brian Whittle and Martin Whitefield all mentioned the reliance on China, and I think that that should be understood and recognised. Both Willie Rennie and Katie Clark had contributions regarding two-year nursery places and primary. I am grateful to the member for the intervention. The previous point of apologies has waited a few seconds to all of them. I am just wondering whether she would agree with me that the issues around China and Scottish universities are not just financial. It is also about freedom of academic expression and the concerns that have been raised by Scotland's Hong Konger community, in particular, who have felt as students who have come to Scotland that they have then been observed and surveilled by the Chinese state, even while they are here in cities like Edinburgh. I can't disagree with that. Back to nursery places and primary school education, it is important that we see that there is a foundation in our early years, because we reap that reward in further education. I would again highlight the need for joined-up thinking on early years childcare. We could use private nurseries to provide an on-site childcare provision on campuses, which would equally add to helping to wide access, especially for parents. I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague Liam Kerr, who has rightly raised the SNP's cap on student places, which is having an effect of restricting access to Scottish universities for some of our brightest students. I'm not sure that I'm the only MSP that's had emails from frustrated school leavers at different pinch points throughout the scholastic year, highlighting the inequality of the process. It cannot be right if we're serious about widening access to higher education for all our students. We arbitrary limit the ability of our brightest and best to attend university here at home in Scotland, keeping homegrown talent, allowing learners to progress through our brilliant colleges and universities, on to finding fulfilling and prosperous careers in a growing Scottish economy that should certainly not be hindered right out the gate of school. Presiding Officer, that brings me on to the Scottish Government's insistence of SIMD, and I note the points that were made by the minister that they are looking at different measures. I think it's important to realise that the SIMD is already controversial when it comes to higher education sector, with the argument running that area measures are too detached from individual circumstances and in particular are not good at picking up deprived deprivation in rural areas. I have a lot of sympathy with this point and I've raised it with the minister for higher education in the past. It cannot be right that students with equivalent grades, comparable extracurricular activities, attending the same school, coping with the same disadvantages, but due to living only a few streets apart, find themselves faced with such polarising outcomes as to one being accepted and the other being rejected. Surely a more person-centred measure for widening access would be appropriate, such as free school meals that's already been highlighted, and that's what University Scotland suggests. I think that would be a better approach. The final point before I conclude. The report highlights, and I quote, the relative share of care experience entrances from SIMD-20 areas fell between 2020-21 and 21-22 down from 32 per cent to 26.5 per cent, a third to a quarter. More must be done, Presiding Officer, as stalling and falling rates are simply not acceptable. In conclusion, although I accept that steps have been made and they should be recognised, it's full-hardy to ignore warning signs. If we're not going to have a grown-up cross-party debate on the financial limitations that currently exist without petty-polluting, then it's not only our brilliant further education and higher education institutions that will suffer its Scotland's children. I thank colleagues from across the chamber for their contribution and some of the points raised. I will, for example, consider Stephen Kerr's suggestion on the renaming graduate apprenticeship in the spirit it was offered, although I admit to being thrown by his very reasonable tone this afternoon. Can I reiterate that, if other members have thoughts, I'm very happy to discuss positive constructive suggestions, no matter where they come from. As University of Scotland called for in its debate briefing, a united and renewed energy from all parties in support of this goal would be helpful at this point in the journey. I think that we have notwithstanding some of the differences that have been heard this afternoon, met that ask and restated our collective commitment to the widening access agenda. The tone of debate has been a constructive one. A number of members raised issues in the course of the afternoon that I'm afraid time is not going to allow me to respond to. However, Liam Kerr raised the issue of when confirmation of the apprenticeship budget will come imminently is the answer. However, I do have to note an inaccuracy in his contribution and he wasn't the only one. I just want to pick up on these points. Liam Kerr, who I have an honest respect for, claimed that Scottish students going into English providers, the numbers are increasing. According to UCAS data, and I know he likes to interrogate data, the number of such individuals is at its lowest since 2006. I highly respected member who made an excellent contribution was Smith. I disagree with what she said but it was an excellent contribution. She asserted, and this was echoed by Ross McCall, that Scots are missing out on places at universities because of this agenda. However, the commissioner was clear that that was not the case. Indeed, there were unfilled places this year. Liz Smith. I thank the minister for giving way. His colleague Fergus Ewing made an important point in a contribution in a debate just a couple of weeks ago about the