Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I understand the point about data that is already held, but my objection regarding how we share it remains. Let us be honest—private companies seem to be able to overcome such obstacles, sometimes scrupulously and sometimes not.

There seems to be a consensus that the target should be renewed and refined. If we still remain, after having done that, with a blanket target of 18 or 20 per cent, whatever its basis, is not there a risk that we could achieve or exceed the target but still have pockets—as we heard last week, the situation is very uneven across the country—where people who would really benefit from widened access do not, which the blanket target would obscure?

Implicit in that, is the idea simply that moving to the free school meals measure would not necessarily give you enough refinement?

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.

Thank you. It is encouraging to hear that you are as fun and optimistic as the people of Scotland. We take a lot of comfort from that.

I move on to the situation of Ukrainian refugees in Scotland. I hosted a Ukrainian family for a number of months, and they all—apart from the dog—took English classes as well as Scots classes. The mother asked me the meaning of the words “Nae bother”, which was interesting. It is a Scottish colloquialism. The mother, father and one of the sons have managed to get jobs, while the other son is still at school, and they have found a house for themselves in Argyll.

My question is about the extension. I understand that Ukraine will want people to return to help to rebuild, but there will be people who will want to stay here. That family in particular—I will not mention their names, apart from the dog’s, which is Uji—includes children who have been going through the state education system here for two years, and they might want to think about a future in Scotland.

As you said, it is hard for people to make decisions if they do not know what their future is beyond the next six months, 12 months or a year. From Scotland’s point of view, many of those people bring important skills. Are you picking up on the same worry or anxiety because people cannot look further into the future to make plans in Scotland? The family that I hosted comes from Mykolaiv and their house was destroyed. They are keen to make longer-term plans, whatever going back to Ukraine might hold for the children. Are you still picking up some anxiety about the 18-month extension? I understand that applications have to be made in the final two weeks before the deadline, which seems absurd to me. I am interested in hearing your views on that.