Official Report 1001KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19984, in the name of Douglas Ross, on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, on widening access to higher education. Members who wish to participate in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now, or as soon as possible.
15:00
I am pleased to open this debate on the committee’s inquiry into widening access to higher education. I thank all those who shared their knowledge and expertise with us, and I thank my committee colleagues for their diligent work on the issue.
In 2016, the commission on widening access recommended that, by 2021, 16 per cent of full-time first-degree university entrants should come from the 20 per cent most deprived backgrounds. The recommendation was that, by 2026, the figure should be 18 per cent, with an overall national target of 20 per cent by 2030. Scottish universities met the first interim target ahead of schedule in 2019-20. At least 16 per cent of full-time first-degree university entrants have come from the 20 per cent most deprived backgrounds ever since, although it must be noted that progress has stalled since 2020-21.
Back in 2016, the commission also recommended that, by 2021, students from the 20 per cent most deprived backgrounds should represent at least 10 per cent of full-time first-degree entrants to every individual Scottish university—I will speak more about that in a bit. The commission further suggested that there should be a review of that target in 2022, and that a higher target should be considered for subsequent years.
Our inquiry considered the progress that is being made on widening access, focusing on the following issues. What is needed for colleges and universities to meet the 2026 target? What access initiatives are showing success? Is the work of the Scottish Government and partners to introduce additional data measures progressing, and when and how will that be incorporated into targets? What access challenges exist for disabled, black and minority ethnic and care-experienced students outwith Scottish index of multiple deprivation 20 areas, and what might be done to address those challenges?
I will take a bit of time to consider the key findings of our report and some of the recommendations that we made to the Government. I have chosen to start specifically on the unique learner number. That is because we heard a lot of evidence about it, it takes up a big part of our inquiry report and there is a clear recommendation to the Government.
The original report by the commission on widening access in 2016 recommended the introduction of a unique learner number across all levels of education to track learners and share access data. I will repeat that point: almost a decade ago, the original commission recommended the introduction of a unique learner number. In his annual report in 2024, the current commissioner for fair access also recommended that each student have a unique learner number to help to monitor progress on widening access.
Robert Gordon University and Universities Scotland indicated their and the sector’s strong support for the use of a unique learner number. Universities Scotland stated that it would allow for an understanding of
“where a person has been in their educational journey”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 26 February 2025; c 37.]
and identification of their needs. The committee strongly agreed with the value of introducing a unique learner number to track students’ educational journeys and allow a better understanding of what works regarding transitions in the longer term.
I have heard the unique learner number described as a “bureaucratic nicety”. Does Douglas Ross agree that it is far from that and that it would be a fundamental cornerstone in data retention and understanding what is happening in our schools?
I agree with Martin Whitfield on that point, as does almost everyone who gave evidence to our committee. There was almost unanimous support, not just in the few weeks in which we took evidence, nor just in the written submissions, but going back year after year to the report from the original commission in 2016. Why, at the end of 2025, are we still calling for the introduction of a unique learner number? The committee was extremely disappointed in the apparent lack of progress and that the Scottish Government has said that a unique learner number will not be introduced in the short term or even in the medium term, despite that being recommended by the commission almost a decade ago.
The committee was also disappointed that the Scottish Government was unable to provide any indicative costs for the introduction of a unique learner number, or even to confirm whether legislation would be required. When the current minister’s predecessor appeared before the committee, he told us that he had viewed all the other evidence, in which a unique learner number had come up time and time again, but when questions were put to him about whether legislation was needed and how much it would cost, he had no idea. I felt that it was disrespectful to the committee for a minister not to have come prepared to answer on an issue that it was clear would come up.
Our report was agreed to unanimously by every party in the Parliament. I stress that there was no dissent on the report as a whole or on our recommendation on a unique learner number. We recommended that the Scottish Government should commit to the introduction of a unique learner number and outline how that would be achieved. Sadly, in its response, the Scottish Government said:
“Whilst we recognise the potential long-term benefits of a Unique Learner Number ... it is a wide-ranging issue requiring careful consideration”
because it is
“complex ... inherently cross-cutting in nature, and potentially involves sharing the personal, sensitive data of millions of individuals.”
We all know that. We know what the challenges are. We just want a solution.
It is only the Scottish Government that is preventing the adoption of a unique learner number. That is why I was encouraged by the fact that back-bench members of the Government party supported the recommendation, and I hope that the new minister and the Government listen not only to Opposition politicians but to the parties represented on our committee, whose unanimous view was that a unique learner number is needed.
There are a number of other issues that I want to focus on. We looked at the measures relating to the eligibility for, and the progress on, widening access initiatives. Currently, we use the Scottish index of multiple deprivation but, during the inquiry, the committee heard about the limitations on its ability to identify all the students who might need support. Although it is valuable and helpful at a national level, the SIMD is an area-based measure that does not capture individual circumstances. For example, it will not capture the circumstances of someone who is living in poverty in an otherwise affluent area.
Although the commissioner for fair access highlighted the continued need for a central measure of progress, he and many other witnesses advocated using a basket of indicators, including free school meals data, to help to identify individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. The committee noted the usefulness of the SIMD as a widening access measure, but we recognised its limitations, particularly in relation to rural areas. We therefore recommended that the Scottish Government should work with stakeholders and the commissioner to introduce a basket of measures to identify person-centred characteristics for widening access measures.
I want to discuss free school meals data. The committee heard about the on-going work in relation to a pilot scheme in the north-east on the use of free school meals data, in addition to the SIMD, as a means of identifying students who are eligible for widening access measures. In its submission to the committee, Robert Gordon University said that the lack of legislation had made implementing data-sharing arrangements difficult.
Although we appreciate that there are potential barriers in relation to data sharing more widely, we urged the Scottish Government to look into the challenges and to confirm whether legislation was required to address them. The committee subsequently urged the Scottish Government to find a vehicle to allow for the necessary statutory measures, so we welcome the minister’s amendment at stage 2 of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill, which seeks to address those barriers. We raised the issue in our report and, very quickly, the Government and the minister found a solution.
There are a number of other issues that I am sure that committee members and others will address. I want to finish on the subject of colleges. It is important to recognise the crucial role that colleges play in widening access to university, via articulation, for students from SIMD 20 backgrounds, disabled students, care-experienced students, black and minority ethnic students and adult learners. However, the committee also recognises the importance of college education in its own right.
During this parliamentary session, the committee has conducted an inquiry on colleges and, in recent years, has focused much of its pre-budget scrutiny on the sector. For a number of years, our committee has expressed concern about the financial sustainability of Scotland’s colleges and has made numerous recommendations to the Scottish Government on how those financial challenges should be addressed.
The committee is frustrated at the lack of change, or the urgency to make change, for the sector, and we share the concerns about the issues that colleges up and down the country are facing and about the serious and significant risk to the financial future of some of our colleges. Given the importance of the widening access agenda, the loss of colleges would not only affect the communities that they serve but undermine the drive to widen access to opportunities, including degree-level study nationally.
I am grateful for the time in the chamber today for our committee report to be fully debated and discussed. I look forward to hearing from committee colleagues and other members during the debate, and to hearing from the minister about the measures that the Scottish Government can take to ensure that access to education and institutions is widened. I commend our report.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the findings and recommendations in the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s 5th Report, 2025 (Session 6), Widening access to higher education inquiry (SP Paper 782).
We have a little bit of time in hand, so members will certainly get back the time for any interventions. I call Ben Macpherson. Minister, you have around eight minutes, please.
15:10
I thank the convener and the members of the committee, as it is their work, and that of all the stakeholders who gave evidence to the committee, that enables us to have this debate today. I also thank the clerks who were involved in the process.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the committee’s report and the Government’s formal response, which was issued earlier in the year. I am also grateful for the opportunity to do so as someone who is politically committed to creating a fairer society—as are so many colleagues across the chamber—and who recognises the important role that widening access to higher education and other opportunities plays in that process. It should be one of our top priorities in the period ahead, along with creating greater parity of esteem, which I know also motivates so many colleagues in the chamber and others across the country. Those two aspects in particular will help us to establish a better scenario than we have now, although we have made much progress towards creating a more equitable post-school education system.
As the convener did, the report sets out the remaining challenges, but I want to talk first about some of the progress that has been made. It is important to acknowledge the advances that have been achieved collectively and on which the Government has sought to provide leadership. For example, as we speak here today—indeed, over recent years—the number of Scots from more deprived areas entering full-time degree courses has risen. In 2023-24, that number showed an increase of 37 per cent in comparison with the number when the Government established the commission on widening access. The proportion of Scotland-domiciled entrants with a known disability from the 20 per cent most deprived areas has risen from 12.8 per cent in 2016-17 to 18.1 per cent in 2023-24.
I welcome that progress, but can the minister set out when he will be in a position to respond to the consultation on support for disabled students and part-time students?
I will be happy to update the member on that in due course, but I am not able to provide an answer at this juncture. I thank her for raising the point—I appreciate the importance of the issue and will get back to her on it.
There is more to do, but, as I was saying, there has been progress. The proportion of black and minority ethnic Scotland-domiciled entrants from the 20 per cent most deprived areas entering Scottish universities has grown from 24.2 per cent in 2016-17 to 28 per cent in 2023-24.
Both the convener in his speech and the report emphasised the need for further progress, but we must also acknowledge the difference that has been made. We all think of those percentages and that wider summary of the national picture, but we will all have met many individuals in our constituencies who have managed to go to university—often via college—despite perhaps not considering that route before and who are now making a difference in certain professions or in growing sectors in our economy. Those stories are important, because they amplify the necessity of making sure that people are aware of the opportunities that are there for them in their communities.
The minister is right to point out some of the progress—there is no doubt that there has been some—but we are here to try to make things better. He is four minutes into his eight-minute speech. I want to understand why he thinks that progress has stalled and whether he thinks that the flatlining on closing the poverty-related attainment gap in schools has contributed to that flatlining at universities.