possibility of a bond for medical graduates in order to try to retain them in Scotland. Has the minister given any consideration to that, because that is part of the funding structure that can be of considerable help, I would have thought, to ensuring that we retain more of our graduates? Minister. I appreciate what Smith's point is. I say gently to her that that sits with health colleagues who are responsible in that area rather than education, but I am happy to take that way and discuss that with him. On the issue of inaccurate assertions, Pam Duncan-Glancy committed Labour to maintaining free tuition in Scotland, that is Michael Marra tilt, but on a point of accuracy, I gently have to point out that contrary to what she implied, when Labour were lasting power, it did have tuition fees, backdoor tuition fees and she cannot rewrite history. As I have made clear throughout the debate, there is more to do. The hardest part of the journey is the one immediately in front of us. That places an expectation on institutions to continue to work with the Government, the SFC and others at pace to make further progress. I can assure our institutions that they have a willing partner in this work. I am absolutely committed to working with them. I have a useful meeting with the commissioner last week to explore the recommendations that he has made. It is fair to say that the measures that we have deployed so far, while clearly successful, will require to be supplemented by additional steps in order to ensure that we complete our important task here. Things have undoubtedly changed since we set out on this journey. I said to Willie Rennie, for example, that we have had a global pandemic that has left a legacy of lost learning. We are in the midst of a cost of living crisis. We need to consider what else we might do in order to reach the targets that have been set. In addition, we need to recognise that many young people who do not live within an SMID20 postcode will also face barriers to access in higher education. It is important that we identify and support them. That is why we are already considering additional widening access measures to work alongside SIMD, including free school meals. There are challenges around data sharing, for example. Data on free school meals is collected and shared in a different way elsewhere in the UK using a different legal framework. We need to look at ways in which we can deliver on that for Scotland while ensuring that we comply with UK data protection legislation. However, as I have said, my officials are working through these challenges with a can-do attitude and are looking to find a solution. I am very happy to keep any interested members updated on the work. There is an absolute requirement here to explore what can be done in the immediate term. We therefore need to be open to considering any and all viable approaches that are suggested to us. A recent meeting that I attended on that topic, the idea of utilising the school clothing grant data, for example, was advanced. How did grant is applied vary between local authorities? It might be an approach worthy of exploring, except that we still have the data sharing hurdle to overcome. As I have said, our task officials have been open to any such suggestions and working on all of these at pace. As I mentioned earlier, we are committed to making use of the unique regional data sharing agreement in the north-east of Scotland, which local authorities, colleges and universities have in place and which enables them to share data with the partners of that agreement. That will allow us to pilot the use of free school meals in that region and we hope to use the learning from the pilot to inform a Scotland-wiser approach. I want to remind members of the progress that has been made and to credit the efforts of universities and, indeed, our colleges in that. Action taken by Scotland's universities in support of those with care experience has had a pronounced impact, as demonstrated by the number of entrants in that category, rising from 485 in 2021 to 545 in 2021. Within an increase in students progressing from college through articulation over the same period, almost 24 per cent were from the SIMD-20 areas. Just two further examples of the progress that has been made and which are indicative of so much positive work happening across the higher education sector. I was accused earlier of the Government pattern itself on the back, far from it. We are giving the credit where it belongs to the colleges and universities in that. Let me further acknowledge the role of colleges in delivering higher education. If you include Scottish colleges in 20.3 per cent of all full-time undergraduate entrants, we are in 21, 22 per cent from the 20 per cent most deprived areas. Again, that is testament to the work carried out by those institutions. Once again, let me put on record my thanks and the thanks of the Government to their efforts thus far, but there is more to do and we are committed to doing it. That will require action from Government, institutions and others. Opposition members in the debate today have referred to the number of university places in the system and referred to the temporary Covid places now leaving the system as planned. As I said earlier, I say gently that that highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation and of the sector. I am keen to work with universities to ensure that we are delivering what we can to encourage young people, but particularly those from a widening access back ring, to apply for the spare places in the system that are referred to earlier and indeed to ensure that if they choose to apply that they are able to meet the requirements. That is one of the opportunities that we can explore in order to make further progress and complete our journey. I come back to the issue that I raised in opening, something that I consider to be central fundamental policy in the widening access