Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. Thank you for the evidence that you have submitted and for your engagement with committee members throughout the process.

Like other members of the committee, I am really positive about certain aspects of the bill and, in particular, what it could do to improve the life chances of young people. I think that Liz Smith has put forward a compelling case.

However, as Liz Smith will be aware, there are a couple of issues that we need to explore a bit further, including the one that has just been touched on—that of the needs of pupils with additional support needs. What is your assessment of what happens at the moment in that regard and how that relates to your bill?

In your discussions with the Government, what has been its response to the issues around pupils with additional support needs accessing residential outdoor activity?

Some of the teachers who have given evidence to the committee on the bill have said that, in order to do this properly for pupils with additional support needs, more staffing resource would be required. Do you agree? How do you think that that could be resolved?

I hark back to my time in the disability movement. Many disabled people have said over the years that sometimes it does mean more resource, but achieving that parity is quite important.

Can you set out for the committee how you considered those additional resources in your financial memorandum?

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?

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.

On the basis of the clarification that the Deputy First Minister set out, I am content to withdraw amendment 81. I will press amendment 82, which I am pleased that the Government is minded to support. For completeness, we will also support the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 81, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 82 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Amendment 83 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Section 13—Guidance to public authorities relating to Gaelic education

Amendment 57 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Section 14—Directions to education authorities relating to Gaelic education

Amendment 58 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 15 agreed to.

Section 16—Duty to promote Gaelic education in exercising functions under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980

I am minded to support the amendment. I am keen to know what conversations the member has had with further and higher education institutions about the matter and about the implications for their work of explicitly bringing them within that provision.