I appreciate the member probing me on those points. One key bit of progress was shown yesterday in the action that is being taken in the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill to ensure that we have better data sharing.
As the member knows, one of the key interventions that the Government has made in recent years on reducing poverty is the Scottish child payment—an intervention that has had a significant impact across nearly all of Scotland on the cost of living and, therefore, on the poverty-related attainment gap in both an indirect and, in certain circumstances, a direct way. The measures that we agreed at committee yesterday will help with data sharing across different organisations so that we have a better understanding, beyond SIMD, of where people need further assistance.
Does that not relate to the convener’s question about the unique learner number? If we can introduce that for what is, sadly, a relatively large group of people who can be specifically identified, why can we not do that for a slightly larger group of young people?
I appreciate the points about the unique learner number that have been made by the member, by the convener in his speech and in the committee’s report. As other ministers have emphasised, it is not a simple issue and consideration needs to be given to the fact that it goes beyond widening access to higher education and involves different organisations. However, I am happy to give an undertaking to look at the issue from a fresh perspective, as a new minister. The complexities should not be a barrier if there is merit in trying to advance the idea, which the committee has emphasised. I am happy to look at it and see what progress can be made in the period ahead.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Will the minister take an intervention?
Two members are on their feet. I will take Brian Whittle’s intervention.
I am grateful to the minister for taking so many interventions. I am slightly concerned about the Government’s reticence across a lot of portfolios to implement artificial intelligence and tech. A unique learner number is hardly different from the community health index number in healthcare. What is the resistance to the idea?
This Parliament, even in my time here, has had many debates on systems and data sharing, be it in relation to social security, the considerations around named persons or other subjects. In all Government considerations, we need to be very clear that any data sharing is done in a safe and secure way, that the systems are efficient and optimal in ensuring that the data cuts across, and that there is good value for money for the taxpayer. I appreciate that there are identifying numbers for patients in the health system and tax references for individuals. However, as previous ministers have emphasised, when it comes to this issue, consideration is required across different entities including, for example, independent bodies such as universities, so it is more complicated. We also must ensure that we are considerate of costs.
I am conscious of time. There is a lot more that the report covers, and I am looking forward to listening to what colleagues have to say in the debate. We are aiming for a situation in which each university will be expected to match or exceed its highest proportion to date of entrants from the 20 per cent most deprived areas. As I said, we recognise that there is more work to do, and we continue to work with the Scottish Funding Council on that.
This really matters, not just for social justice, but to ensure that we maximise the human potential in our communities. Our people are our biggest resource as a country, so widening access matters. We have made significant progress. The committee’s work on the subject is important and the recommendations are helpful. I look forward to working with members across the chamber on those and to hearing members’ contributions to the debate.
15:20
I, too, thank all the people who gave evidence to the committee and all the organisations that provided helpful briefings ahead of the debate. In seven minutes, I will not be able to touch upon all the work that they highlighted, but we were given a lot of helpful content about the work that our colleges and universities are undertaking to try to close the gap and give people the opportunity to get into education.
I highlight something on which I agree with Keir Starmer—I did not necessarily think that I would say that. It is something that he said at the Labour Party conference. I say to Mr Whitfield that I was not there. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister set the challenge of making vocational options as attractive to parents—we must remember them—and young people as higher education. We lack that in our debate in the Scottish Parliament.
As I have stated in almost every education debate, Conservative members want real reform to provide more opportunities for our young people. I refer to opportunities such as the ones that I saw on Friday when I visited Liberton high school with my Lothian colleague Sue Webber—I know that Daniel Johnson was there a few weeks previously. The school has partnered with the Tigers construction academy to offer young people in that part of the city a foundation apprenticeship in construction skills to give them a taste of the careers on offer in the construction industry. It was positive to hear from those young people that that helps not only by providing practical sessions but by focusing their learning in other subjects, including the theoretical importance of, for example, mathematics to work. It also plants in those young people’s heads the seed of a future career ladder and pathways beyond it into further and higher education.
I am grateful to Miles Briggs for going down that path, shocked as I am that he quoted Keir Starmer. The reason for that is that one of my long-standing concerns—I wonder if he shares it—is about the quality of the careers advice that is available to our young people. Most of our young people are lucky to get a few minutes with a careers adviser in their entire secondary school experience, and the range of possibilities that exists is not always clear to them—hence, they often get grouped together and are almost predestined to end up in a place that they did not choose to be in.
I can give you the time back, Mr Briggs.
I absolutely agree with Stephen Kerr. We need a new vision for how such advice is delivered and we need different organisations to provide the opportunity for extracurricular work outside school so that we can give our young people the ambition to get what is out there.
With my colleague Sharon Dowey, I recently visited the Ayr campus of the University of the West of Scotland. The university is doing a lot of work on the blending of school and university learning. I was hugely impressed by the portfolio of work-based learning and graduate apprenticeship models that it has developed. Those routes offer an alternative pathway into degree-level study for individuals who are employed or wish to go straight into work. Most young people tell us that they want work-based learning. We need to ensure that the systems that we put in place and that we publicly fund match that positive outlook.
When the Parliament was first reconvened, we used to speak more about the aspiration for lifelong learning—the ability for Scots to access the continuous development of skills and knowledge throughout their life. For many people, that is just not the case and the Parliament does not really talk about lifelong learning any longer.
However, I acknowledge the Open University’s briefing, which stated that it has 16,470 students across Scotland, 71 per cent of whom are in employment. That demonstrates the alignment that we need between the provision of education and workforce development. We need to work alongside employers to ensure that we achieve that.
I am grateful to Miles Briggs for taking my intervention. Is it not right to say that that loss of lifelong learning happened to coincide with when part-time courses in colleges vanished in Scotland?
Absolutely. It is a fact that we have lost more than 100,000 places on such courses in our college sector. That has had huge impacts on every part of our society, and we should acknowledge that.
I would also like to highlight the work of Robert Gordon University, information on which was provided to the committee. I declare an interest in that I am a graduate of RGU. I loved my time studying in Aberdeen and one of the reasons why I chose to study at Robert Gordon was the fact that it had such a great reputation for graduate employment. The university has put graduate employability at the heart of its approach to education, working closely with industry in the north-east—including the fishing industry—to ensure that, through its courses, students gain the knowledge and experience that will allow them to access those career pathways. It provides a wide range of not only compulsory but optional placements to implant people into work. That is a model that I have always advocated for and, last year, it resulted in RGU’s graduate employability rate standing at 96.5 per cent. The university was ranked second in the United Kingdom on graduate employment. We need to look not only to the pathways in education but to the pathways into employment and the opportunities that exist in so many key sectors.
The convener touched on the evidence that was provided. It is worth putting on the record that the targets that were set for Robert Gordon University were unable to be met. That was down to the fact that the targets relate to places for students from SIMD 20 areas. The fact that 7.2 per cent of full-time degree entrants at the university in 2023-24 were from SIMD 20 areas is incredibly welcome, but there are not enough SIMD 20 postcodes in the north-east for the university to meet the target. Ministers and the wider Parliament have to acknowledge that—we might hear more on that point from members for the north-east.
The progress that is being made to support care-experienced young people is important and the committee will return to that in the new year when the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill goes through Parliament. Some of the private sessions that the committee has held in relation to the bill were the most important ones—for me, anyway—because we heard young people’s evidence about their concerns that, although there has been a lot of success in getting them into further and higher education, whether they are being sustained in it has not been measured or tracked. I hope that it will be recognised that we should not take just getting a young person into an educational institution as success; we need to get them to the end of their time in that institution. That has not been tracked and we need to be honest about it. I hope that ministers will take on board the committee’s recommendations and findings on that.
I am concerned that our college sector has become the Cinderella of our education system. In recent years, we have seen significant cuts to the sector. Colleges Scotland’s submission called for a greater focus to be placed on the funding of part-time provision because it would bring benefits for adult returners and those who seek to develop their skills while in employment. The Scottish Conservatives have a vision to reform and increase the number of apprenticeships and to support our college sector. However, the budget in January will be a key test for ministers and it is important that we see whether there is a commitment to our college sector.
Widening access to higher education must be about real opportunity. Many of our talented young people are still being held back by background, postcode and circumstance. In order to change that, Scotland needs our colleges and universities to be properly supported and to deliver fair access, with clear pathways for students not only into further study but into work. Together, they can help achieve the potential of our young people in the years to come.
15:28
To start, I thank my colleagues on the Education, Children and Young People Committee, the clerks who supported us and all those who gave evidence in this important inquiry.
Widening access to education is crucial if we are to open opportunities for everyone in Scotland to live up to their potential. That is why this inquiry was so important. It is not about only a theoretical policy intent; it is about lives and changing them. For that to happen, we need a tertiary education system that is match fit. Sadly, in Scotland, we face significant challenges. While universities and colleges are working their socks off to support all to have the grades to get there, they are doing that against a tide of cuts and a lack of priority for that work from their Government. The Scottish Government’s own “Equality and Fairer Scotland Budget Statement 2024-25”, which accompanied the 2024-25 budget, said:
“There is a significant risk that the reduction in the HE resource budget will increase competition for remaining university places, which could disadvantage learners from socio-economically disadvantaged areas with lower prior attainment.”
According to what we heard in committee, that is, sadly, the case.
Progress towards the next target—18 per cent of entrants from the most deprived areas getting into university by 2026—has stalled. Data shows that, in 2023, fewer applications were accepted from people from disadvantaged backgrounds than was the case in 2022. The target is meant to be met in 2026. That is right around the corner, and, as the committee acknowledged, it is unlikely to be met. Missing it is not just about numbers, though. Our constituents are losing out on lives, opportunities and their futures.
