Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

Do you think that, if the provision of residential outdoor education were a statutory responsibility, the progress in that area would continue, or do you think that additional work would have to be done on that?

Do you think that any progress can be made, particularly for pupils with additional support needs, without the bill?

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?

On the basis of the clarification that the Deputy First Minister set out, I am content to withdraw amendment 81. I will press amendment 82, which I am pleased that the Government is minded to support. For completeness, we will also support the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 81, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 82 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Amendment 83 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Section 13—Guidance to public authorities relating to Gaelic education

Amendment 57 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Section 14—Directions to education authorities relating to Gaelic education

Amendment 58 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 15 agreed to.

Section 16—Duty to promote Gaelic education in exercising functions under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980

I am minded to support the amendment. I am keen to know what conversations the member has had with further and higher education institutions about the matter and about the implications for their work of explicitly bringing them within that provision.

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.