���˿���

Finally, on the savings exercise that the cabinet secretary announced in September, a couple of programmes that it was announced at that point would be cut, paused, suspended and so on have been agreed in the coming year’s budget. I am thinking of, for example, the rolling out of free bus travel for asylum seekers and more free ferry travel for young islanders.

Is there a point towards the end of the financial year when the Government will be relatively confident about its position and can put in some of the up-front money—that is, the start-up money—for those kinds of small schemes? At this point, it does not look like balancing the books is going to be a huge challenge. The initial operating costs—or the set-up costs—for asylum seeker bus travel are, as far as I recall, in the region of half a million pounds. If that is available in this financial year, does it not make sense, by the time you get to January, February or March, to just allocate that money and get the ball rolling so that the scheme can be up and running as soon as possible?

I appreciate the need for spending controls, but there must be a point at which you and the cabinet secretary are confident enough about the Government balancing the books that you can look at what has been paused, reduced and so on throughout the year, take a cross-Government approach and ask, “What are our strategic priorities? Where will we get best value if we put the money back in now, instead of waiting until the next financial year?”

I appreciate that. Most of my examples were of things that had been pushed back to the start of the financial year and that probably could have been brought forward to some midpoint in the year, but I take the point.

That’s me, convener.

The witnesses may have caught my last question towards the end of the session with the commissioner for fair access. It was on student access to housing, which is a significant barrier in the context of the widening access agenda. Some universities have done a lot of work on that, particularly for care-experienced and estranged young people.

Claire, are you aware of any wider work in the sector to address the housing issues that students from backgrounds that are considered to fall under the widening access agenda have experienced and of how those issues have been resolved?

That would be great, and it is much appreciated. Thank you very much. That is all from me, convener.

Good morning, John.

Earlier, you mentioned that students have to exist while they are at university, and you mentioned all the other factors that have a significant impact on their ability to get there in the first place and then to complete their studies. I am interested in the housing situation, in particular, and in hearing about any work that you have done on that and evidence that you have gathered on it, particularly in the light of the point that was made by Miles Briggs about care-experienced young people, who often have difficulties in accessing housing and accommodation when they are at university.

The Scottish Government’s programme for government in the previous years of this session contained a commitment to a guarantor scheme for estranged young people and students, in particular. That is not present in the most recent programme for government, so I presume that the Government no longer intends to progress it. What impact are you aware of on the ability of students, particularly those who are estranged from their families, who are care-experienced and so on, to complete their studies as a result of their inability to access housing and the lack of a guarantor who can help them with that?

That would be great—thank you.

Lydia, are there any examples from UHI of how you address the housing issue, given that the rural context makes it significantly different? Glasgow offers a great example of widening access for estranged young people, but urban and rural contexts for housing and student accommodation are very different.

I have one final question, which that segues into really nicely: it is about young people and learners.

You spoke about setting up your new schools unit to have a more direct line of communication, which I think is excellent. As you might have heard, one of the questions that I asked Fiona Robertson and the cabinet secretary when they were before us was about the challenges of not having a system in place whereby you can directly contact every learner. In the higher history situation, there was no mechanism by which you could have contacted everyone who took the exam to explain to them what subsequently went on.

Are there any on-going discussions about creating some kind of direct communication tool, or using existing tools in the system, so that you can have a direct line of contact? As it filters through councils, schools and so on, the key information very often does not get to learners. Given what you have just said, the first that they hear of a situation is often, unfortunately, in the media or on social media, and the information is often not presented accurately.

That is all incredibly useful.

I do not want to reopen the specifics of the higher history situation—I think that we have exhausted that this morning—but it is an example of the board’s involvement in specific situations as they arise. In relation to higher history, what has gone to the board, and what discussions has the board had? Has it given the organisation direction in how it has responded at any point in the process?

I echo what colleagues have already said and thank you for the evidence that you have given. It is difficult for you to balance your duty of transparency with the duty of care to your own staff in particular, and I think that you have done that well this morning.

Shirley, you have clearly been a very proactive and involved chair, and that is exactly what the SQA has needed, so I welcome that. However, I am interested in the role of the wider board, with regard to not just what has happened with higher history—although that may be a useful example—but how informed the board is, in the first instance, and how involved it is in formulating the organisation’s response to such situations.

Over the past 10 or 20 years, there have been various instances in which some of the criticism of the SQA, including from me, has been about what appears to be a lack of action, or even a lack of interest, from the board, in particular on performance and issues of policy. Historically, the board has focused much more on corporate governance, operational issues and so on, which is an important part of the role but not all of it.

Can you share with us a little bit about what the board is doing now and how involved it currently is in the organisation’s activities?