The committee also looked at factors other than socioeconomic factors that can lock people out of opportunity, and we found that many are interlinked. We heard about the significant barriers that disabled students and care leavers face. Disabled students—particularly visually impaired students—are still not getting the support that they need to access the same opportunities as their non-disabled peers. We took seriously compelling evidence on that, which I ask the minister to consider carefully. As a former disabled student, I know that that fact will be, at best, intensely disappointing to disabled students and, at worst, the difference between being able to go to university and not being able to do so.
That the recommendations from the most recent review of disabled student support, which was completed years ago, have not been actioned not only is a failure of responsibility on the part of the Government, but is having a real-life impact on students in Scotland and their ability to get into higher education and stay there. It is leaving lives on hold. For that reason, during the inquiry, I pressed the Scottish Government for a commitment to review again the support that is available for disabled students. I asked it to build on the previous review, so that it did not put student support services in colleges and universities—and, indeed, students—under further pressure to repeat themselves. I asked for the actions in the review to build on the recommendations in the previous one. The minister has not been able to update us on that issue today, but I would like him to do so in due course, because it is a serious issue that is locking many people out of further and higher education.
Part-time students were included in the Government review, which the committee and my party hugely welcomed. The needs of part-time students must be addressed, especially because we know that the trend is towards more flexible study options, such as those offered by the Open University. The review, which has concluded, was to consider the impact on and support for part-time students. I would welcome an update on that from the Government sooner rather than later.
Amid our challenging environment, our universities and colleges in Scotland are doing incredible work to widen access. I thank all the organisations that, ahead of the debate, sent briefings on the work that they are doing in that area. Seventy-one per cent of Open University students in Scotland—73 per cent in Glasgow—are in employment, with 30 per cent of students sharing the fact that they have a disability. Thirty-two per cent of University of the West of Scotland students are from SIMD 1 areas, and, for 11 years in a row, the university has been ranked as the best at widening access in Scotland. As we have heard, Robert Gordon University is also doing a great deal of work, including through its northern lights initiative and its work with colleges, to open up access to its courses. I put on record my thanks to all universities and colleges across Scotland. Scottish Labour and I will always be on their side.
Finally, I will speak about what a widening access agenda seeks to deliver. It cannot just be about getting into university or college; it has to be about staying there, graduating and then getting a good job. That is why the wider context matters, too. As National Union of Students Scotland has said, education might be free—and rightly, we agree—but studying and delivering it is not. Experts across Scotland told the committee that Scottish tertiary education is in crisis. Over the past decade, higher education funding has plummeted by 20 per cent in real terms per student. In further education, Audit Scotland has reported that Scottish Government funding for colleges has fallen by 20 per cent in the past five years. That is having a real-life impact on the life chances of the students who are furthest from access to education.
In 2023, the Institute for Fiscal Studies set out that the cost of living support that students can access in Scotland has
“become less generous over time, with total support for the poorest students cut by 16% ... in real terms between 2013–14 and 2022–23.”
Although students in Scotland have been able to borrow more per year for living costs, in the absence of more maintenance support, that leaves poorer students with more debt. The average student debt stood at £17,990 in 2023-24 compared to only £6,090 in 2007, when the Scottish National Party pledged to scrap student debt.
Rhetoric on widening access rings hollow if people cannot stay on and get on; it rings hollow if the very institutions that we need to deliver it are not a priority for their Government; and it rings hollow if the significant challenges that students, including disabled students and care leavers, face go unaddressed any longer. There is a way to go before the class, glass and step ceiling that is in the way of opportunity in Scottish education is gone. This Government has had 18 years, but too many people are still locked out. I fundamentally believe that, in May, the public will see that and will not afford it more time to make the same mistakes again.
15:35
I thank the committee members, the clerks and everyone who gave evidence to the inquiry, because this report matters. Free, universal and equitable access to higher education is not just an aspiration but the cornerstone of a fair, compassionate and confident Scotland. It is about our culture, our wellbeing, our democracy and our shared future.
I am proud that Scotland chose to abolish tuition fees for some students. We rejected the corrosive market logic that sees education—something that should nourish human potential—as a commodity to be bought and sold. However, we must confront a hard truth. For too many people, the right—not the privilege—to a higher education remains a dream unrealised. The Scottish Government aims for 20 per cent of full-time first-degree entrants to be from the 20 per cent most deprived backgrounds. We are, as we have heard, now at 16 per cent, with five years to go. Progress has stalled and, without renewed action and without political courage, we will miss that target.
That figure hides further injustice. Disabled students may now be proportionately represented, but the committee heard that that masks significant persistent barriers, assessment delays, inaccessible learning environments and a review of support that took four years to deliver and is already out of date. That is indefensible. Disabled students deserve to be welcomed, supported and valued, not left in limbo. It is not just disabled students who are left out in the cold. We must do better and do it systematically, not superficially. That means widening access not only through traditional routes, but through flexible pathways that respect people’s lives and communities.
Robert Gordon University has already been spoken about in the debate. It is one of our institutions that is most committed to widening access, in a region where structural barriers are very real, and it has valuable experience to share. RGU, like the University of Aberdeen and North East Scotland College, faces a distinctive challenge. The city and shire have very few SIMD 20 postcodes. Only 8 or 9 per cent of households in the city and 3 or 4 per cent in the shire fall into that category, yet three major tertiary institutions draw from that small pool.
RGU’s SIMD 20 entrant figure of 7.2 per cent reflects demography, not a lack of commitment. RGU has responded not by shrugging and giving up, but by building one of Scotland’s most sustained evidence-based approaches to widening access. Its schools hub model embeds staff in all 28 secondary schools across the city and shire, fortnightly or monthly, building long-term relationships with pupils, teachers and careers advisers. Its access to programme has grown from 70 pupils in 2019 to more than 1,000 this year, offering 11 subject-specific courses and free transport and food to remove the hidden costs that so often quietly lock out too many young people. Its northern lights programme reaches secondary 1 and secondary 2 pupils, providing early imaginative interventions that genuinely widen horizons.
Those are the kinds of interventions that we should celebrate—those that are embedded in communities, grounded in relationships and tailored to need. They work because academic and support staff give their time and share their expertise and enthusiasm, often in the evenings, and I am grateful to them for that. RGU’s experience also reminds us that widening access is about so much more than SIMD; it is about understanding disadvantage in all its forms.
The free school meal pilot shows the value of individual-level data, capturing individual disadvantage far better than any postcode data can. It also shows the data-sharing barriers that hold us back and that we urgently need to address.
The same is true of rurality. SIMD is simply too blunt a tool to capture rural disadvantage. University participation is lower in remote communities. The Greens believe that opportunity should never depend on geography, so we need to look beyond SIMD. As we have already heard, widening access has to be about retention and success. Getting students into education settings is not enough; keeping them and supporting them to flourish is what real fairness looks like.
Currently, 12 per cent of students do not progress to year 2, and the rate is worse for disadvantaged learners. I have spent years working in universities—I refer colleagues to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am the rector of the University of Dundee—and I know where there are gaps. Staff are expected to support students with little or no information about who has come through different routes or who faces particular barriers. They are left to guess or to ask students to disclose personal information again and again, which is not dignified, effective or fair. We must act on the committee’s call for a unique learner number, which was recommended a decade ago. RGU is right in saying that it would transform our ability to understand learner journeys, evaluate what works and intervene early.
Widening access also means facing the financial realities that students deal with. Tuition may be free for some, but rent, food, transport, books and equipment are not. Private developers are extracting millions of pounds from students who simply need somewhere safe and affordable to live. When the Government removed student rent controls from the Housing (Scotland) Act 2025, it removed one of the most effective tools that we could have had to tackle the biggest financial barriers that students face. Students deserve protection from predatory landlords just as much as any other tenant. Finally, we must not forget postgraduate study. Access cannot end at undergraduate level if employers increasingly expect applicants to have masters degrees and more. Education should not be for sale at any level.
Widening access is a moral imperative. It is about dignity, justice and the belief that every person deserves the chance to discover their potential. The committee’s report challenges us to do better; institutions such as RGU show us what is possible. Let us honour both by committing to systemic change that puts compassion, equality and human flourishing at the heart of Scotland’s higher education system.
15:42
I thank the clerks and the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee, as well as my fellow committee members.
I can honestly say that there was universal delight in the result of The Herald politician of the year awards, when our convener managed to climb the heady heights of achieving the committee convener of the year award. It was universal—even George Adam was delighted with our convener’s achievement. It brought the committee together in a way that I have never seen before.
For the sake of clarity, I was not quite as excited about it as Mr Rennie was. [Laughter.]
Two very important universities have been part of my life. The first is what I called Paisley tech when I was there in the 1980s, which is now the University of the West of Scotland, and the second is the University of St Andrews. Both have achieved remarkable progress on widening access. The University of the West of Scotland, which Mr Adam knows very well, has a fantastic foundation academy that reaches out to 34 schools through a range of councils—I think that it is 10 councils in total. It has enrolled 3,500 pupils at no cost to the schools and councils that are involved. It provides an introduction to university for those young people through a 10-week module, which is delivered in the school, not the university, and is run by lecturers and staff from the institution. On completion of the academy, a participant can get Scottish credit and qualifications framework credits. It has been so successful that Times Higher Education nominated it for the widening participation initiative award in 2024. The university has done that by itself, with no extra money from the Government, and it has made significant progress.
You would never expect the University of St Andrews to be treating widening access as a top priority, but it does. Alongside its work on contextual admissions, its gateway programme, which I have seen for myself, provides a tailored first-year course for those from SIMD 20 backgrounds. It also provides a bridging year course, which helps students to get into the university. The university provides scholarships and engages in outreach to almost every school across the country that asks for it. Further, it provides a particular course for Fifers: First Chances Fife, which goes into some of the poorest communities in Fife, including Cowdenbeath, Lochgelly and Levenmouth. The university also provides mentoring.
