Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 4 July 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1545 contributions

|

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 26 June 2025

Jenny Gilruth

I will not give Mr Whitfield a definitive answer on that today, because the existing legislation very much speaks to the statutory responsibilities of local authorities, as I have set out to Mr Macpherson. I am happy to take further advice from officials in relation to the potential for national guidance to strengthen the position, recognising the concerns that have quite rightly been raised by members today.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 26 June 2025

Jenny Gilruth

I thank Michelle Thomson for raising a hugely important issue. It is worth recounting that, under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, all teachers have a role in meeting the additional support needs of their pupils, including those with visual impairments. In addition, specialist teachers who are qualified teachers of children and young people with visual impairments work collaboratively with colleagues in mainstream education settings to meet the individual learning goals of pupils with visual impairments. In 2023-24, 90.2 per cent of mainstream secondary school leavers receiving support for a visual impairment were in a positive destination nine months after leaving school.

To answer the member’s substantive point, we recognise that the increase in the number of pupils with visual impairments presents challenges for schools. That is why, as I said in my answer to the previous question, the Government prioritised £29 million of additional funding in the 2025-26 budget for local and national programmes to support the recruitment, retention and training of the ASN workforce.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Decision Time

Meeting date: 26 June 2025

Jenny Gilruth

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 26 June 2025

Jenny Gilruth

I thank Mr Macpherson for raising what is a hugely important issue. He rightly puts on the record the increase that we have seen in recent years in the number of pupils with an identified additional support need. Part of that relates to the broader definitions that we, as a Government, have taken forward for good reason, but I recognise the implications that that has for support.

On local authorities’ responsibility, there is a duty on local authorities, under section 27 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, to provide out-of-school care “as is appropriate” for children in need. That provision might be subject to assessment, but the question whether out-of-school care is appropriate for a child’s particular strengths and needs is a matter for the local authority.

To Mr Macpherson’s substantive point, I note that we are beginning to work with partners across local government to better understand the range of approaches that our councils are taking to implement those statutory duties. We are working through an improvement lens, which has been identifying the opportunities to strengthen existing approaches across local authorities. I am more than happy to ask my officials to engage with the City of Edinburgh Council on the issue that Mr Macpherson has raised today.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 26 June 2025

Jenny Gilruth

Mr Briggs is absolutely right to say that parents should not be left in the dark in that regard, particularly at this point in the academic year. I gave an undertaking to Mr Macpherson that I would ask officials to engage directly with the City of Edinburgh Council to that end.

At the current time, as I set out previously, the legal obligation rests with local authorities. Miles Briggs asked about national guidance, but, because of their statutory responsibilities, guidance is a matter for local authorities. However, I am more than happy to speak to officials about whether there is an opportunity for us to consider producing national guidance to supplement that and, to Miles Briggs’s specific point, to press forward with engagement with the City of Edinburgh Council and the challenges in that regard.

On funding more broadly, the Government provided additionality to local authorities such as Edinburgh through the budget negotiation process. That was a key ask. There was £29 million for additional support needs, yet Miles Briggs’s party voted against that.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 26 June 2025

Jenny Gilruth

The Requirements for Teachers (Scotland) Regulations 2005 require education authorities to ensure that teachers who are employed to teach hearing and visually impaired pupils hold an appropriate qualification. Work is under way with partners to update the qualifications guidance. That will ensure that education authorities and teaching professionals have clear, up-to-date information on the appropriate qualifications that are required to support pupils effectively, enhancing the proficiency of this specialist area of the workforce.

