Chamber and committees

Will the cabinet secretary comment on Foysol Choudhury’s comments regarding Gaelic-medium education teachers and how we might address the challenge that we have on that issue?

I thank the minister for that response, but the truth is that Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre and Rape Crisis Scotland have been reliant on Scottish Government funding in recent years. The Scottish Government dismissed those with gender critical beliefs, and that attitude has filtered down to organisations that depend on its funding. That has led to the extraordinary situation in which Rape Crisis Scotland and others came out in support of the Scottish National Party’s gender self-identification bill and condemned critics for spreading apparent misinformation.

If Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre and Rape Crisis Scotland are to change their culture, so, too, must the Scottish Government. Will the minister commit to a complete reset of the Government’s priorities, so that women’s safety, rather than gender ideology, takes precedence when it comes to tackling violence against women and girls?

For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that I will be speaking in English this afternoon, so members will not need their headsets.

I am delighted to be speaking on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. I thank my colleagues for their diligent work on the bill so far, and I thank all the people and organisations who provided evidence, either in person or by responding to our call for views. We are also grateful to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee for their work to scrutinise the bill and for sharing their conclusions and recommendations timeously so that we could reflect on them when considering our report.

As our report makes clear, the committee supports the general principles of the bill, and its aim

“to provide further support for Scotland’s indigenous languages, Gaelic and Scots.”

However, we believe that the bill would have limited effect in its current form. Although stakeholders told us of the symbolic value of declaring those languages to be official, particularly in relation to Scots, witnesses also highlighted the long-standing challenges around funding for Scots and Gaelic. Many cited Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s budget as an example. It has remained largely stable for the past 17 years, rising from £4.4 million in 2006-07 to £5.1 million in 2024-25. Had it kept pace with inflation, the annual budget would now be around £7.5 million. The Bòrd stated that, as a result, it is constrained in the support that it can give to community and other projects. In its most recent funding cycle, for example, it could fund—or part fund—only 39 per cent of the projects that had applied.

Witnesses stated that, without more resources, the aspiration of the bill would be undermined. The limited costings set out in the financial memorandum did nothing to allay those concerns. On its own, symbolism will not be sufficient to address the challenges—particularly for Gaelic, which is in a perilous position. It requires support to ensure an increase in both the number of speakers and the fluency of their language skills.

On fluency, the committee noted that the evidence highlighted the desire for speakers to have more “functional fluency” in Gaelic as an outcome of Gaelic-medium education—GME, as we will probably hear it referred to throughout the afternoon. That is, that speakers should be able to use the language in everyday situations. The committee therefore recommended

“that the Scottish Government include this as one of the identifiable outcomes within the strategy and to develop a consistent national measure for this.”

The committee was also struck by the repeated requests, from organisations and individuals alike, for much more clarity in the bill, whether in relation to the content of the strategies, standards and guidance that will be pursuant to the bill, its associated costs or indeed what an area of linguistic significance might look like within local authorities in which there are proportionately fewer Gaelic speakers. Many questions are still to be answered.

The committee therefore notes that the response from the Scottish Government included illustrative examples of the kinds of measures that could be included in the standards and guidance. Those were helpful. They encompassed a wide range of areas, including publications, community development, online materials and impact assessments. In relation to education, the areas that were covered include GME access, provision, teacher requirements and catchments. In her opening remarks, the Deputy First Minister made reference to some of the GME provisions.

Many highlighted the potential for the bill to provide more coherent policy in support of both languages and associated dialects, with national strategies being authored by the Scottish Government. Although education is critical, it is hoped that such coherence will ensure that areas such as housing, infrastructure and economic policy are also considered when taking steps to support communities. Such steps could, in turn, support those languages to thrive.

In its response to our stage 1 report, the Scottish Government has said that it is

“keen to explore the extent to which infrastructural issues can be included in standards and strategy”,

and the committee looks forward to hearing more about the potential for those to feature in Gaelic language plans in areas of linguistic significance.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recent independent inquiry, carried out by Vicky Ling, into the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre and the subsequent resignation of its chief executive, Mridul Wadhwa. (S6T-02095)

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?