agenda, and that is protecting the right to free tuition. Since this Government abolished Labour's back door tuition fees, we have seen the number of Scottish internates to universities increased by 31 per cent and record numbers of students from our poorest communities. The impact of the policy is indisputable. It is one of this Parliament's crowning achievements that shows the benefits of making decisions in Scotland for Scotland. That is why it is so concerning to hear front-benchers from both Westminster parties suggesting going back to the dark days of fees, whether up front or by the back door. I acknowledge Pam Duncan-Glans's clarification. Let me be clear, under this Government there will never be tuition fees imposed on students in Scotland. Education will be based on the ability to learn and not the ability to pay. Yesterday, my colleague the Cabinet Secretary announced that we can go further and enshrine the right to free university education in the constitution of an independent Scotland. That is just one of the many opportunities around independence. It is no wonder that so many young people in Scotland support taking that step and making all the decisions in Scotland. That concludes the debate on widening access. You will be aware that I wrote to you earlier about an exchange that I had with Stephen Kerr in his chamber earlier this afternoon. Can I first of all say that the constant barking of mainly female colleagues by Mr Kerr in his chamber is intolerable and people are frankly fed up with it? After another episode of barking of another female colleague earlier, right after a point of order Maggie Chapman had made about Mr Kerr's same behaviour, I did say to Mr Kerr that his behaviour and arrogance would lead to him having a very high fall at some point. Obviously, that was meant metaphorically and politically, not literally, but for the avoidance of doubt, let me be very clear to Mr Kerr about that point. The truth is that Mr Kerr is complaining about my comment and behaviour rather than reflecting on his own in an attempt to deflect from the numerous and growing complaints about his conduct in this place. We all have a duty to treat each other with courtesy and respect and reflect on our own behaviour and I will obviously do that, but I do hope that Mr Kerr's conduct will be tackled as it cannot be allowed to continue as it is at present. I thank Ms Robison for her point of order. There were several points of order made earlier today, which I addressed at the time. I think that it is absolutely imperative that each and every one of us in this chamber adheres to our duty under the code of conduct and at all times carry out our business with courtesy and respect. I am aware constantly of conversations that carry on across the aisles, that carry on even when business has not been suspended but is changing from item to item. Those are not opportunities to have a disagreeable conversation with a colleague. They are not an opportunity to debate a matter, particularly when we do so in a way that can be less than courtesy and respectful. I would urge all members to reflect on their duty as elected representatives in particular to our requirements to carry out our business in a way that we are wholly proud of. I seek your guidance. One of my colleagues, which has been mentioned already, Stephen Kerr, was today threatened by the Deputy First Minister who said that he would, and I quote, fall from a very high place. This was captured on the audio and is on public record, and my colleague raised it at the time. This comment is clearly unacceptable for any member to say to another member, especially when we were striving for respectful dialogue in the chamber. It is disturbing, Presiding Officer, that this came from a senior member of the Government, the Deputy First Minister no less, which makes it all the more alarming. Rule 7.3.1 of the Standing Orders states that members shall at all times conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner. I, for one, am concerned that the Cabinet Secretary has used her position to make such statements to a member in this chamber. Presiding Officer, I'd be grateful if you could clarify two questions. Firstly, what recourse does the member have to elicit an apology from the Deputy First Minister for this threatening conduct? Secondly, should we not hold ourselves to higher account than ordinary citizens? Because isn't it the case that if a member of the public said this to a member of the Parliament, it would be viewed as a security issue and invested by Police Scotland? I think that it's probably fair to say that the rule relating to courtesy and respect is the one that I most frequently have to urge members to adhere to from this chair, and at this point in the session that simply should not be the case. We've had a discussion of an incident that took place earlier on today. As I said, I addressed the matter at the time, reflecting on what I had heard and seen in the chamber. I'm absolutely determined that we should have no future such instances and that all members come in here and are able to focus fully on their duty as representatives of the people of Scotland. We will now move on to the next item of business. We have concluded the debate on widening access, equality of access to higher education. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that motion 12639, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, on gender representation on public boards amendment Scotland Bill at stage 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 12642.1, in the name of Liam Kerr, which seeks to amend motion 12642, in the name of Graham Day, on widening access, equality of access to higher education be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore, we will move to vote. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system. Can I ask those members who voted earlier today to please refresh their screens?