I notice the difference that all those initiatives have made. When I go round the streets of St Andrews now, the accents are different—it is not all just Americans and people from England or other parts of the world. There are Glaswegians and even Fifers in the university now. There has been tremendous progress.
Both those institutions have risen to the challenge that the Government set for them. To be fair to the Government, it set that challenge, and the universities have responded positively to it. That shows what can be done if we set quite tough targets. However, we have not met those targets, and we therefore need to look again at why the progress that has been made by those institutions has stalled.
There are two things that we should consider. The first is that, with regard to widening access through schools, we have to acknowledge that the attempt to close the poverty-related attainment gap has not worked. It has been an aim for 10 years and the gap is supposed to have closed by next year, but we are nowhere near that happening. There is some infinitesimal improvement in primary schools, but, in secondary schools, progress has pretty well flatlined. Therefore, the students who are going off to universities are the ones who were already trying to access those courses.
Secondly, we take great pride in Scotland’s college route being a unique route into higher education, with people doing their national certificates and their higher national certificates and then working up to degree level, and the articulation that creates a smooth pathway into universities. Although the percentages of people coming through that route have increased in recent years, the actual number has fallen, which is an indication of the fact that, as Miles Briggs said, colleges have shrunk. We do not have as many people going into colleges, so we do not have as many people accessing that unique route into higher education.
That brings me to my next point. I wish that the Government would be honest with us about why it has not made progress on the unique learner number. We should have an open debate about the challenges. We acknowledge that, sometimes, such things are hard to do, but the Government is not being honest about it, and we get the impression that it is not that interested in doing it. It should be honest: if it does not want to do it, it should tell us why it is not going to do it and say what it is going to do instead.
There are means to do what needs to be done. For years, we were trying to get the two-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds into the nursery sector, but the numbers were pathetic. The Government went to the Department for Work and Pensions to access particular records in order to make sure that those children got in, and progress was made. We have managed to get the numbers up; it is not by as much as I would like, but it can be done. Therefore, I do not quite know why the Government is holding back on the issue. If it is not a priority, it should just be honest and say so.
To be fair to the Government, progress has been made, but it has flatlined. We should therefore re-examine our priorities, because, ultimately, this issue is about getting those from disadvantaged backgrounds into the workplace. We know that economic inactivity levels in Scotland are shocking. Widening access to higher education is part of the solution. We need to ensure that everybody has the opportunity to get a good job. I hope that, in his summing-up speech, the minister will have something substantive to say about how we can deal with the challenges that we face, so that, at last, we can make some progress.
15:48
I am grateful for the chance to take part in today’s debate. I am not a member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, but I am grateful to the committee for the work that it has undertaken in this area. It is an important area to look at and scrutinise.
The report is comprehensive. It is a good piece of work. Ensuring that we widen access to higher education is of the utmost importance. It speaks to creating a fairer society and ensuring that we have a more inclusive economy. Pam Duncan-Glancy used the word “potential” and, if we are to ensure that every person in our society has the opportunity to reach their full potential, ensuring that we have greater equity of access to higher education is an essential part of the equation.
I was able to experience and enjoy higher education when I was younger. I was not quite as adventurous as Miles Briggs, who grew up in Perthshire, if I remember correctly, and decided to make the journey up the road to Robert Gordon University. I grew up in Glasgow and went to the University of Glasgow, as many other members in this Parliament did. I had the time of my life there, and it laid a great foundation for the life that I have lived.
Ensuring that more people from a greater range of backgrounds are able to have that life-changing experience is important to me. Free education is not the only part of the equation, but it is part of it. By no stretch of the imagination could I say that I came from a deprived background, but, if tuition fees had been in place at the time that I was studying, it would at least have given me pause for thought as to whether it was a course that I wanted to take. From interacting with people in the area that I represent, I know that that would have the same effect on many young people now.
Having benefited from free education, I am proud, as a member of this Parliament, to have supported its reintroduction for Scottish higher education. Widening access is an important area of activity and it was important over a long period when I was the minister with responsibility for higher and further education, so I was pleased to see the progress that has been made.
I was involved in the appointment of John McKendrick as the commissioner for fair access. He took over from Peter Scott, who did a fantastic job in setting up and taking forward the widening access activity. I know that John McKendrick is continuing that activity, and I thank both of them for the work that they have done.
I can attest that John McKendrick is a good addition to the team.
Can Mr Hepburn tell us why he did not progress the unique learner number? What was his insight into the issue?
Beyond being able to stand up and say that I appointed John McKendrick as the commissioner for fair access, I think that I need to leave my deep and dark secrets in the ministerial office. I cannot say too much about it, but I know that the issue has been considered. There would, inevitably, be complexities in taking the policy forward. There is some merit in the case and in the argument. I understand the rationale for the unique learner number, and perhaps the minister will be able to say more about the Government’s current position.
We should reflect that there has been progress. Mr Rennie has talked about progress stalling but, if we look at the figure as it existed when we began this journey, we have made significant progress. Yes—there has been a bit of a bump from 2021-22, but the most recent figures show that we are moving in the right direction again.
Will the member take an intervention?
Briefly.
Briefly, Jamie Hepburn will remember that, when he was minister, he and I exchanged words in the committee about the paucity of data—for example, we could not tell how many had commenced a course versus how many had completed it. That is still the situation now, some years after Jamie Hepburn was the minister. As a former minister, what is his analysis now of why the information is so hard to collect?
With great respect, I think that the member is misremembering. When I was minister, I appeared before his committee on only one occasion. I was doing such a great job that he required me to turn up to his committee only once, and it was not to discuss that matter.
There are, inevitably, complexities in drawing down data, because it exists across a range of sources, and sometimes it is about trying to pull that together. I absolutely agree that we should be doing everything that we can about that, but there can be challenges.
I do not have much time left, but I commend the contribution of colleges, which are making a fantastic contribution to this endeavour. As the commissioner said to the committee, it is important that we do not view colleges just as a pipeline to universities, because they do important activity in their own right. However, they are an important pathway into higher education and the university sector.
I was very pleased to see the committee highlight an example in my constituency of the innovative partnership working between New College Lanarkshire and the University of the West of Scotland. It is important to reflect that, as much as we have seen progress, we know that it is uneven and that some institutions need to go further than others. The University of the West of Scotland, in particular, must be commended for the activity that it has undertaken. A lot of the newer institutions are doing some of the heavier lifting in that regard, notwithstanding the fine work that is being done by the University of St Andrews, as Mr Rennie mentioned, although I was not entirely clear whether he was really welcoming Glaswegians into the town of St Andrews—we can discuss that later.
We know that there is more to be done and that the journey must be continued. I know that the Government is committed to that, and I look forward to hearing from the minister at the end of the debate about how we will hit that target come 2030.
15:55
I thank the Education, Children and Young People Committee for its comprehensive report on accessing further education and for the opportunity to highlight the importance of getting a great education and ensuring that it is accessible to all.
I listened to my colleague Jamie Hepburn—I am a product of the University of Glasgow, too. I have also been through college and through the Open University. Many people have tried to educate me, and yet I still stand here. [Laughter.]
We need a further education sector that offers equity of access for pupils with a passion and a drive to succeed in their chosen field of study. We need an education system that speaks to an economic need locally and more generally across Scotland and that matches that need with careers advice and a straightforward pathway into that career. What the Scottish Government has presided over is far removed from that ideal.
It seems to me that, if someone is academically minded and does well in an exam environment, there is a route through school and into university. The Scottish Government, as we have heard, is always keen to push for an increase in university attendance, especially in the lower SIMD areas. Of course, equity of access across all demographics is an extremely important goal that I am sure we all share, but surely it is not just about attending university but about getting an appropriate education that leads to a fulfilling and engaging career, especially by highlighting where local opportunities are available.
I read a recent report by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development entitled, “What is the scale and impact of graduate overqualification in Scotland?” It suggested that more than
“a third ... of graduates feel overqualified for their jobs and are more likely to be underemployed, underpaid or working part-time, than graduates whose jobs match their qualifications.”
The CIPD recommends that we
“Provide better careers advice”—
as we have already heard from Miles Briggs—
“and guidance to help young people understand alternative vocational pathways.”
The CIPD also wants to
“Expand Scotland’s existing modern, foundation and graduate apprenticeships to encourage vocational pathways and work-based learning.”
Expanding access to higher education must start at primary and secondary school, with careers advice that speaks to and highlights opportunity. University is entirely the right place for some pupils, but in recent times, pushing young people down the university route seems to be the only measurement of success, to the detriment of our colleges. The Scottish Government has continued to erode the FE sector, with tens of thousands of places cut in recent years.
If we are discussing need, let us talk about healthcare. Only yesterday, in the social care debate, I highlighted that Ayrshire College had to turn away 71 applications for social care courses purely on funding grounds. That issue was echoed by colleagues across the chamber in relation to their areas. We all know how short of care workers the system is. It is described as a crisis, yet we are turning away people who would work in that sector. The Scottish Government is still sticking to its line that immigration is the only solution. That is lazy politics and an abdication of responsibility.
I am enjoying the member’s contribution on the concerns around the number of people who are being turned away from colleges. Does he agree that it is also a tragedy that 1,200 students applied for places at Glasgow Kelvin College but there were only 300 places available to allocate?
I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for her intervention; the same point was made in the chamber yesterday. I talked then about Ayrshire College, and colleagues from across the chamber described exactly the same problem in their regions—all those students who want to get into a college, who want to apply for a course and who want to get into careers for which we are crying out for workers, and yet they are being turned away.
Another example is that we are short of doctors, and yet applications from Scottish pupils are being turned away, even when the pupils have the qualifications to get on the course. That is because an artificial cap has been put in place by the Scottish Government. There is an obvious solution—shift the cap. I do not understand why the Scottish Government will not instruct the obvious.
