I thank the Deputy First Minister for her response. The change that has taken place in the leadership of who is responsible for the bill will help us to work together more closely around stage 2, I hope.

The committee also highlighted concerns from stakeholders that the consultation that will be required on the draft strategy is, potentially, limited, and that the results of that consultation should be published. We have had some clarification from the Scottish Government that it will ensure full public consultation on the strategy. Although we recognise the Scottish Government’s assurances that that was always the intention, we welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to considering what further measures can be taken to ensure that that is clearer and is in the bill.

The Scottish Government’s response to our report set out that, recently, it has been standard practice for Scottish Government policy documents on Gaelic to be issued for public consultation; for those to be accompanied by public meetings with a range of community and interest groups, as well as ministerial meetings; that, following that process, an independent analysis is prepared for Scottish ministers; and that the results of the consultation, and the analysis, are published. The committee welcomes that reassurance. If that is how consultation on the national strategy will be treated, we welcome that as well.

I turn to Scots. The committee acknowledges that almost half the population of Scotland report having some Scots language skills. However, the formality of the infrastructure for Scots is much less advanced than it is for Gaelic.

The committee heard evidence that declaring official status for Scots was

“a mammoth step forward”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 1 May 2024; c 31.]

and important in and of itself. However, we also heard that more support and resource were required. For instance, in its report, the committee noted that, in the absence of a Scots language board—although we are not saying that there needs to be a Scots language board—the Scottish Government is relying on Scots organisations to engage on the Scots strategy, standards and guidance.

The committee further noted that, given resource constraints, those organisations may not have the capacity to engage in such processes without affecting their day-to-day activities. They are small organisations. We heard that, for example, responding to multiple consultations on standards and guidance is resource heavy and intense. Although the organisations stressed the need for more resource, both Scots and Gaelic organisations are concerned that, based on the costings in the financial memorandum, any increase in resource for Scots would be at the expense of Gaelic.

The committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment, in its response, to reflect on measures that could be considered in relation to that. The committee also welcomes the Scottish Government's commitment to try to reduce the burden on Scots organisations by considering whether it can, where possible, consolidate consultations.

The committee also heard concerns that the current definition of Scots in the bill lacks the nuance that is required to encompass the various regional variations of Scots. The committee believes that, if the purpose of official status is to give recognition to Scots in all its forms, there must be a much more explicit reference to all those forms, and the bill should set that out much more clearly.

The committee notes that the Scottish Government’s response says that it took its lead from the speaker community for Scots, that being the overall umbrella term within which all forms and regional varieties are recognised and respected. I stress that many stakeholders who provided evidence to the committee did not consider the bill to be sufficiently clear regarding its intended inclusiveness.

I reiterate that the Education, Children and Young People Committee supports the general principles of the bill. However, much more clarity is required on how the provisions in the bill will be used and how they will be supplemented by other policy and budgetary decisions to achieve the bill’s aims.

I am pleased that the Deputy First Minister shared additional information ahead of the debate today. As we made clear in our report, we expect more detail and clarity, as well as further costings prior to stage 2 proceedings.

—and what works to tackle them. It is clear that the SNP’s strategies lack a rigorous evaluation of their effectiveness.

Does the cabinet secretary really believe that the right level of response to learning that alcohol deaths are at their highest level for 15 years is to commission a review into adverts?

I thank the cabinet secretary for providing early sight of his statement. I, too, wish Christina McKelvie well and wish her a speedy recovery.

This week’s harrowing statistics expose the total failure of the Scottish National Party to tackle this health crisis. It claims that significant progress has been made through its national mission, yet this week we learned that 1,172 people died from drug misuse in 2023, which represents an increase of 12 per cent on the previous year. In addition, this week’s provisional data revealed that there have already been 589 suspected drug deaths in the first six months of 2024. As that represents a 2 per cent drop from the same period in 2023, some might mistakenly claim that a corner has been turned, but the figure is up 5 per cent on 2022. Nothing is changing.

The SNP came to power more than 17 years ago and, in that time, more than 33,000 Scots have lost their lives to drug or alcohol-related illnesses. That is a damning indictment of the SNP’s continued mismanagement. SNP politicians should hang their heads in shame, but, instead, they carry on, determined to prioritise decriminalisation and harm reduction over recovery. That is the wrong message. Where is the focus on recovery and rehabilitation? The SNP has no idea what it is doing. The University of Strathclyde’s Scottish health equity research unit confirms that there is a “critical gap” between the SNP’s understanding of inequalities—

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to Dr Stephen Smith’s evaluation of the alcohol-related brain damage residential rehabilitation service in Edinburgh. (S6O-03694)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no.

This week, we learned that 1,277 people tragically lost their lives to alcohol in 2023—a 15-year high that is, quite frankly, nothing to celebrate. That is 1,277 people who have lived with years of poor health and who have left behind families and friends—the effects are felt by so, so many. We now have 40 per cent fewer people accessing alcohol services than a decade ago and, when people do access those services, they are much older and, as a result, have increasingly complex problems.

The ARBD unit that is run by Penumbra at Milestone house saves lives, yet it is facing the withdrawal of funding. Given that the service reduces NHS Lothian hospital bed days by nearly 2,000 a year, what impact assessment has been carried out on what would happen if the service were to close?

You said that some colleges have no assets. Is that widespread across the colleges?

I am sure that you will update us on that.

That is great. We have also heard about the impact of the removal of the upskilling fund. Professor Gareth Williams told us that the fund’s removal meant that addressing weak long-term productivity in the Scottish economy, particularly among smaller businesses, would become harder. Further, the flexible workforce development fund has not been reinstated—I am lobbied regularly by my local college in Edinburgh about the need to reinstate it and about how valuable it was in terms of investment and return. What are your thoughts on the negative impact of the removal of those funds on institutions and their ability to work with businesses that we are being told about?

George Adam, it is over to you.