Pam Duncan-Glancy
Independent · Scotland
“I know that because I have been all the people I have described. They live in fear every single day, worrying about what new limit someone else will put on their life and what little power they will have to change it. They live every single day without choice at all.”
“It is the lack of support, and the lack of options, that makes me feel like I cannot go on. Disabled people do not have real choices in life. There will be countless disabled people in our constituencies tonight who have not had the choice to have a shower in weeks.”
“During the pandemic, my husband and I were so scared of other people’s power over our lives— lives that we could see others devaluing daily— that we wrote letters to each other making it clear that we wanted to be resuscitated.”
“From fighting to go to the same nursery as my sister to delaying university for two years because I could not get a care package, and from fighting to be allowed to travel on the same bus as my husband to fighting to get a bathroom adapted so that I could have a shower, absolutely everything that I have has been a fight.”
“The bill will not only put sick and disabled people at a risk that cannot be mitigated in one bill or by one policy, including the risk from coercion, but will serve to reinforce the internalised ableism that we live with every day of our lives, and legitimise the view that a life such as ours—a life of dependence and, often, pain—is not…”
“I, too, thank Liam McArthur for the way in which he has engaged on the bill and with me. Last week, we considered the specifics of what the bill would mean in real life. For 25 hours, we heard personal reflections and experiences as well as some of the difficulties in the detail.”
The complete record
Every one of 665 lines we hold for Pam Duncan-Glancy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 14.
“With franchising, we have the opportunity to make bus travel here more accessible and more affordable, and to address issues with frequency so that buses are in the right places and at the right times to meet the needs of our constituents. Bob Doris: Will the member take an intervention? Pam Duncan-Glancy: I will be happy to take Bob Doris’s intervention if I have time, Presiding Officer. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Bob Doris. Bob Doris: I thank you for your indulgence, Presiding Officer. Pam-Duncan Glancy makes a really important point. As a dad who uses bus services, I have often felt that I am competing with wheelchair users when I am on there with babies, buggies and prams.”
“If NASA can do that, surely bus authorities can help disabled people to get across our great city. Patrick Harvie: Will Pam Duncan-Glancy take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back, Ms Duncan-Glancy. Patrick Harvie: Pam Duncan-Glancy makes an extremely important point. I assume that she would agree that the experience of disabled travellers in Manchester shows that genuinely displaying ambition about the renewal of bus services—as regards both infrastructure and vehicles—highlights that a more integrated approach can result in dramatic improvements in accessibility. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I whole-heartedly agree with that point. From my own experience and that of other disabled people I have spoken to, I know that bus travel in Manchester is far better and far easier.”
“That is exactly the impact that pulling services without employing democratic accountability can have on people’s lives. I will use the short time that I have remaining to describe my experience of travelling on buses in Glasgow as a disabled woman. I say on the record that, as Patrick Harvie has highlighted, even getting to a bus stop in Glasgow can be difficult for anyone, and they cannot be sure whether a bus will come along. A wheelchair user has the added lottery element of not knowing whether the bus will be fully accessible or whether someone else will be in the wheelchair space. That makes it really difficult to travel around a city in which buses can be the only accessible form of transport. In the past couple of years, NASA has put disabled people on the moon.”
“In all cases, not having a legal requirement for bus operators to consult the public on service cancellations, or to notify them until after a cancellation has been confirmed, is difficult and removes opportunity for public scrutiny. I would be grateful if, in his closing remarks, the minister could set out the ways in which the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 has teeth and can be used to influence bus operators’ decisions so that they can be subjected to appropriate scrutiny. For people who rely on the 65 service that I mentioned, the lack of consultation on the decision to withdraw it is devastating. One resident said that the service means everything to her, because it connects her with life outside. Without it, she would not be able to have the same quality of life.”
“That means that, where there is a transport authority in place, there is no requirement for a bus operator to notify any affected local authority of a service cancellation, thus distancing the decision from democratic oversight. Clare Haughey: On that very point, the decision is—as the member will have heard in my speech—very much a hot topic. Is she aware of SPT having consulted with South Lanarkshire Council? Pam Duncan-Glancy: It is my understanding that there is no requirement for SPT to do so, which means that we could be left with a situation in which there is no public accountability for the actions that it is taking. I do not think that either of us think that that is acceptable, because we need public accountability in that regard.”
“The Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 requires bus companies to notify local authorities when they plan to vary or cancel a bus service. In this case, First Bus notified SPT, as the affected authority. However, there was no requirement for local authorities to be notified by either the bus operator or the transport authority. As a result, although school routes are affected, at least in the South Lanarkshire Council area, as we have heard, and First Bus and the council were in active discussion over the matter, there was no legal requirement for the company to disclose the material change in circumstance to the council.”
