Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not entirely accept that description. A number of things were done on the back of the review. For example, there is currently a pilot online application service for students to apply for disabled students allowance, which is on track to be rolled out this year. Some work has been done on updating the student portal. However, I accept that there have been issues. I hope that those who might be viewing that element of the consultation with a degree of cynicism recognise that I would not commit to it if I were not serious about delivering on it. I am keen that we engage properly on this.

There are a number of areas. We have done well with care-experienced students, but we can perhaps do better. You and I have previously discussed apprenticeships, Ms Duncan-Glancy. I am not convinced that we are doing enough in that space. It is my commitment, in the year that I have remaining in the Parliament, to do as much as I can to identify what more might be required. That should be informed by the lived experience of those who have gone through the system or are attempting to navigate the system.

We are always looking at what works elsewhere. I know that my officials have been talking to their counterparts in the UK, Wales and Northern Ireland Governments, but the set-ups are not comparable. A fundamental change would be required, perhaps through primary legislation, in order to enable us to do that, which is the frustration here.

The reality is that I am trying to exhaust all the options to see whether we can do this. In reality, given the time that is left in this parliamentary session, it is pretty unlikely that primary legislation could be passed before the conclusion of the session, so it might fall to the next one. However, we hope that we could get in such a measure before that, because of the 2026 target and the 2030 target.

My reference to resources was more in the context of comments that were made at last week’s meeting. Others talked about the resource that would be involved.

There is a resource point but, if it reassures you to hear that resource is not a barrier to introducing the measure, I would just say to you that I do not think that we have costed what this would cost us. That has not been foremost in our thinking; foremost in our thinking has been how we could introduce it, because we see the benefits of it.

My understanding is that the review is just getting started. We are providing some analytical resource to support that. We are talking about a matter of a few months, because we will have to come to conclusions. I do not have specific timescales right now, but it is a matter of urgency, for obvious reasons.

It is more than that. For example, we are all aware of the issue of getting young women into careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The University of Edinburgh sends its STEM undergraduates into primary and secondary schools around Edinburgh and the Lothians to actively engage with young women in those schools to encourage them down that path. That is the type of activity that I am talking about, and it is not always publicly recognised. Our universities do fantastic work in this space, and we should be ready to acknowledge that.

I take that point, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. When the Parliament launched the approach, no one envisaged a pandemic or a cost of living crisis or that SIMD20 on its own would not get us there. You learn from the experience as you go through. I thought that there might have been a bit of resistance to the commissioner’s suggestion, but it appears that there is not. That is indicative of the commitment on the part of our institutions to deliver on this.

We have to be very careful about the role of ministers in that regard. There has to be a separation between ministers, the SFC and institutions, not least because of the institutions’ Office for National Statistics classification. Ministers will not be directly involved in directing the SFC as to how to allocate moneys and on what basis. That said, the cabinet secretary was clear that the moneys were available for the SFC to utilise in the space of supporting institutions with sustainability issues, including the University of Dundee, which is, without doubt, the most pressing example of an institution that has challenges. The SFC is currently engaging with it on the form and scale of support that will be provided. The SFC will also determine any conditions that are attached to that support. There is a daily dialogue between the SFC and the University of Dundee.

It is a matter for the SFC. I understand the point that you make, but I refer you back to the point that I made at the outset about the relationship between ministers and individual institutions, and ONS classification. It is a matter for the SFC to determine how it spends those moneys. The University of Dundee is self-evidently in a different place from where a number of other institutions are in terms of the challenges that it faces. Ultimately, the SFC will make that determination.

What the recovery plan will do is shed light on the scale of the challenge that the university faces. It will, I anticipate, also identify how the university intends to get itself out of that situation. The SFC is in contact with my officials every couple of days, and there will be conversations at the point at which they identify what that looks like.