Seòmar agus comataidhean

I lodged amendment 84 on the back of various different bits of work that I have been doing. When I visited one of the Gaelic schools in Glasgow, I was most struck by the teachers’ explanations about the time that it takes for them to translate some materials into Gaelic in order for their young people to access the materials that they need in order to do the best that they can do in their exams and throughout their education.

On that basis, my amendment 84 would put a duty on the examinations boards in Scotland to provide such materials for GME, so that young people who are learning through the medium of Gaelic have as much support as those who are learning through the medium of English. That is why I lodged the amendment.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for setting that out. This is probably not the time or the place to go through my concerns about that particular body and that bill.

However, I will say that the duty that my amendment 84 would provide is slightly broader than the duty that is proposed in the education bill. In my understanding, the education bill clarifies the existing duty around the qualifications body to consider making materials available—it effectively tidies up that duty for the purposes of the bill. However, in practice, that duty is not enough, because teachers and staff in schools are not made to provide other materials in addition to that.

To strengthen what is required, given how important it is that all the material be available, it is not enough that there be a duty in the education bill—notwithstanding the fact that it has not yet gone through the Parliament. It is not just the exam papers themselves that schools are having to translate, but some of the material that supports young people to do the best that they can in their exams, which takes up a lot of time and, in some cases, money.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for her response and for her indication of support. For completeness, I will say that I intend to support her amendments in the group.

I lodged the amendments to do precisely what the Deputy First Minister and my colleague Ross Greer spoke about, which is to give communities a voice in the decision about whether an area should be designated as an area of linguistic significance. In evidence, the committee heard concerns that that might not always be easily achieved. Added to the Deputy First Minister’s amendments, the proposed provision would give strength to community voice.

We chose community councils for amendment 5 because of the role that they play in supporting and advocating for local communities. I take the point that, if there was no active community council at the time, the situation could be quite difficult, and I would not want to hold up a process of community engagement in such cases.

On the basis of what I have heard this morning, I would be happy to work with the Government ahead of stage 3 on an amendment that we could all support, to give voice to communities in such decisions.

I appreciate that, and I understand the point about leaving specific numbers for the targets to the strategy, but do you not recognise the importance of setting out what the ambition is in legislation? It is common practice to define what an ambition is through targets. I take the point about some of the specific language, but should there not be something about targets in the bill, with the level of those targets then being set in the strategy?

Can the Deputy First Minister make it clear that she is prepared to consider the matter and address it at stage 3?

I am minded to support the amendments, given the committee’s conclusions on that aspect, but I have a couple of questions. Will you set out why the financial resolution came so late? Why is the power specifically needed in this bill? In the ordinary workings of Parliament, the Government can, through the budget process, allocate finance to whatever it wants, in effect. It would be helpful to have clarity on those points.

The amendments in the group are to recognise that, in Scotland, when we take pride in our teaching profession and in the standards to which teachers work, many of those standards are supported and guided by legislation and by standards set out by the General Teaching Council for Scotland.

As it stands, the bill does not fully recognise those standards. It is unclear how the standards around Gaelic that are proposed in the bill will relate to the way in which the GTCS carries out its functions on the standards relating to education more broadly. Amendments 81 and 82 seek to clarify that.

Amendment 81 sets out the standards of education and training that are appropriate for schoolteachers and the conduct and professional competence that are expected of teachers as per the GTCS standards. Amendment 82 requires the Government to make sure that the General Teaching Council for Scotland is consulted. The amendment would make that explicit; it would clarify and preserve the approach that we have had in Scotland for some time, which recognises graduate professional teachers.

I move amendment 81.

What discussions has Emma Harper had with the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and teachers about amendment 74 in particular?

Just for clarity, would you consider defining targets differently in the bill, or do you think that there should be no targets in the bill?

For clarity, can you confirm that you think that it is important that there are still local approaches to other strategies, giving voice to the views of local people, communities and organisations, and that the intention of the amendments is simply to clarify that there is a national strategy?