Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is helpful.

Yes, but that is a ministerial thing. What I am saying is that it might provide reassurance to some of the parties that have commented on the bill to move that into the bill so that it is in the primary legislation. The question is whether you see any negative aspects to excluding ordinary household goods from these provisions up front.

I understand that that is easier from a legal or technical point of view. However, with regard to consumer protection, those might be questions that we should be asking: are we allowing people to secure debt against things that they cannot live without?

I was waiting to see whether Angela Cox wanted to say any more—

Witnesses have touched on a lot of the topics that are of concern to me, and particularly the challenges facing smaller rural colleges. Joanna Campbell’s written submission talks about the impact of flat cash settlements, the pressures of inflation and some of the things that colleges are being asked to do. How will the lack of funding impact on your work over the next few years?

Thank you, convener—I did not want to cut anyone off.

My other question is about something that came up with the previous panel. In Glasgow, there have been significant mergers of colleges as part of regionalisation. That scale of merger is more challenging—I would say impossible—in other parts of the country, simply because of geography. Is there pressure in the system to look at what I would describe as unsuitable mergers, or significant changes in the structure of colleges, to try to deal with budgetary pressures? Are we at that point? Again, I am happy to put that question to any of the witnesses.

You cannot hide behind the fact that young people with the greatest educational challenges have had the least support at the most difficult point. All the changes that you have made tidy up the statistics but do not help those young people to get the learning, teaching and support that they should have had.

In effect, you are helping to mask the scale of the attainment gap by making those types of changes, and the types of adjustments that you have made in helping people to prepare in advance for exams help the students who are doing well anyway—those who are most prepared and those in the schools with teachers who are able to provide that type of bespoke support—but there was nothing extra for the young people who face the greatest challenges. You have presided over an exams system that has accepted that unfairness. Do you think that that is wrong?

Does it make you angry that you are presiding over an exams system that is failing our young people who have the greatest educational challenges? Does that cause you to raise concern with the Scottish Government about the approach elsewhere in the system? You have come in at the end to help to tidy up and mask the fact that young people have been failed for the third year in a row.

I am happy to end there, convener. I would just say that a fair education system is one in which everyone has an equal opportunity, but I am not clear that that has happened this year.

This is the third time that the SQA has had a go at trying to help learners, but it feels to me that you have, again, failed Scotland’s young people. Again, we have seen that the system looks after the system rather than young people. All the measures that you outline do not really deliver, which is why we have seen a huge attainment gap. Surely you recognise that the attainment gap that we have seen this year is unacceptable?