We are short of nurses and midwives, so let us make it easier for pupils to apply for those courses. For some potential nurses and midwives, an apprenticeship route would be more appropriate—especially for those who are looking to upskill from a healthcare environment. More than a third of trainee midwives are over the age of 30, which means that many of them will have to give up careers to train or that they already have children or mortgages and so on. Currently, in order to train they would have to leave work to go for a university place. Surely that barrier can be easily removed with an apprenticeship pathway.
I agree with Brian Whittle’s overall sentiment that we need to create greater parity of esteem and different pathways into professions and careers. Does he agree that the piece of primary legislation that is before Parliament is important in that regard, because it will bring together the funding for universities, colleges and apprenticeships, so that we can be creative and agile in the offer that we make to people and achieve greater efficiency and value for money for the taxpayer?
I appreciate the minister’s intervention, but the committee could not even commit to that. I think that what the bill proposes is extraordinarily expensive. The only thing that matters is outcomes. In the case of the healthcare sector, I have described obvious steps that would widen access to education and deliver against a really urgent need.
While we are on the subject of apprenticeships, I want to once again raise the issue that we face in engineering and trades. In those fields there is a chronic lack of people, against the backdrop, in Ayrshire and across Scotland, of a demand for apprenticeships in engineering and trades, which would lead to very highly skilled and well-paid jobs. Ayrshire College turned away 400 applicants for engineering apprenticeships because of a lack of funding. It turned away 120 applicants for trades. Imagine if we were able to offer those young people the existing local opportunities that they strive for.
I am short of time, so I have to ask a question. Why is the Scottish Government resisting? It can create the skills environment that draws our pupils in. It can create an environment that encourages and enthuses our pupils and gives them hope and aspiration for what living and working in Scotland can be.
16:02
For the second time this week, I follow my childhood sporting hero, Brian Whittle.
As always in these debates, I am going to be extremely positive, because that is my nature and I cannot be any other way. I do not see the dystopian picture of the Scottish higher education sector that some—although not all—of the Opposition members seem to be talking about.
I want to talk about the practical aspects of widening access and how it is working in the real world—the real lives that are being changed for the better and the access that might create a better future for them. There might be some talk of the great town of Paisley in my speech, but that part might have been nicked by Mr Rennie already. That just shows that I am seeing the positive message of Paisley all the time.
With regard to free tuition and the Scottish Government’s commitment to it, I would like to start with the fundamentals. Since 2007, approximately 740,000 students have had free tuition on the higher education route. The SNP is resolute in its continued commitment to free education and free tuition, which ensures that higher education in Scotland is based on the ability to learn and not on the ability to pay. Because of free tuition, undergraduate students in Scotland do not accrue a potential additional-fee debt of around £28,000. In England, that comes to around £53,000-worth of debt. Scotland has the lowest average debt in the UK, and here there is also an impressive rise in widening access.
History has shown us that, whether in Scotland, England or Wales, Labour tends to put up tuition fees. The number of Scots from the most deprived areas who enter university has increased by 37 per cent since the Scottish Government established the commission on widening access—that is progress. I was quite impressed by John McKendrick, the commissioner for fair access, when he came to the committee, even though he is a former football referee—members will be aware that I have problems with football referees in general. However, I found him extremely impressive, given some of the work that he is doing, and very positive about how he will move that work forward.
I will talk about the UWS foundation academy in a bit more detail than Mr Rennie did, because the University of Western Scotland is leading the way in widening participation at university. It sits right at the centre of the universe in Paisley. Since launching in 2022, UWS’s foundation academy initiative has already supported more than 2,300 students from 34 schools across 10 local authorities. This year, 29 pupils from Castlehead high school and 17 from Gleniffer high school in Paisly are among the cohort. Those young people are gaining invaluable insights into fields such as forensic science, sports science, engineering and nursing—disciplines that are crucial to Scotland’s future workforce. The programme is free for schools, ensuring that financial constraints are not a barrier. It provides a structured pathway into university for pupils in secondary 5 and 6, helping them to gain academic confidence and experience in university-level learning. Crucially, the pupils earn a level 7 credit that can be used as an alternative to a higher B grade when applying to UWS.
The UWS’s unique approach arises from it being special not only in what it does but in its demography, because the students at UWS are predominantly female and nearly 70 per cent of the students are over the age of 21. That is not the traditional university model. It is a university that understands that education is a lifelong journey rather than just something for 18-year-olds. UWS is the largest provider of nurses and midwives in Scotland. It is also Scotland’s largest articulation university, meaning that it takes more students from colleges who are educated up to higher national certificate and higher national diploma levels into degree level and beyond.
That is not the only good work that has been happening in Paisley on widening access. We also have the Open University in Scotland, which is Scotland’s national widening access and lifelong learning university. Right now, there are more than 190 Open University students in Paisley. Here is what makes them remarkable: 74 per cent are in employment while they study, 52 per cent receive a part-time fee grant, and 21 per cent do not have a traditional university entrance qualification. They are people who might never have gone to university through the traditional route, who are balancing work, family and study, and who are proving that it is never too late to learn. The Open University works with three secondary schools in my constituency—Castlehead high school, Paisley grammar school and St Andrew’s academy—through its young applicants and schools scheme, which provides a funded online bridging scheme for S6 pupils to help them gain university-level study skills in a range of subjects. That is making real differences in young people’s lives.
UWS and Open University are not just investing in students in Paisley; they are transforming Paisley through what the students go on to do. UWS is taking that a step further in that it has developed some spin-out companies, including Novosound, which is now a multimillion-pound company that is developing cutting-edge ultrasound technologies—that is what happens when you widen access and give people an opportunity.
The Scottish Government under the SNP will always do its best with the powers that it has, but there is simply no substitute for independence. Scotland’s future lies as an independent country, and Scotland will be best served by the full range of fiscal powers and choices that independence will bring.
Widening access is not just about statistics and targets—I think that I have proved that today—but about young people, such as those from Castlehead and Glennifer high schools, who are discovering that university is for them. It is about institutions, such as UWS, that are widening participation at their very core. It is about ensuring that a young person’s potential—not their postcode—determines their future. I am proud of what we are achieving at the moment, of what we will achieve in the future, and of what UWS is achieving in Paisley. I am committed to continuing that work so that every young person in Scotland has the opportunity to fulfil their potential.
16:09
Like other members, I thank the Education, Children and Young People Committee, those who support it and those who contributed to this important report.
The SNP Government loves to talk about fairness and opportunity—we heard that again in this debate—but, when it comes to widening access to higher education, I am afraid that such rhetoric rings hollow. Its response to the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s report on widening access shows that the Government is failing to deliver.
Let us discuss facts. I will pick a different period of time to show where we are today. The trajectory on access has flattened. The proportion of students from the 20 per cent most deprived areas who go to university sits at 16.3 per cent, down from 16.7 per cent in 2020-21. The interim target of 18 per cent by 2026 is now at serious risk of being missed. Ministers admit that, and I am grateful for that, but they offer little more than consultation and warm words. Where is the urgency? Where is the leadership?
Let us consider students. Getting them through the door is only part of the job; keeping them there is essential. They need to be supported to succeed. That is crucial. However, the retention rate for SIMD20 students has fallen to 83.1 per cent, which is the lowest figure since 2014-15. The trend is the same for care-experienced students. Access without success is failure. However, the Government’s response is to engage with the Scottish Funding Council and to point to mental health plans that have been in place for years while the retention rate has fallen.
Let us consider disabled students. They remain an afterthought. The committee rightly expressed deep disappointment that the recommendations from the previous review on disabled student support have been ignored. The Government’s answer is another consultation—no timeline for action and no concrete improvement, just more delay.
The lived experience of our people backs up what I have set out. In relation to their school, one young person said to the committee:
“I felt that they were pushing me towards college, and were negative about my desire to go to university ... They didn’t give me information about ... open days. I didn’t get the support that I needed.”
Another young person said that the system for disabled students was “exhausting” and “fragmented”, with poor co-ordination between their school and colleges and universities. Those are real voices and they deserve real action, not another round of talking shops.
We have heard from members across the chamber that there are massive success stories out there in Scotland, principally driven by institutions, by schools engaging with those institutions and by schools and organisations that can think differently.
However, the financial barriers remain crippling. Students told us about the cost of housing, food and heating. One student told us in their evidence that
“university feels like a risk.”
For care-experienced students, that risk is even greater. Students spoke of receiving inconsistent advice and the lack of a named point of contact. They need continuity of support, not a postcode lottery.
Colleges are the backbone of widening access. They provide the articulation routes that allow disadvantaged learners to successfully progress to university, but the Government has cut college funding in real terms by 20 per cent since 2021-22. Those are not my figures; they are Audit Scotland’s figures. That represents not parity of esteem but neglect.
Practitioners have said that the cuts have led to a reduction in the number of widening access activities, especially in-person events. Those are vital for our rural students and for students who are concerned about what their next steps will be, so that they can sit down with someone who will talk about the experience that they will have and say, “Yes, it’s a challenge, but it’s fun.” Jamie Hepburn said that university was the time of his life. People learn about that through face-to-face discussions. When those activities are cut, people will say, “It’s not for me.” Another student said:
“Funding constraints have forced cuts to impactful programmes. This is undesirable and damaging.”
Let us talk about the data quality that must underpin accountability. The committee supports the introduction of a unique learner number so that students’ journeys can be tracked across schools, colleges and universities. Up until today, the Government’s response on data and accountability has, I suggest, been incredibly weak. Today, the minister has undertaken to think afresh about the issue, and I genuinely welcome that. However, I am concerned about the fact that it has taken a new minister, at the end of a parliamentary session, to say that the Government will think again.
I thank Martin Whitfield for giving way in what I think is a very good speech. Does he agree that it would be a huge leap forward if we were able to link the data from education, health and welfare?
I am going to steal Mr Whittle’s suggestion. Goodness me—what a good idea.