The Scottish Government also funds the Scottish Sensory Centre and CALL Scotland to provide advice and training to school staff, including in the use of assistive technology for pupils with specific and/or complex communication and sensory needs.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Portfolio Question Time

Meeting date: 26 June 2025

Jenny Gilruth

We have published a series of national evaluations on the impact of school holiday activities and childcare. The evaluations show positive impacts for children and their families, including improved confidence and skills development. Reports highlight that it is important for services to be inclusive and delivered by staff with the right skills and experience. I very much recognise that more needs to be done to improve the experiences of disabled children and those with additional support needs. That is why we have invested an additional £1 million this financial year to support the delivery of holiday play schemes and activity provision for disabled children.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 25 June 2025

Jenny Gilruth

Mr Kerr and I debated that at length at stage 2. I would argue that the bill has put measures in place to build a collaborative approach. I have spoken about, for example, the consultation process with the advisory council and other groups in the preparation of the inspection plan. My view is that the bill as currently drafted makes provision in that regard. I accept the member’s point about culture and the way that teachers in particular experience inspections.

Although I do not agree with Mr Kerr’s amendments, there is one exception, which is amendment 236. It would require the chief inspector, when preparing the inspection plan, to consult with such persons who are representative of registered teachers and college teaching staff, as the chief inspector considers appropriate. I am happy to support amendment 236 as I believe that it represents the best way to address Mr Kerr’s general concern about this group of amendments, which is to ensure that teachers and college staff are suitably involved in inspection design.

I am also happy to support Mr Greer’s amendments 234 and 239, which would refine important consultation duties that were inserted at stage 2.

On amendment 235, I hope to reassure Ms Duncan-Glancy that the section currently provides that the chief inspector must consult with such other persons as they consider appropriate and so would suitably catch those whose interests are not the interests of educational establishments. On that basis, and with the addition of the category of registered teachers and college teaching staff in Mr Kerr’s amendment 236, I believe that it is unnecessary to include the additional provision in the bill.

With regards to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 240, I think that it is important that we make it clear that ministers do not have to consult every person who is considered to be representative of a group. Therefore, with her support, I have lodged amendment 240A to adjust the wording, and I urge members to support both amendments.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 25 June 2025

Jenny Gilruth

If I can make some progress, I will be happy to bring in Pam Duncan-Glancy.

In addition, amendment 233 appears to imply that an assessment of a duty of care must take place in every inspection that involves an educational establishment, including every thematic or focused inspection—for example, on behaviour—as well as those on individual establishments. That would be very challenging for the chief inspector.

I will give way.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 25 June 2025

Jenny Gilruth

There are clear requirements in relation to the role of local authorities. We need to be mindful of potentially cutting across the statutory responsibilities of local authorities.

A final point on amendment 233 relates to its potential for cutting across reserved areas of health and safety at work when it comes to duty of care and employees. For those reasons, I strongly urge members not to support amendment 233.

I thank Liz Smith for working with me on amendment 37, which takes the spirit of her successful stage 2 amendment on outdoor education and clarifies its scope. I am very happy to support that amendment.

Although I appreciate Ross Greer’s valiant attempt to reduce the laying period for the first inspection plan to 40 days while leaving the rest at 60 days, I have lodged amendments to bring every plan back to 40 days. To Martin Whitfield’s point, those 40 days would exclude any recesses or dissolutions of more than four days. Forty days is a much more manageable and proportionate time period for operational purposes, but it is also very much in line with the time periods that are attached to numerous other plans. Indeed, for secondary legislation, it is the time that the committee has for considering statutory instruments. Sixty days is excessive and is not standard practice.

One practical example is that the bill requires the chief inspector to consult the advisory council, ministers, representatives of educational establishments and, under amendment 236, teachers and college staff when preparing a plan, separately to laying it before the Parliament for consultation. Taken together, that might mean that the chief inspector becomes pressed into a shorter period of time to consider the representations that are made following consultation.

I therefore ask Ross Greer not to move his amendments 237 and 238, which, I note, would not exclude recess or dissolution periods from the 40 days of the first plan, and I ask members to vote instead in support of my amendments 41 and 42, to ensure consistency with other reports when it comes to laying periods.

I believe that all committees in the Parliament are under the same significant pressure and generally work to a standard laying period of 40 days. If members would find it helpful, I could list the similar types of documents that are subject to the 40-day laying period. However, that would take some time—and, in the interests of time, I will rest at that.

17:30