“Furthermore, it should be noted that that figure covers only travel to work and does not include non-work trips such as for shopping, leisure or healthcare visits, as we have heard. As a result, the percentage of people across the region who rely on buses is likely to be far higher, particularly among the older population. In fact, the Glasgow Bus Alliance estimates that buses provide 75 per cent of the public transport services in Glasgow, and they are an integral part of daily life. However, that means that any changes to service provision have a wide-ranging impact. We have heard already about the First Bus 65 service, which runs from Glasgow to Halfway and how passengers on that service were told, with less than 28 days’ notice, that their service was being withdrawn without consultation or engagement with passengers.”
“I thank my colleague, Patrick Harvie, for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I also thank the Deputy Presiding Officer for agreeing that I may leave before the debate concludes, as I need to head back to Glasgow. After the time of the debate was changed, I was unable to reschedule what I need to be back for, so I apologise to colleagues and to Patrick Harvie, and I put on record that I will undertake to watch the minister’s contribution early in the next few days. People in Glasgow need affordable, reliable and environmentally sustainable bus services. The 2022 census reported that 9.3 per cent of commuters in Glasgow use the bus as their main mode of transport when travelling to work; that is much higher than the national average.”
“I will say to her what I said a moment ago about the on-going work through the tripartite alignment group—of which the principal of Glasgow Kelvin College is a member—to best equip colleges to tailor their offering to the needs of their student cohort.”
“The principal of Glasgow Kelvin College told the Education, Children and Young People Committee last week that the college is now having to turn away two out of every three applicants. That is happening in Glasgow, a city with high levels of deprivation where employers are crying out for skilled workers. The committee also heard that 40 per cent of the college’s students come from Scotland’s most deprived areas. Why does the minister think that a college in one of our largest cities is being forced to turn away the majority of its applicants? Does he think that that is acceptable? What could he do so that colleges do not have to do that in the future? Graeme Dey: As ever, Pam Duncan-Glancy brings problems, never solutions. Both she and I are well aware of the challenges in the college sector in Glasgow and elsewhere.”
“That is not because we do not want reform but because we do, and the bill fails to deliver that. Scotland’s young people deserve better than this. 20:17”
“We desperately need a system that is transparent, accountable and, above all, independent—one in which the SQA is abolished and scrutiny is protected. The bill does not do those things and that is why we cannot support it. Education is the first duty of any nation that calls itself just. That is why we lodged constructive amendments at every stage of the process—some with the Government’s support—that were designed to strengthen the bill. Although some of them were accepted, the Government has left reform unfinished with a bill that does not deliver. A review is not a new regulator; a consultation is not a commitment; and action delayed, however well intentioned, is action denied. Education reform cannot be delivered on foundations that are half built. Therefore, Scottish Labour cannot support the bill.”
“After months of scrutiny, all that we have is a review. We need a qualifications system that is fit for the future—one that respects the efforts of learners, supports the judgment of teachers and earns the trust of employers and universities. We need a curriculum that is broad and inclusive, and we need an inspectorate that can challenge where necessary, but also celebrate excellence. On that point, I am pleased that the Government has delivered on the independence of the inspectorate. When it comes to reform, this is a job that is unfinished. We should not have needed a review to be put in legislation. That work should have been done in advance—indeed, it should have been done the first time, when John Swinney tried. However, that work was not done then and the current cabinet secretary has not done the work either.”
“The Government’s dither and delay has ground down staff and let pupils down. Instead of abolishing the SQA, the bill will allow the current leadership to transfer wholesale. On whether key functions will be properly separated from the qualifications body, Scotland’s young people are being told, “Not yet”. We were told that the bill would rebuild confidence in Scottish education, but confidence comes from credibility, and credibility comes from clarity, independent scrutiny and transparency. That is what all the reviews suggested, that is what Professor Muir recommended, that is what the Educational Institute of Scotland told MSPs, and that is what witnesses told the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Incidentally, it is also what the cabinet secretary committed at stage 2 to delivering, but she has not delivered it.”
“We did our best to make the bill one that could be supported, but we cannot support a bill that does not abolish the SQA. For the fullest consideration, there is much more in the letter from Unite the Union that the cabinet secretary has quoted that the Parliament should hear. As well as saying that accreditation staff have endured over four years of uncertainty—not just during the immediate scrutiny of the bill—the letter says: “As detailed in our evidence submitted at Stage 1, our members’ preference would have been to have an independent Regulatory and Accreditation Body”. It goes on to say that, “Given that the optimal position of an independent Regulator has been removed from consideration”, its members “believe that further independence” has to now be achieved “with minimal disruption”.”