Yesterday, the committee agreed to an amendment at stage 2 of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill that will enable exactly what Mr Whitfield and Mr Whittle have just called for, so I look forward to the Labour Party and the Conservative Party voting for the bill at stage 3.
If provisions to introduce a unique learner number are added to the bill, I can categorically confirm my support for it.
I am conscious of time. Data is incredibly important. Our students have exam numbers, medical numbers and national insurance numbers. We number at the drop of a hat, so it is unforgivable that we do not have a unique learner number that would allow us to track the progress of our young people.
I come back to Willie Rennie’s point, on which I hope we will hear from the minister later. I do not think that the Government has built IT systems that are capable of putting in place a unique learner number. The lack of investment in IT in our schools is at the heart of the issue.
It is certainly true that there is not enough investment, but we have the SEEMiS information system, which is mineable, in all our high schools. It is not the most robust system, and changes need to be made to it, but if we do not address the issue now, we will never solve any of these problems.
The Government is not delivering fairness. It is hiding behind consultations while students from deprived backgrounds, disabled learners and care leavers continue to face barriers. The committee’s report must be a wake-up call. The Government cannot consult its way to fairness. Students need action, not another talking shop. The question is whether the Government will act or whether it will keep making promises that it cannot—or chooses not—to keep.
16:17
I am grateful for the opportunity to follow Martin Whitfield, who gave an excellent speech. In fact, there have been quite a few really good speeches in the debate. As is the norm on a Thursday afternoon, there has been a lot of common ground among members of different parties—if only that would serve as the bedrock for action, as Martin Whitfield said. He was right to focus on the need for a unique learner number.
The report that we are debating is an excellent cross-party report by an award-winning committee with an award-winning convener, and it is right that we are spending time considering it.
I was disappointed that George Adam described the alternative views and the critique that some members were offering as “dystopian”. That is a very strong word, and it is wholly inappropriate. Frankly, we should look at what the real world looks like, rather than looking at it through the starry eyes that George Adam chose to look at it through. We must look at the reality of what the Government’s own statistics say about the nature of what is happening, particularly among the SIMD20 cohort.
In a very challenging fiscal context, which is a result of many matters that are outwith the Scottish Government’s control, significant progress has been made—I mentioned the 37 per cent increase in the number of Scots from deprived areas taking degrees—since the Government took power. Mr Kerr said that we should not look at the situation through starry eyes, but does he agree that we should not look at it through overly gloomy eyes?
I do not think that I am being overly gloomy by referring to the Government’s own statistics on what is happening in quintile 1. We have learned that 16.8 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds across Scotland are not in employment, education or training. We can congratulate ourselves on minuscule levels of improvement or we can look at the hard facts, which should be uncomfortable for us all. By the way, in Glasgow, that figure is 20 per cent, and in Inverclyde—the member for Inverclyde is in the chamber—it is 17 per cent. We should be filled with an inspirational form of dissatisfaction and be saying that that is not good enough for Scotland in the 21st century.
Does Stephen Kerr agree that there is a correlation between the size of the welfare budget and the size of the education budget and that, if we got education right, we would be able to reduce the welfare budget?
Reducing the welfare budget is a noble objective of any Government that is worth its salt, because that means that we will beat the problem that we all want to beat, which is ingrained intergenerational poverty. If we are serious about doing that, we will see not burgeoning, climbing or exponentially increasing welfare budgets but resources being switched to solving the root causes of the problems, rather than just dealing with symptoms.
The Government’s short-termism is one of the most shocking aspects of its performance. Child poverty cannot be dealt with simply by increasing welfare payments. It is tackled by enabling people to live the life of dignity that they want for themselves—the famous hand up, not handout. That is the direction of travel that we should be taking, and Brian Whittle is right to point that out.
The fundamental problem across all the different aspects of public policy in Scotland is the lack of data. It astonishes me that, time after time, I come to the chamber to listen to ministers telling us that they do not really know the nature of the problem because they do not have the data, and that is absolutely true in this area.
I am absolutely clear that my whole reason for wanting to be in politics is rooted in a belief in fairness and the principle of equality of opportunity. That is what defines my conservatism. People can make of their lives what they like, and I do not buy into the idea that the end product—the outcome—needs to be based on equality, because that does not represent a free society. However, I absolutely believe that we should promote the idea of equality of opportunity at every turn of the wheel. I am a product of parents who believed in hard work, taking opportunities and making the most of them. I do not know whether I pleased or disappointed my parents—I am sure that I will find out one day when I meet them again.
The point is that we live in a country where that fairness and equality of opportunity is not what it should be. I grew up on a council estate. My dad was a butcher who worked for the Co-op, and my mum worked in a paper shop and wrote the papers in the morning for the paper boys. My mum and dad expected things of my sister and me, and we were the first members of my dad’s family to go to university. I bet that many other members can tell a similar story. That was about opportunity, and my politics and the politics of those of us on this side of the chamber are about maximising and widening access to those opportunities.
When I look at the Government’s record, I think that it provides the very opposite of fairness. The Government often hides behind phoney statistics, and one of the most phoney statistics of them all relates to the concept of the so-called positive destination. It is totally bogus to trade in that statistic. It does not mean anything. It tracks people three months after they leave school, and it covers casual work as well as education, training and employment. For heaven’s sake, it also covers zero-hours contracts, which must be anathema to members on the Government side of the chamber. A positive destination includes an occasional hour or two of work in a charity shop. That is not what we want for Scotland’s young people. Those are not fully explored positive destination.
That brings me back to the unique learner number. We do not know what we do not know. If we are to be able to craft public policy that responds to the situations that we are dealing with in Scotland, we need to have that data.
I see that my time is up. I hope that we can come together on these issues at least. I think that the minister is sincere, but does he really believe that the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill is the answer to any of this? It is not, and no number of amendments will make the bill useful—I am sorry, but it is not possible.
I say to Ben Macpherson that we judge the SNP by Nicola Sturgeon’s famous declaration to judge her on education. We judge the SNP on education. The SNP has failed Scotland.
16:24
I, too, thank all those who contributed to the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s report on widening access to higher education. The support from the clerks has been invaluable, as have the evidence and lived experience of the witnesses and the Government’s co-operation, in considering where we are going and how we are going to get there.
I should not forget to mention, too, the dedication and tenacity of my fellow committee members. I believe that, together, we have ensured that this report is both comprehensive and constructive.
The subject of widening access is, of course, hugely important. Higher education should be a gateway to opportunity, not a barrier. It is about fairness, social mobility and unlocking potential regardless of background, disability, ethnicity or care experience. Today, we have heard many voices with—shall I say?—sometimes differing views, but all with the same vision of fair access and equality for all.
The committee set clear aims for the inquiry, following on from the recommendations in the report of the commission on widening access, which was chaired by Dame Ruth Silver. The inquiry examined how to meet the 2026 interim target of 18 per cent of full-time first-degree entrants coming from the 20 per cent most deprived backgrounds, as well as considering which access initiatives are proving to be successful, the impact of widening access on other SIMD groups and, critically, the challenges faced by disabled students, BME students and care-experienced students and what can be done to address those barriers. Those aims reflected our shared ambition that, by 2030, 20 per cent of full-time first-degree entrants to higher education will come from the most deprived backgrounds.
I want to focus on two specific areas that are highlighted in the report—disabled students and care-experienced students. On disabled students, the evidence was stark. In Lead Scotland’s survey, 16 out of 20 respondents said that disability made it harder to go to university, and 15 felt that universities did not welcome disabled applicants. Respondents called for better information, flexibility in course delivery, and staff training to ensure inclusivity. We also heard troubling accounts of low aspirations and young people being discouraged from pursuing university, because adults in their families deemed it an unrealistic aim. That is unacceptable.
The committee was disappointed that recommendations of the 2023 review of disabled student support had not been fully implemented. We welcome the Government’s commitment to consult on support for disabled students and part-time learners, but we need clarity on timescales and outcomes.
The report includes several recommendations, and I welcome the Government’s constructive response to them. I particularly welcome the publication in June of Scotland’s first national transitions to adulthood strategy for young disabled people, which aims to ensure that we have a joined-up approach so that all young disabled people experience a supported and positive transition to adult life. That is a significant milestone, but implementation is the key. I therefore urge the minister to update Parliament on progress on delivering the strategy and how its impact will be measured.
In reply to the committee, the minister stated that, following careful consideration, the Government had decided not to reconvene at this time the group that was looking at support for disabled students, which was established in response to the 2023 review. Given the minister’s statement that the group will not be reconvened at this time, I would welcome his views on whether that decision will be periodically reviewed and what alternative mechanisms will ensure that lived experience continues to inform policy.
Turning to care-experienced students, I note that the report acknowledges progress in that respect, with record numbers entering higher education. The publication of the national ambition for care-experienced students is a positive step—it focuses on intake, retention and successful completions—yet challenges remain. Students told us of inconsistent careers advice, gaps in support and housing barriers, and Universities Scotland highlighted that, although many institutions offer year-round accommodation, shortages persist, particularly in rural areas. Those issues affect retention and success, not just access.
In response, the committee has recommended that the Government provide regular updates on steps to address housing barriers and improve consistency of support. Although the Government’s response in that respect is encouraging, I urge the minister to consider what more can be done to improve retention and housing support and how will we ensure that every care-experienced learner has the same opportunities as their peers.
Widening access is not just about meeting targets—it is about transforming lives. It is about ensuring that talent and ambition are not stifled by circumstance. The committee’s report reminds us that progress has been made, but challenges remain. Financial barriers, mental health support, and systemic inequalities must be addressed if we are to achieve our 2030 goal.
I look forward to continuing this vital work with colleagues across the chamber, the Scottish Government and our education sector partners. Together, we can ensure that higher education in Scotland is truly accessible to all—that it is fair, inclusive and a foundation for opportunity.
We now move to winding-up speeches.
