Chamber and committees

David, would you like to come in?

The OECD’s view is that reducing class contact time in any school system makes sense only when the teaching workforce is already well qualified and has demonstrated capacity for innovation and collaboration, and when school leadership has the capacity to ensure that that scale of investment delivers improvement for learners. However, some of the submissions that we have received seem to suggest that reducing teachers’ workload is the primary objective of the SNCT agreement. How does the approach meet the OECD’s recommendation to lead, plan and support CFE at the school level, and how will it be evaluated?

Good morning, and welcome to the fifth meeting in 2026 of the Education and Gaelic Committee.

This morning, we will be taking evidence to inform our pre-budget scrutiny in advance of the publication of the budget documents on 3 December. This year, we will focus our scrutiny on progress towards the reform of the children’s care system and on class contact time in school education.

Today, we are taking evidence from two panels, with one on each theme. I welcome the first panel of witnesses, who will speak on class contact time: Andrea Bradley, general secretary, Educational Institute of Scotland; Tara Lillis, policy official, Scotland, NASUWT; and David Barnett, general secretary, School Leaders Scotland. Thank you all for coming and for your written submissions.

I will head straight into questions, and I will start us off. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development envisioned a reduction in class contact time as a way to provide

“dedicated time to lead, plan and support CfE at the school level.”

However, the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers agreement is that the 90 minutes should be used for professional time at the discretion of the teacher. How does the SNCT agreement align with the OECD’s recommendation?

To ensure that all members are able to come in before this session ends, I ask that answers be kept succinct, please.

This summer, I attended the Edinburgh deaf festival at Deaf Action, and that is a useful place for me to start my speech about growing Scotland’s creative economy. The festival had art, comedy, theatre, film, exhibitions, workshops and storytelling, with around 2,000 people visiting over a few days. I specifically mention that because the Government motion talks about artists, festivals, creative careers, community cohesion, wellbeing and the contribution that our languages make to Scottish culture, and the deaf festival has all those things.

We have a habit of putting BSL into a slightly different box. We talk about it mainly in terms of access, asking whether a deaf person can access a performance or whether there will be an interpreter. Those things do matter enormously, but BSL is not just the means by which a deaf person accesses someone else’s culture. BSL has a culture of its own, and I have probably always understood that because, as members know, my dad is deaf and BSL has been part of my life from childhood.

My dad is a historian and has contributed to a book recording deaf history in the north-east of Scotland, so the deaf history archive at Deaf Action particularly interested me because Deaf Action itself has quite a history. Walter Geikie was a deaf Edinburgh artist whose artwork recorded simple everyday life in the city in the early 1800s. He was also an important figure in the deaf community and helped to found the organisation that eventually became Deaf Action. Nearly 200 years later, deaf artists are still coming together through that organisation to tell stories, make people laugh, make films, perform and create. That thread matters, because identity and language carry history, humour, expression and stories through time.

Our BSL national plan recognises that BSL and deaf culture are intertwined and that BSL users should be able to enjoy and contribute to culture as participants, audience members and professionals. There is also a cultural rights dimension that we do not recognise enough. Article 30 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognises cultural and linguistic identity, including sign languages and deaf culture, and the opportunity to develop creative and artistic potential for the enrichment of society. Cultural rights are not just about access; they are about being able to create, contribute and have your own culture recognised.

That takes us straight back to the creative economy. In Banff, in my constituency, we have Sandra Duguid, a deaf filmmaker. Her award-winning film—I will not start a fight between the north-easters—“Rowies v Butteries SAGA!” used BSL as its primary language with captions in English and Doric. I will not give my opinion on rowies versus butteries for fear of dividing my constituency. I love that example because it shows that we do not have to put Scotland’s languages into separate boxes. Just as the motion rightly recognises Gaelic and Scots language and culture, Sandra’s work shows BSL, Doric, film and deaf identity sitting together in something rooted in the north-east.

Now, that is a creative product. It is also somebody’s work. We talk about growing the creative economy, but the people creating that work have to be able to build sustainable careers from it. Scotland’s creative industries already contribute more than £5.7 billion a year and employ more than 90,000 people. I am glad that the programme for government includes a Scottish artists minimum income pilot alongside increased cultural investment and work on creative career pathways.

The pounds matter, but they are not the only return on investment that we should recognise. At the deaf festival, people were laughing together, learning together and sharing a language and culture. For communities where isolation can be very real, that means everything—it means living a life.

The Scottish household survey found that almost half of adults said culture and the arts made a positive difference to their lives. Among them, 39 per cent cited improved mental health and wellbeing so, when we talk about a wellbeing economy, there is a legitimate question about whether we measure all of the value that culture creates. A person being less isolated and finding somewhere that they belong matters deeply to a healthy economy. Those things are harder to attach a pound sign to, but they still produce a real return for society. Therefore, I am heartened that the motion mentions not only the economic potential of Scotland’s creative industries but their economic, cultural and social potential.

When we think about BSL within that, I would like us to get beyond asking only whether deaf people can access what everyone else is doing. We should also ask whether deaf creative artists have the same opportunities to create, lead, earn, tell their own stories and pass their culture on. BSL and deaf culture are not at the edges of Scotland’s creative life; they are already part of it. Recognising that is exactly what realising the full economic, cultural and social potential of Scotland’s creative industries should mean.

16:04

We have a supplementary question from Katherine Sangster.

Angela Ross has a supplementary question.

We have a supplementary point from George Adam. You can ask your substantive question as well, George.

Thank you. That brings this morning’s session near to a close. As this meeting is part of our pre-budget scrutiny, the committee would like to know your opinions on whether the reduction of class time by 90 minutes should be in the Scottish Government’s priority list for the 2027-28 budget, given everything that we have heard today.

Your submission says—you just touched on this—that

“there are currently no clear metrics of impact/success that will be able to be monitored, evaluated and reported.”

What could or should those metrics look like?