“It seems to me rather incoherent that, on the one hand, Ms Duncan-Glancy was happy to work with the Government on those amendments but, on the other hand, the Labour Party is positioning itself against the bill—which, I put on the record, will abolish the SQA. Is the Labour Party now in favour of maintaining the SQA? Pam Duncan-Glancy: First, the bill will not abolish the SQA, which is exactly why we will not vote for it. Secondly, we worked with the Government to try to improve the bill because we know that, if it is enacted, it will have a massive impact on children and young people in Scotland. It is our job as parliamentarians and legislators to scrutinise the Government’s legislation. The Government may not like the fact that we propose amendments and sometimes win them, but I am afraid that that is just how the Parliament works.”
“That is a fundamental conflict of interest, yet that conflict of interest remains at the heart of the bill. Scottish Labour offered solutions. We proposed separating accreditation from delivery so that the body that awards qualifications would not judge its own standards. We offered three routes—a single curriculum and regulation body, an independent chief regulator that would be answerable to the Parliament, or a stripped-back inspectorate model that would be free of conflict. All those proposals were rejected. Jenny Gilruth: I am listening to Ms Duncan- Glancy. Of course, I have read much of the position in Labour’s press release, but the Labour Party accepted 40 Government handouts.”
“Scotland’s young people are our greatest asset, and it is incumbent on us all to legislate to ensure that the education system delivers the greatest opportunities for each and every one of them. Countless reviews, academics, experts, teachers, pupils and parents have been crying out for reform of the system, not least because, in 2020, the then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, John Swinney, oversaw the SQA’s downgrading of the poorest students. That was pivotal in aligning the entire sector and country on the need for education reform. However, on a key aspect of that reform, which is to abolish the SQA, rather than voting for reform, the Parliament is being asked to vote for a review. A credible qualifications system cannot be run by a body that sets exams and accredits and regulates itself.”
“Both of my amendments in the group respond directly to evidence that the Education, Children and Young People Committee heard at stage 1 and which was highlighted in the stage 1 report. Teachers, unions and parent groups asked for earlier and clearer engagement in inspection policy. Neither amendment would limit ministerial or inspectorate discretion; they would simply guarantee that decisions are made with and not for the people who deliver and experience education every day. Consultation at the right time will improve policy, build trust and, ultimately, support better outcomes for young people. I therefore ask members to support amendments 235 and 240.”
“By listening at the planning stage, the inspectorate would be able to target its visits, methodologies and follow-up support according to the realities of classrooms and staffrooms, and not simply to a timetable that was set centrally. My amendment 240, which complements that, would place a similar duty on Scottish ministers. When they draft regulations that may alter how often the inspection plan is reviewed, they should also consult the representatives of those whose work and learning are impacted most closely by inspections. That would ensure that any future adjustment to the frequency is informed by professional experience and by the impact on learners.”
“I support many of the amendments in the group, not least some of the amendments that Stephen Kerr referred to. Teacher input to the inspectorate will be incredibly important. We have seen through various reports and experiences that there has not always been enough teacher input. That causes huge fear among staff who work in schools, particularly among teachers, and it is why the amendments in the group are important. My amendment 235 would require the chief inspector, when preparing the annual inspection plan, to consult people and organisations that represent those who are most directly affected by inspections—teachers, support staff, school leaders and, where appropriate, learners and parents.”
“Scottish Labour will support Mr Briggs’s amendments 1 and 5, which would update the language in section 3 to cover adult learners and require qualifications Scotland to publish clear guidance on adjustments. We will also support his amendment 76, which provides the appropriate definitions. Parity of esteem must be more than a slogan. It is a promise that all learners will have access to an equal chance to succeed. I therefore intend to move amendment 165 and invite the chamber to support the full package of amendments in this group so that parity, recognition and real accommodation are built into Scotland’s new qualifications regime from day 1.”
“Therefore, in the spirit of consensus, I will not move amendment 168 and, instead, ask colleagues to support amendment 321 to ensure that the inspectorate communicates in the same inclusive way as we will ask qualifications Scotland to do. Inclusive communication is the gateway to every other reasonable adjustment—extra time, alternative formats, assistive technology and quiet spaces—because a learner cannot request an adjustment if they cannot first access the rules. Embedding an inclusive communication duty in statute would guarantee early, proactive support and consistency across schools and colleges, and it would help to develop a culture that is designed for all from the outset.”
“Amendments 166 and 167 would work with Mr Briggs’s amendment 76 to update the language in the bill, removing reference to “additional support needs” and instead using the term “educational support needs”, to ensure that adult learners with support needs are given the same recognition and support as children and young people. Amendments 248 and 249 would carry the same obligations into the education inspectorate so that inspection reports, thematic reviews, consultations and recommendations are just as accessible and, therefore, just as actionable. Amendment 321, in the name of the cabinet secretary, would duplicate the inclusive communication duty on the chief inspector of education that my amendment 165 would place on qualifications Scotland.”
