Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am conscious that, at the start of the evidence session, there were a lot of positive comments. For example, you said that the target is very ambitious and that we exceeded it early on but then there was a bit of slippage. However, there is substantial confidence that you are back on track, and the early indications are that things are looking good.

Inevitably, and not unreasonably, the committee has focused on some of the challenges and issues. It is important to learn from success, but we often just rush past that in Scotland. However, if you do not understand how you have been successful, you are missing valuable information. Has any work been done to identify how you have managed to succeed to the extent that you have so far?

First, as one of its graduates, I should say that the University of Dundee—along with the University of Stirling, which I represent—is the best university in Scotland.

Secondly, there is a real tension here between, on the one hand, autonomy, and on the other hand, the responsibility of the taxpayer to bail out universities that find themselves in difficulty. From what you are saying, minister, I take it that you are edging towards the idea that there might be a need, through the SFC, to move a bit towards safeguarding the taxpayer’s interest in relation to that tension. The matter is not helped by the fact that many politicians and a number of the institutions themselves blur the lines—they will assert their autonomy but, at the same time, expect the taxpayer to bail them out.

I am not saying that this is the case in relation to the University of Dundee or any other university, but it cannot be the case that the taxpayer must always be hit if finances at a university are badly managed. When you talked about governance and the SFC, were you hinting at a greater protection of the taxpayer in all of that?

I am not questioning that. I perfectly understand the greater economic benefit that an institution such as the University of Dundee—I am not focusing particularly on it—can have and why you would want to see those universities and institutions protected. My point is about balancing the interests of the taxpayer with the perceived real autonomy of institutions. It is a very difficult balance to strike. In what you said about the SFC perhaps taking a greater role in relation to governance, were you recognising that tension?

I confess that, when I bumped into Mr Dey outside the chamber yesterday, I asked him the question.

Apart from large tracts in rural areas where there are SIMD20 pockets, we also miss semi-rural areas—such as Alloa, in my constituency—which have levels of deprivation that exceed those in many parts of Glasgow, but do not have the same opportunities.

Minister, in relation to data collection, you said at the start that you want to do it and that you want to work out whether we can do it, how we can do it and how much it will cost, which seems to be a perfectly logical way to go about things. It strikes me that, in all the evidence that we have heard today and last week, nobody has talked about data collection issues. Everyone has been keen to rush past the issues that might exist, but it is worth mentioning that we are talking about people’s right to have their individual data protected.

That said, John Mason’s earlier point is very strong. There was a time, perhaps two years ago, when increasingly it was becoming recognised that GDPR had gone as far as to prevent UK public bodies from doing things that they wanted to do—in particular, in comparison with bodies in other European countries.

It is hard to judge from what you have said, because we do not have specific examples of the current hurdles, as you see them. It would be good to get an answer to John Mason’s question whether the Government has a view on how data protection and GDPR could be refined in order to make them more effective. Are you able to give any examples of issues that have turned up so far and have proved to be problematic?

So, the pressures are not particular to Scotland?

In trying to understand how you might have succeeded, you will want to know whether you have done so by design—that is, that the outcome was intended. I am the least experienced of the committee members in this area, so I could be completely wrong, but my general impression is that one reason that led to some of the success is the financial incentive for further and higher education institutions to look and compete for students. Therefore, rather than being by design, because universities and colleges really need to get in students in order to get funding, they make themselves much more open to students.

Is there anything that you can say about that?

For many years, I have advocated that, when somebody joins the armed forces, they should immediately put their name down for housing for when they leave the armed forces, as they are entitled to do. As the minister said, there should be an obligation on the armed forces to look after people, and it could be useful to have a wee discussion at the start of somebody’s armed forces career about what they might want to do in relation to further and higher education. Perhaps the UK Government could respond to that point.

Thank you for answering my question.