���˿���

That is good. You will know that Hibs had an association with Dnipro Kids before the war to help orphanages in Dnipro.

It is not really for me to say, but I very much hope that we as a Parliament will be able to see your President, if that is at all possible. I know that he is a very busy man, but it would be good to solidify all these relationships. Thank you very much, and thank you for what you are doing in your country.

Good morning. We are all here as committee members, but we are also here as party politicians. As the depute leader of the Scottish National Party, I endorse the comments that have been made by Stephen Kerr and Neil Bibby. The SNP is very supportive of the policies of the previous UK Government and the current UK Government on Ukraine, including in relation to building up defences. You mentioned weapons. We need to produce weapons to replace those that have already been used. I think that you will want to know that there is a remarkable degree—almost a unique degree—of unanimity and unity among the political parties on supporting Ukraine. That also goes for our admiration of the way that Ukraine has conducted itself. The bravery of citizens who became soldiers is really remarkable.

I do not expect you to comment on this, being a diplomat, but I and perhaps others are appalled by the turn that things have taken whereby supporting Ukraine is now a transactional thing and international solidarity with Ukraine is being monetised like a protection racket—“We will defend you if you give us money.”

However, one of the biggest issues that we have had is convincing the rest of Europe that this fight is Europe’s fight and not just Ukraine’s fight. It would be useful if you could say a few words to drive the point home—this meeting is being televised—about why the fight in Ukraine is also Europe’s fight.

I have to ask the question whether the target is a worthwhile one to have, aside from the fact that you can do a lot of good in trying to achieve it. Given what you have said, do we have the right target?

I would be interested to hear about your own experience, and not only from the year that you have spent in this job. I am new to the committee and it would help me to understand the historical context and where we are in closing the attainment gap. I remember that when I went to university, very few people from my background were at university. I would like to get an idea of the historical context but also of whether it is the right target to have.

I appreciate Mr Dunphy’s point about targets being for ministers and politicians. However, we are moving into a pre-election period when politicians will start to think about throwing around targets and commitments and they will try to make them as simple as possible, for very good reasons. We have heard a lot of evidence today about the need to review or refine the current target. My issue with that is as much to do with the fact that targets like that do not allow for extraneous influences. Government should really stop proposing targets that can easily be affected by things that are outwith their control, because it makes them meaningless.

We do not hear much about this target, but I imagine that it is unlikely that it has not been affected by 14 years of austerity bearing down on revenue and, especially latterly, capital budgets, by the Liz Truss budget and consequent double-digit inflation, wage suppression, the cost of living and rising inequality. Many of those things—not all—lie outwith the Scottish Government’s control. When the Government sets a target, it should be specific about what it controls. What are the witnesses’ views on that?

A meaningful target has to be as simple as possible but there might need to be caveats in it for it to be sensible. I am maybe making a plea for presenting the electorate with more sensible targets at election time. It would be interesting to hear any suggestions on that from those with an academic background.

Good morning, Professor McKendrick. I do not think we have met, but I offer no apologies for anything that I might have said at Easter Road, should you ever have had the privilege of going there.

Your comment has kind of cut the legs off the question that I was going to ask. I know you have said that you do not support crude measures, but if we look at what Glasgow Caledonian University has achieved, it might be simplistic to suggest that that model could be applied to other universities.

Glasgow Caledonian was challenged to achieve an aim. I might be being a simplistic politician, but the idea of having a target and achieving it is important in its own right for public confidence. I assume that there must be some compelling reason why this is the case, but your comment seemed to suggest that some institutions would never be able to achieve that target because of their core population. I do not want to put words in your mouth, and you will get a chance to come back to me, but is that right? If that is the case, how realistic are the targets in the first place?

I forget the exact phrase that the commissioner used earlier, but he said words to the effect that, taken over a slightly longer period of 10 years, there has been a remarkable transformation and an almost doubling of the number of people coming into further and higher education from challenging backgrounds.

On this panel, we have heard that it is a remarkable success story, unique to Scotland—Claire McPherson mentioned that

“This is a success story”;

Mr Dunphy, you said that although we are not done yet, great progress has been made. That is not the narrative that the public is hearing. It is important to me, as a politician, but for the people who are interested in thinking about widening access and in their opportunities for access—which will not be the entire population—to continually get an apocalyptic picture is detrimental. It is what they get; they will get it from the coverage that will come out today. In the same way, pretending that nothing is wrong is detrimental. Is there a danger that we will demotivate people and that they will say, “Well, actually, there’s no way I’m going to get into university, look at what’s happening just now”? Is that apocalyptic approach potentially damaging? If so, what can be done?

To be fair, I said “college and university”—I went to college before going to university, so I acknowledge your point.

I think that a parent or a child who is thinking about access should be open-eyed about the challenges around student finance and some of the things that we have heard about. However—and this was my point—should they not also be open-eyed about the stuff that we are doing that is unique to Scotland, which other parts of the UK are looking at with envy? Should there not be some cause for a bit more optimism around those people’s chances of getting into a college or university?

I am interested in anything that could be helpful in preventing the undermining of a target by the inevitable extraneous events that can affect it, for democratic accountability as much as anything else.

I have a very brief question that will probably have a brief answer. Is there any information on former forces personnel accessing either further or higher education? I know that it will be a small number and difficult to track.

I did not expect the answer to be that short, to be honest.

Does anyone engage with the armed forces regarding resettlement programmes or such things?