I thank Maggie Chapman for that intervention. I will certainly revisit the evidence that was taken, as I was not on the committee at that time. However, my understanding from my conversations about the amendments and the stage 2 process is that there is concern in the denominational sector about how to separate RE and RO in a Catholic school, for example, when the two things are interconnected. There are two aspects to that, which I was coming on to express.

First, RE in a Catholic school is, by its nature, Catholic. Although there will be study of other religions and moral systems, there will be a catholicity to what is taught in RE. RO in a Catholic school permeates the entire ethos of the school. It is not as it is in the non-denominational sector, where there will be set times for RO at periods during the year. In a Catholic school, there will be opportunities throughout the day to observe the Catholic religion. That is true of the Jewish school in East Renfrewshire as well—culturally, the religion will permeate the day in terms of prayer and things like that.

It is hard to decouple RO and RE in such settings, and many people in the denominational sector are concerned that we are taking, I suppose, a secular view of RO, or a view of it that would exist in a non-denominational setting, rather than looking at the interconnectedness of RO and RE in the denominational setting. There is concern for the value of both RE and RO in such settings. As I said, they have a unique place in those schools.

If we flip that on its head, I also have a slight concern that parents being unable to withdraw their child from RE in a Catholic school in particular is more problematic than we might at first have considered it to be. If someone wants to remove their child from very specific RE that is Roman Catholic, they will not be able to do that. It is more difficult for them to remove their child from RO in a Catholic school because, as I said, it permeates the life of the school. I have a concern about parental rights in that space.

I also have a wider concern that we are not talking about exactly the same thing when we discuss religious, moral and philosophical studies in a non-denominational school and RE in a denominational school. As I have said, there are complexities here, and that is particularly true of the amendments that we are discussing.

It is a long-standing matter of statute in this country that we have denominational schools and, in particular, that we have Catholic schools. It is my party’s position and the position that I continue to hold that we support that long-standing definition. However, it is wrong to assume that only pupils and families of particular denominations choose and attend denominational schools. We probably all recognise from our regions that those schools are attended by a variety of young people for a variety of reasons. I reiterate the importance of ensuring that we take a careful and considered approach to how amendment 9 would work in the denominational sector.

I have raised those issues with the cabinet secretary, but I understand from Ms Chapman’s comments that the Government intends to support her amendment. I caution that it is not right to support the amendment without understanding exactly how it will impact on denominational education more widely. Rather than having to try to fix something at stage 3, I would prefer that we take our time and take a considered approach to the matter, which we can then revisit at stage 3.

More widely, because of the many complexities that I have referenced, I cannot support the amendments in the group in the names of Maggie Chapman and Stephen Kerr. I have outlined my reasons for that. I would welcome further contributions in order to understand the Government’s position.

I am grateful to Maggie Chapman for taking my intervention so early on in her contribution. I recognise her view and that of the Scottish Green Party on the separation of church and state. Does that view extend to denominational provision in Scotland? Due to the 1980 act, we have a situation in Scotland that is, in some ways, almost unique in that we have what could be recognised as a social contract. Is it Maggie Chapman’s view that there should not be denominational provision? If we are to decouple things, we have to look at both spheres of education—non-denominational and denominational.

That is fair. I infer from what you have said that there will be on-going work, even at that informal level, with consultees. That is welcome, and I am sure that this committee will want to reflect that in its legacy reporting.

I will move on to talk about compliance with the 2015 act. We know, from the evidence that we heard, that 62 per cent of listed authorities comply with statutory duties, with regard to BSL translations and their authority plans. What steps is the Government intending to take to improve compliance, which, at 62 per cent, is obviously not where we want it to be?

Good morning, Deputy First Minister. I have rejoined the committee at the concluding stage of this piece of work but was present for previous evidence sessions. In that evidence, we heard many views about the parity of esteem that BSL will be held in alongside Scotland’s other languages. Of course, nobody would want to set languages against one another. It is important that we recognise their richness and support them all.

However, we heard a lot of asks for there to be an oversight body for BSL, similar to Bòrd na Gàidhlig, which has an important role in supporting the Gaelic language as well as being able to speak a bit of truth to power and very often compel, if that is the right word, local authorities and others to deliver on Gaelic. You and I spoke about that issue in a previous evidence session, but has your thinking evolved with regard to whether it might be worth considering establishing a national body for BSL?

That is welcome to hear, and I am sure that your position will be welcomed by those in the BSL community who gave evidence. I wonder about timing and the likelihood of action being taken, given that we are in a challenging timeframe, with the end of the parliamentary session approaching. What are the Government’s thoughts with regard to starting work on the recommendations before the election and then ensuring that there is a legacy piece? Do you have a view on how that might take shape? Would there be a consultation? I appreciate that it is hard to say, but I think that people will want a bit more detail on what the commitment is.

That is quite comprehensive and I am conscious of time, so I will hand back to you, convener.

Good morning. My questions will focus on the content of the annual report in terms of the funding and finance of SCoSS. From the 2023-24 annual report, we saw that expenditure would exceed the budget in 2024-25. That was not a huge overspend—it was £470,000 compared to the projected spend of £450,000. The committee is interested to know whether that has been resolved and whether there is a view about the financial sustainability of SCoSS going forward?

Do you feel that you are now in a position where the budget planning process will be easier because—to borrow a phrase—known unknowns are perhaps lessened by where we are in the process of transfer? Are you finding that the engagement with the Government on your needs—saying, “Here is a need. How do we get to the budget figure that will work for us?”—is a communicative and open process?

It sounds as though, given the timing, with more and more people either accessing new benefits or being transferred to benefits, it is probably quite crucial that the lived experience piece is at the forefront of what you are doing.

That is helpful. You referred to the increase in the secretariat, and it was good to hear Judith Paterson talk about getting up to full capacity with board members and those sorts of things. Has that changed the way that SCoSS works? I have heard that you feel that you are being efficient but also that you can respond to things. Is that the secretariat's role in particular?