Seòmar agus comataidhean

Edward Mountain raised an interesting point, because there is also a discussion around how we define “illness” in the first place, as well as “short-term illness”. The Parliamentary Bureau makes a reasonable point in relation to proxy voting not being brought in for a day here or there, but as a planned approach to supporting members to exercise their democratic vote by using a colleague as a proxy in the Parliament. With a pre-planned or predicted absence, it is reasonable to assume that a person might not necessarily be absent for four weeks or so, and it seems perfectly reasonable for a proxy to be put in place. The idea of having a proxy for months is too unwieldy.

We also need to think about fluctuating health conditions that mean that, due to illness, someone is unlikely to be able to effectively perform all their parliamentary duties. However, people have good days and bad days, so I think that, when someone agrees a proxy, they should be able to take back ownership of their vote from time to time, when they feel that they can. There might be a particular debate that they have a specific interest in and for which want to make every effort to be there, whether remotely or otherwise, and cast their vote.

I think that proxies have to be a two-way process, where a member is not just giving up their vote for a set period of time. There should be a mix. Of course, how we codify that is the challenge, convener, but I think that a member who has been given a proxy for a period of months should be able to cast their vote in a specific debate if it is particularly important to them and they feel able to do so.

That is a fair point.

This will sound a bit counterintuitive. There are some good stories to tell about widening access, which could, of course, be under threat because of the cost of living crisis and the financial constraints. However, I will put a couple of those on the record.

We are ahead of our target of getting 20 per cent of those in higher education to be from the most deprived areas, as measured by the Scottish index of multiple deprivation. The interim target of 16 per cent was exceeded ahead of time. I know that we are talking about universities, but I think that colleges were the biggest contributors to that. Some 40.9 per cent of the progress came through the college pathway. Record numbers of young people from the most deprived backgrounds are at university.

Without putting words in your mouth, are those young people under more financial pressure than students more generally? I see that the minimum income guarantee for the most deprived students is £8,100 a year, but there will be other students out there who do not get those guarantees. Do you have any comments on how universities are taking steps to improve widening access to education, despite the current financial climate? What are the dangers to ensuring that that is sustainable and that we build on that progress?

I will come on to funding, but I am interested in Karen Watt’s reflections on that success story and how that important support is offered through the learning journey. Her comments on that would be welcome.

What monitoring might take place through the course? I am sure that, in four years’ time, our successor committee will want to know what percentage of those young people from SIMD20 entering university this year successfully graduated in comparison with average graduation levels. We will want to look at that to see whether there has been actual success.

Colleges talk about the infrastructure costs of doing a lot of community work to bring those least likely to ever set foot in any further or higher education setting into that setting. They bear a significant cost to get people into the system in the first place. When you look at the additional wider infrastructure costs that universities sometimes have, do you also look at the same costs for community work that colleges have?

Mary Senior, it would be helpful if you said whether you are aware of anything that universities do to target young people from the most deprived areas to support them through their education path. There are really good statistics, but Ellie Gomersall is absolutely right that the initial outcome is getting them into university. Overall, what we are looking for is a successful first degree.

I absolutely get that.

Since 2019, there has been a 32 per increase in the number of 18-year-olds from the most deprived backgrounds who have been offered a university place. That is a staggering figure—although not all those places will have been accepted, of course. That is a large cohort of young people, a lot of whom are without a history, culture or tradition of going to university. They will be the first in the family—in the household—to do that.

You are right about the strains that will be put on university staff, student support organisations and everything else. Are you aware of anything bespoke that universities are trying to do to support that particular cohort? I absolutely acknowledge the financial challenges, which we will talk about in the next evidence session. However, are you aware of any specific initiatives at the university level that are trying to drill down into that particular cohort to offer extra support?

I will ask Universities Scotland that question in the next evidence session.

I want to touch on funding later on in my questioning. I make that point to Ruth Maguire and colleagues at the start because, in asking about the widening access agenda, I appreciate the significant challenges that exist.

There is a good-news story to tell. I gave this figure in the earlier session. Since 2019, there has been an increase of 32 per cent in the offers made to 18-year-olds from the most deprived backgrounds. That is a staggering figure. Obviously, they will not all take up those offers, but it means we are now well ahead of our target of 20 per cent of students in university coming from the SIMD20 most-deprived areas. We are at 16.7 per cent, so we met our 2021 interim target early. There is a lot of good news there.

The concern is that those from the most-deprived backgrounds may be those who are most susceptible to the cost of living crisis. What can be done to identify those young people—without stigmatising them, of course—and offer them whatever support we can through their learning pathway? I appreciate that the first outcome that ticks the box is that there are more first-year, full-time students from deprived areas in universities. However, the outcome that we want to see is those students being successful learners, graduating and entering positive careers. The input is only half of the story; the real outcome is the successful securing of the degree. Could Professor Boyne say a little bit more about what support is being deployed right now, despite the financial challenges?

It is almost as if you anticipated my final question. The convener will be glad to hear that, given the time constraints.

The committee is conducting an inquiry into the success of college regionalisation thus far and next steps. You were right to mention colleges in relation to widening access. Some 40.9 per cent of all full-time first degree students are studying in colleges or came through a college pathway into a university education. College principals have told us that they get a lower reimbursement rate for higher national certificate and higher national diploma year 1 and year 2 than universities get. You will understand that they are seeking parity of financial support.

I address that question to Professor Boyne. I do not expect him to argue for a smaller slice of the cake going to universities, but it is a real issue for college principals, who might not think that the funding system is equitable.