16:30
It is a pleasure to wind up for Scottish Labour. I thank Professor John McKendrick for the work that he has done on widening access to date and for allowing the committee access to his expertise in it.
I have enjoyed hearing members talk about the brilliant educational institutions that we have in Scotland and their experiences in accessing them. I look back with fondness on my time at Telford College, and studying in the evenings for a level 1 counselling course. I have fond memories of doing that part time and with colleagues from the workplace. I also look back on studying for my honours and masters degrees at the University of Stirling as one of the most formative experiences of my life, including when I first dipped my toe into politics—others can determine how successful that was—and to my time studying a postgraduate diploma at Glasgow Caledonian University as the first student on the university’s human rights course to combine work and study.
I use those examples to show the rich tapestry of options that are delivered in Scotland, options that provide unimaginable opportunities for people such as me. My family—like Stephen Kerr’s, it sounds like—pushed me to reach for those opportunities in the interest of fulfilling potential. It is clear from the strength of feeling across the chamber that that experience is shared. So, too, is the ambition to widen access to it.
I particularly welcome the recognition of the doors that access to education can open to enable everyone in Scotland to live up to their potential. Many members from all parties have recognised that, including Jamie Hepburn, Brian Whittle, Bill Kidd and George Adam. That is why this inquiry has been so important.
However, as members and the committee have set out, progress has been far too slow. I say gently to George Adam that that is the reality. The incredible work that many people do is not diminished, just because we recognise challenges. We are not being overly gloomy—it is just a reality check. We know that challenges can be overcome only if we accept the reality in the first place, but I am not sure that the Government has always got that fact.
As Douglas Ross reminded us, the committee considered the issue nearly 10 years on from the commissioner’s first report, but much is still outstanding. The unique learner number is just one example of an issue on which the Government has failed to act. It has had 10 years and multiple opportunities to introduce the measure, including in the Education (Scotland) Bill earlier this year, but it rejected amendments from Scottish Labour and others to do so. I encourage the Government to move on it quickly; if it does not, another Government should.
I am afraid that the Government’s inaction goes beyond that key factor, which could improve widening access, as Martin Whitfield and others have set out. The minister has set out that it is a Government priority to widen access and deliver parity of esteem; however, that is hard to square with the extent of the failure to recognise the system’s shortcomings, including those relating to the importance of the sector being match fit and the role of support for students in widening access, about which we have heard precious little from the Government.
The minister spoke of successes, and there have been some, thanks to the sector moving mountains. Just for comparison, though, the proportion of applicants from the most deprived quintile accepted into Scottish universities in 2023 was 72 per cent compared to 78 per cent in other parts of the UK. We have challenges, and there are others from whom we can learn.
From one graduate of the University of Stirling to another, I ask Pam Duncan-Glancy whether she agrees that equality of opportunity will be elusive in our country for as long as there are caps on the number of young people who can go to university or college. Does she also agree that the way to create a more qualitative equality of opportunity would be to have no caps at all?
Capping potential is something that any member in this chamber must seek to remove. It is important that people can get to university through potential and drive alone. That can be achieved only if universities and colleges across the sector have the support of their Government and others to make it happen.
In that respect, we have a long way to go. There are 1,200 fewer places available in further and higher education institutions as a result of the Government taking them away after Covid, and that will have an impact on students from the poorest backgrounds. That is exactly the point that I think Stephen Kerr has highlighted, and it can have serious impact on educational and equal opportunities.
The minister spoke of success and, as I have said, there has been some. However, although universities and colleges are working their socks off to support all who have the grades to enter them, they are doing so against the tide of cuts and a lack of priority. We have heard nothing about that from the minister. The minister also failed to mention that, according to the data, fewer people from disadvantaged backgrounds had applications accepted in 2023 than in 2022, and retention rates have been beginning to fall since 2021. The effect of that is more pronounced for students from the most deprived backgrounds than for those from the least deprived quintile. Again, we heard little about that.
On the unique learning number, the minister’s response that it is complicated is not good enough. This Government has had 10 years since the recommendation was made, and it is still saying that it is complicated. I agree with Willie Rennie that the Government should either get on with it, or say that it does not want to do it or does not agree with it, so that others can come forward with other suggestions or ways of making it happen.
We have heard nothing from the Government, either, on support for students. I got to university only because of the support of the disabled students allowance and an army of brilliant advisers. That system has broken down, and advisers are struggling against cuts. As Maggie Chapman set out, students face significant barriers and action on dealing with them is long overdue.
In the past hour, I have been reflecting on the minister’s response to that—and I have to say that I do not think that it is good enough to come to the chamber to talk about widening access and provide no update on a review that came about only after it was pointed out that the last review had resulted in years of inertia. I hope that the minister will give an update on it sooner rather than later.
It is also not enough simply to say what should happen or that widening access matters and that the recommendations are helpful. People need to see policy decisions and actions that support our ambitions and meet the targets, and we expected to hear a bit more from the Government today about how that will happen and what that action would look like.
The committee’s report was firm; it was stark; and it oozed with the frustration that we had heard from witnesses. However, that frustration will not have been assuaged today. We have heard nothing from the Government about the school-college partnerships, learner numbers, the review on student support or addressing the crisis in colleges.
I said in my opening speech that, without action, rhetoric on widening access will ring hollow. It might well ring hollow without a response from the Government that meets the challenge raised in the committee’s report.
16:37
It gives me pleasure to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I am grateful for the contributions that have been made from across the chamber. As others have done, I thank the committee, the clerks, the staff and all the contributors for their hard work in producing the report.
At the heart of the debate is a simple truth: widening access to higher education must be about real opportunity—not headlines or political self-congratulation but real opportunity for the young people in our communities who dare to dream bigger than the circumstances that they were born into. Too many talented young people in Scotland are still being held back by their background, postcode or personal circumstances and, every time that happens, Scotland loses out not just socially but economically, culturally and morally.
The committee heard, and we have heard again today, that the current system is not delivering on its promises. As Willie Rennie and others mentioned, progress for students from the most deprived communities has stalled. For two years, the proportion of SIMD 20 school leavers entering higher education has been stuck at 26.8 per cent and the interim target for 2026 is slipping out of reach. Those are not just numbers; they are young people who deserve better.
Universities Scotland told the committee that public investment in each Scottish student has fallen by £3,000 in real terms since 2014-15. Colleges Scotland warned that colleges simply do not have the resources to provide students, especially those with additional support needs, with the experience and support that they require. Professor John McKendrick, our commissioner for fair access, reminded us that, even in a free education system, students must be able to live, travel and support themselves. Those are costs that bursaries do not cover.
Those are not the voices of political opponents; they are the voices of experts, practitioners and advocates. They are the people who work directly with our young people every day, and they are all saying the same thing: the system is not working as it should. Widening access should not be about getting students through the door; rather, it must be about ensuring that they thrive once they are there. It means proper funding for colleges, universities and the support services that students rely on. It means addressing the rising deficits across the sector, where, without the surpluses of two large universities, the rest of Scotland’s institutions would be collectively in the red. It means listening to organisations that have told us clearly that very few of the previous recommendations on disabled students have been implemented.
Young people with disabilities are being let down, and so are care-experienced students, who face inconsistencies across institutions at the very moment when stability is the most important thing to them. Those are young people for whom widening access is supposed to matter most. I have spoken many times about the issues that surround the care-experienced community. It is well documented that change for that community is met with fear and anxiety. That is simply not good enough. As Miles Briggs mentioned, we do not have the data on how many follow through to the degree instead of just entering further education, which is why we must do more.
Widening access is also about wellbeing. When a young person spends every day worrying about money, housing, caring responsibilities or travel costs, how can we possibly expect them to focus on their studies? How can we ask them to achieve their potential while ignoring the reality of their daily lives? It is those human elements that matter, because behind every statistic is a young person who just wants a fair chance: the student who might be the first in their family to consider university; the college learner hoping to articulate into year 2 but finding fewer and fewer pathways available; the care-experienced young person determined to break cycles but still not getting consistent guidance; or the student from a rural or island community who feels forgotten because SIMD alone does not reflect their reality. If widening access is to mean anything, it must mean fairness for all of them.
I will not rehearse every recommendation in the committee’s report, but I will say clearly that the Scottish Government should heed those recommendations. They reflect intensive evidence, the sector’s concerns and what students themselves are telling us.
I want to highlight a couple of points from members’ contributions. The unique learning number has been mentioned by Douglas Ross, Willie Rennie, Brian Whittle, Martin Whitfield and Stephen Kerr. For me, it is the data retention from that number that is important. How on earth will we know whether the approach is working if we do not have the data? The people who are being let down are the children who need it the most.
Ben Macpherson and Jamie Hepburn, and George Adam, in a very positive speech, highlighted what progress has been made. We on these benches have spoken strongly about what more needs to be done. I am willing to accept that there has been progress but, as Willie Rennie and Stephen Kerr mentioned, that progress has stalled. If we do not recognise that it has stalled, we cannot fix it.
Stephen Kerr and Brian Whittle highlighted the fact that careers advice in our schools is not doing the job that it needs to do. Careers advice is the gateway to firing the imagination of our young people to be anything that they want to be. I am sure that my nephew will be thrilled when I tell people that, when he was five, he wanted to be a giraffe, but that is what we are talking about—the imagination that can fire from young people. We should be doing more on that.
Miles Briggs and Willie Rennie mentioned work-based learning. I attended Glasgow’s Central College of Commerce on day release, because I went through a management training scheme at House of Fraser stores. We must do more to encourage work-based placement.
Widening access is not a trophy to polish; it is a responsibility to Scotland’s young people, our institutions and our future. The Scottish Government must stop congratulating itself—we have had that in speeches today—and start delivering a credible funded plan that gives every young person a fair chance to get in, stay in and succeed. Our young people deserve nothing less.
