Chamber and committees

The member in charge of the bill, and members of the committee, have addressed this in large part, but I want to put on the record a specific concern that has been raised. The member will know about this. We are already in a situation in which teachers are delivering—as I think that research has suggested—about 11 hours a week for free, on average. In addition, the environment in which they are expected to do that is becoming far more challenging; the member has already alluded to some of the data from last week.

We have heard that, against that background, the good will among teachers to do the types of things that we are talking about has waned slightly. That would be my concern with regard to making outdoor residential education a core responsibility. As I said earlier, I understand why that is the case, because there are inequities. How would the member respond to that?

The concern is that, although we might not see the impact quite yet, if the trajectory continues with regard to what teachers are experiencing in the teaching environment just now, to which you alluded, they could begin to worry about the additional commitment that is required.

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.