³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Like Miles Briggs, I am keen to understand the context and what is behind the pressures that are bubbling up. I think that we can all see those pressures, whether they are due to 14 years of—let us say—restrained public expenditure or the pandemic. What is the situation as you understand it with comparison to England and Wales? I know that Newcastle University, the University of Sheffield and a number of others have some problems. What is your understanding of the situation in Scotland as compared with the wider UK?

My question is simply about what monitoring is done and what data is collected relating to people who move from the armed services into further and higher education. I am not asking about the armed forces covenant in that regard—although I and many veterans are sceptical of its worth—but what data is collected? What relationships are there between the military and further and higher education institutions and associated bodies, particularly in relation to resettlement courses and people moving from the armed services into further and higher education, especially since there are so many early service leavers these days?

We have been talking about some of the groups that you are getting data on. Is any data collected on, or is there any initiative in relation to, ex-service personnel entering further and higher education?

Is any of that based on relationships that institutions might have with the armed forces and resettlement schemes, for example?

You referred to how complicated it can be for young people to make decisions, given the complex landscape and so on, so I was tempted to ask how much more complicated it would be for those aged 14 rather than 17, but I will leave that for another day. I am sure that you will be asked that question in due course.

I am not entirely sure what to expect as an answer to this question—actually, I do. It seems to me that, although, in all sorts of ways, the Government and public authorities were seized by the idea of acting with urgency during the pandemic, we have now dropped back into old ways of working. Is the Government aware of that and guarding against it? I think that the committee is unanimous in thinking that a degree of urgency would be really useful in this matter. I know that there are always competing priorities, but has the Government learned, from the pandemic, lessons about how to move quickly on some issues?

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.