16:45
This has been a good debate on our shared collective responsibility for widening access and building on the significant progress that has been made to date. Several excellent speeches have been made, and there has been constructive engagement.
First, I want to highlight the contribution of George Adam, who, while being fairly critical and asking for more progress to be made, rightly reminded us that we need to consider the progress that has been made.
I must say that some of the stats put forward by Opposition members, particularly by the Labour Party, do not necessarily correspond with the situation as I see it or with the stats that the Government holds. As I have emphasised, in 2023-24, the number of Scots from deprived areas entering university on full-time first degree courses was up by 37 per cent in comparison with the number when the Government established the commission on widening access. We should all welcome that significant progress. That is exemplified by George Adam’s comments regarding the University of the West of Scotland and the Open University. That also signifies that we cannot deliver alone as a Government—we need to work with partners. We are setting clear expectations on the sector and are confident that we will meet the 2030 target.
The latest figures for 2023-24 show that 16.7 per cent of full-time first degree entrants to Scottish universities came from our nation’s 20 per cent most deprived areas. That marks an increase of 16.3 per cent on the previous year. The figures also show an increase in the number of Scotland-domiciled students at Scottish universities to slightly under 174,000, as well as a rise in full-time Scottish first-degree entrants. I put those figures on the record, along with the fact that the proportion of care-experienced students at universities has increased every year since 2016-17, to counter Opposition members’ comments that suggest otherwise.
Retention rates are also in a more positive place than has been stated. Retention rates for full-time first-degree students returning for a second year in 2023-24 increased among Scotland-domiciled students at Scottish universities, reaching 89.5 per cent. Rates also rose for students from deprived areas, to 86.1 per cent, and for care-experienced students, to 84.9 per cent.
In his intervention on the minister’s opening speech, Willie Rennie suggested that the minister had taken four minutes of an eight-minute speech to tell us things that were not necessarily the focus of the debate. The minister has taken three minutes of a six-minute closing speech to tell us figures that we know—they are available publicly. What we do not know is what his Government will do to continue that progress, if he believes that there has been progress, or to improve progress, because others have said that it has stalled. What is the Government going to do to address the concerns and the recommendations in our report? That is what we need to hear from the Government.
I appreciate that fair challenge from the convener and from other members. I was getting on to that, and I will try to address some of it now, although I did address some matters in my opening remarks. It is unfair to say that I did not address anything—of course I did.
I will turn to other points that were raised. Maggie Chapman rightly emphasised that SIMD is not a sufficient data pool for achieving the impact that we need to and want to. She emphasised the challenges in her North East Scotland region. That is a good example of why the amendment at stage 2 of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill that we discussed yesterday is so important. We have a good opportunity in that primary legislation to make a change that will allow us to share data better in order to provide more opportunities for widening access. That will make a difference for individuals and for our country in relation to what Willie Rennie rightly emphasised about boosting economic activity. That data sharing will be important.
What members have emphasised on college funding is also important. We recognise the situation with our colleges and their huge contribution to providing opportunities for individuals to move on to universities, if that is what they wish to do. However, it is also important to consider colleges as a destination in their own right. If we want to achieve parity of esteem, we must respect colleges and appreciate their role. Almost one third—32.5 per cent—of new entrants to university in 2023-24 progressed from higher education courses at colleges, which emphasises the importance of our college sector.
The UK Government’s budget was not generous; indeed, it was extremely disappointing in many ways. However, although the financial circumstances are still very tight, now that the Scottish Government knows what resources it has been allocated by the UK Government, we are in a position to consider the situation that is facing our colleges. Ministers will consider the asks that have been made, recognising the important contribution that colleges make and their collective determination to continue adapting to meet the modern needs of our communities and economy.
Bill Kidd made some specific requests that I do not have time to go through. I give him the assurance that I will write to him on the points that he raised, and I will share that information with the committee.
In conclusion, I emphasise the importance of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill. Members are being unfairly and unhelpfully dismissive of the impact that the legislation can make in the medium to longer term. It will also enable Skills Development Scotland to fully emphasise careers advice and to bring together funding for apprenticeships and for higher and further education in order to create greater agility and efficiency, making us more responsive to the needs of the 21st century.
I will meet the commissioner for fair access in the days ahead. I look forward to hearing more from him and the committee about the important issues that have been raised, so that we can continue to work together towards meeting the 2030 target to create greater access to higher education for those for whom it is the right opportunity. If we achieve the 2030 target, create those opportunities and allow people to succeed in the way that is best for them, that will benefit us all in terms of fairness and economic activity.
I confirm to members that we have exhausted all the time that we had in hand. I call Jackie Dunbar to wind up the debate on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee.
16:52
I am proud to close the debate on behalf of the committee. Like the convener, I pay tribute to the work of my colleagues and to all those who gave evidence to the committee during our inquiry.
As we have heard, in 2016, the commission on widening access recommended that 20 per cent of full-time first-degree university entrants should come from the 20 per cent most deprived backgrounds by 2030, with interim targets of 16 per cent by 2021 and 18 per cent by 2026. In 2016-17, 13.8 per cent of full-time first-degree university entrants came from the 20 per cent most deprived backgrounds. Since 2019-20, that figure has been above 16 per cent. Much progress has been made, and that should be warmly welcomed.
However, there is more to do. As the committee set out in its report, students from different backgrounds face financial barriers in accessing higher education, particularly in relation to the on-going costs that are associated with studying, such as housing, food, heating and travel costs. The committee also heard about the barriers that are experienced by students who are disabled, from black and minority ethnic groups, or care experienced. The committee received evidence from disabled students, the majority of them stating that they had received lower grades than they expected for a reason that was related to being disabled. They also found it harder to go to university because of something that was related to their being disabled, and they did not feel that Scottish universities welcomed or encouraged disabled applicants.
From black and minority ethnic students, the committee heard that it would be helpful if there were greater awareness of the widening access programmes that are available across Scotland for pupils, teachers, parents and carers of pupils who aspire to go to university; if there were continuous professional development for staff who offer information, advice and guidance, including school careers advisers; and if there were greater financial support for students, including help and advice in relation to student accommodation, affordability and availability. The students indicated that it would also be helpful if there were an end to the myth that university is only for the select few and if there were support programmes that encouraged pupils to be their best selves and that promoted positive actions and destinations.
Barriers that were highlighted by care-experienced students included the fact that information on transitions to university is variable and dependent on the individual’s support networks, as well as the inconsistency of the support that is available. There were also concerns about the retention of care-experienced students. They said that there is a need for consistent careers advice at school, with bespoke advice and information about their support entitlements.
That is why we said that, although the widening access targets relate to students from deprived areas, it is important to consider young people from other backgrounds, including disabled students and black and minority ethnic students, as part of the widening access agenda.
Other members have reflected on those issues today, as well as on measures that are used to identify those who are eligible for widening access programmes and the possibilities that are offered by free school meals data and a unique learner number.
As is normal practice, I will discuss members’ contributions. Miles Briggs gave practical examples of positive destinations and the positive journeys to get to them. It was great to hear about the positive work that is being done jointly by workplaces, universities and colleges. He also spoke about the good work at RGU, and I, too, thank RGU for its briefing. Of course, the north-east also has another fantastic example of joint working: the girls in energy initiative, which is run by North East Scotland College and Shell.
Pam Duncan-Glancy spoke about the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill, which has just finished its stage 2. I look forward to seeing what stage 3 will bring and whether we can work together on any amendments.
Pam Duncan-Glancy also spoke about the difficulties that part-time students face. I agree that more needs to be done in that regard, and I look forward to working with her to find a solution.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
I really do not have time—sorry.
Maggie Chapman said that education is the cornerstone of our society, and she gave a valuable insight into what the north-east has to offer. Aberdeen is the next net zero capital of the world, but it is also the city that, at one time, had more universities than the whole of England put together. Aberdeen is, once again, punching above its weight.
Willie Rennie spoke about the fantastic work that is happening in his constituency, including what the University of St Andrews is doing to break down the barriers that I spoke about earlier, which I hope will lead to its no longer being seen as an elitist establishment. That shows that nothing is impossible if we put our minds to it.
Jamie Hepburn spoke about creating a fairer society and growing our economy. He also spoke about tuition fees and wondered whether he would have been able to go into higher education if it had not been free. Those fees are a barrier to the very people the committee wanted to hear from, and it was good to hear from him.
Brian Whittle spoke about students’ passion for learning and how we need education that is appropriate to our economic needs. I totally agree with him on that point. That is why apprenticeships are important. It is important that people are able to access education and grow their skills, whether they do so in schools, colleges, universities or businesses. One size does not always fit all, which is why widening access is so important.
It wouldnae have been a George Adam speech without a mention of Paisley—there is no Punch without Judy. Although he claimed that Willie Rennie stole half of his speech, he still managed to give us more information on the positive destinations of our young people and their potential.
I will be honest: it was disappointing to hear the negativity from Martin Whitfield, given that this report had full committee support. We absolutely recognise that there is still work to be done. There is always work to be done, but things are progressing.
I cannot comment on Stephen Kerr’s contribution, as I genuinely did not hear him speak to the report that the committee worked hard on. It was a committee report, not an SNP one.
Bill Kidd got back to the actual report, and I thank him for his measured approach.
I am running out of time, so I will crack on. It is important to recognise the work that is being done to support students from deprived areas in higher education, as well as students from other backgrounds, including those who are disabled, BME and care experienced. We should also recognise the successes that there have been, such as the increase in the number and proportion of students from the 20 per cent most deprived backgrounds, the number of care-experienced students being at a record level and, through articulation, the number of care-experienced students being above the level of those in the general population.
However, we can always do better, and further measures are needed to improve access for all those groups. I therefore welcome what has been said in that regard today. We should be proud of what has been achieved so far and be ready to push on to greater success.
That concludes the debate on the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s report on widening access to higher education.
Air ais
Portfolio Question TimeAir adhart
Decision Time