Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will all of that be fed into the review?

It is about not only how it is done but the appearance of how it is done. Mr Marra made the point that, at face value, having the SQA so dominant in the process could be questioned by those who fear a rebranding and nothing more. What real assurance can be given that this is a genuine process that will get us to where it is clear we need to be in relation to not only forming a new body but the ethos of that body? It is perfectly legitimate for the SQA’s input over the past few years and in a broader sense to be taken on board, but we should also be looking at the issue afresh. How is the oversight organisation that you are running, Mr Baxter, actually operating in practice?

Are we operating in a way that involves looking to the end destination—what it is that we want to achieve—and working out how we best get there, as opposed to simply tweaking the existing practice and approach?

Perhaps I did not pitch my question sufficiently clearly. My question is about your organisation. I recognise that we are talking about a national plan to deliver the language across Scotland, but, for my understanding, what percentage of the individuals who are involved in the bòrd are actually embedded in the traditional communities? I see that you have offices in Stornoway, Inverness and Glasgow. What is the geographic spread of the people who work for the bòrd?

I will shrink them to one question and cut to the chase. My question follows on from Willie Rennie’s line of questioning.

Mairi, you mentioned ferries. You will be aware, no doubt, that one of the many criticisms of the ferry delivery organisation is that none of the directors lives in the islands that they serve. There are also criticisms that some of the staff whose roles are not geographically specific are not based in the islands. How many of the people who are involved in your organisation are embedded either professionally or personally in the traditional Gaelic heartlands?

I apologise to the panel for not being present in person.

I want to go back a little and look at the challenges that are faced by student officers and staff in colleges post-regionalisation. With regionalisation, college mergers took place and multiple campuses came under the same umbrella. I want to explore the challenges that that can pose, less from the point of view of the time that the relevant people have to dedicate to each campus and more from the point of view of the different cultures that exist in different colleges or on different campuses, which John O’Hara talked about.

For example, travel issues arise when courses are concentrated in one location, which presents difficulties. I am thinking, in particular, of situations in which there is a mix of urban and rural campuses. I am being parochial in that I represent Angus. I want to tease that out a bit more, if I can. Maybe we should start with Amy Monks.

I presume that there is a mixed picture across the country. There will be areas such as yours where there has been progress but, on the basis of the findings of the commissioner’s report, I presume that, overall, there is an issue, or an issue remains.

Can we anticipate a quickening of the pace in the years to come?

I apologise if this is a layman’s question, but I want to get an understanding of this. What is the collective reserves position for Scotland’s colleges set against what it would have been before regionalisation?

My questions are directed to Professor Scott in the first instance. In your annual report, which you published this week, you note:

“Universities Scotland and Colleges Scotland established a National Articulation Forum which produced its final report in 2020. Yet very limited progress has been made.”

Will you expand on that and tell us why you think that that has, disappointingly, been the case? Perhaps you could highlight areas in which you think that progress could be made to the greatest benefit.