“First, because the law already obliges us, under the 2004 act and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to remove barriers and not just to acknowledge them. Secondly, because fairness is meaningless if the format of an assessment or the way that its rules are communicated locks out some candidates from the start. My amendments in this group set out to deliver on the principle of parity of esteem. Amendment 165 would place a clear, statutory duty on qualifications Scotland to communicate inclusively whenever it publishes anything, including exam specifications, candidate guides and appeals leaflets.”
“First, let me say a huge thank you to the legislation team, who have been working day and night to support members across the chamber with the amendments that they wanted to lodge. I put on record my thanks to my own team, who have supported me at stages 1, 2 and 3 of the bill. Despite how we might at some points disagree today across the chamber, I also thank other parties for the discussions that we have had between stages 1, 2 and 3. At the heart of this first group of amendments is a simple principle: parity of esteem. Learners who require additional support—not only to read a qualifications document but to sit the exam, receive their results and progress afterwards— must enjoy exactly the same standing in Scotland’s qualifications system as every other learner. Why does that matter?”
“I will, of course, give her an undertaking that we will work with the trade unions and on a cross-party basis in relation to our continued work to support Dundee university.”
“They are impacted by policies that exist across these islands, not least, of course, international immigration rules. I am sure that the member will want to reflect on the role of those rules in relation to the findings of Pamela Gillies’s report. The University of Dundee was also impacted by Brexit, and that is set out clearly in the report. Finally, I mention the increase in employer national insurance contributions, which Universities Scotland estimates could cost the sector in Scotland up to £45 million. I am sure that Ms Duncan-Glancy will urge her Labour colleagues to consider what more they could do to help to alleviate the pressure on Scottish institutions and on those across the United Kingdom.”
“The report uncovers some awful failures, and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to progress the wider governance lesson for the sector. I would ask that, in doing so, she works with universities and the trade unions. However, we should not ignore the fact that, although Dundee has experienced unique problems, the sector is in dire straits, with many institutions having to make cuts, resulting in job losses and fewer students from deprived areas going to university. The entire sector has endured little more than managed decline on this Government’s watch, with year after year of cuts and being told that there is no more money. Can the cabinet secretary tell us where the £40 million is coming from? Jenny Gilruth: Our universities in Scotland do not exist in a silo.”
“Every woman in this place and in public life will be able to recognise that. None of us should have to experience that. Those who sit in this chamber must reflect society, but if that is to happen, we have to make politics a better, safer and more comfortable place for women to be. Although the Government must go further—as we would all say—and show practical political leadership, we also have to tackle head- on the many issues that women and girls face every day and resolve to ensure that, by our collective endeavours, in Parliament and beyond, Scotland can become the welcoming and inclusive country that we all want and know that it can be. 16:23”
“I am grateful for the tone of this debate—most of it— and the collegiate approach that has been taken. We have a responsibility to make politics a better place for women, so that we can join in the solutions that are found in this place. I will close on the issue of rising abuse in public life. Women MSPs face more misogynistic abuse in their public role now than they did when the Parliament first opened. Councillors and MPs are also affected, and so are women who seek office. One of my male colleagues remarked that their eyes were opened to the levels of abuse that women face on social media when I tagged them in a post. I know that staff on my team would rather that I did not have access to my account at all, to save me seeing some of the vile ableist and misogynist comments.”
“Women teachers and support staff report a rise in misogynistic behaviour, and there is violence against them in schools, as my colleague Katy Clark highlighted. One newly qualified primary school teacher detailed this week how she has bruises up and down her arms. Although some of the guidance that was published this week is useful when it comes to consequences, it does not tackle the root causes of the violence that many women and girls experience in schools. There are real-life consequences to all policy decisions. For key public services, task forces and strategies are important aspects, but we need to take a different approach to shift the dial on women’s equality. I think that we in Parliament, across all parties, have a responsibility to rise to that challenge.”
“The report also notes that women are more likely to be in temporary accommodation and to need social housing. This week, Glasgow Women’s Aid told me that, in 2009, the average length of time that a woman leaving abuse spent in temporary accommodation was about 90 days, but that some women are there now for more than two years. The fear of ending up in temporary accommodation if they leave the home that they share with the perpetrator of violence against them is preventing women in Glasgow from leaving abusive partners. We must address that if we are to address women’s inequality. Despite the fact that there is a gender equality task force in education and learning, girls are still less likely to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects than boys are.”
“The slow pace on the regulation of buses has negative impacts on women, because it allows decisions to be made that disproportionately affect them, such as the decision this week by First Bus to cut the service 65 in Glasgow. The concerns of taxi drivers in Glasgow have not been addressed, which means that hundreds of them are leaving the job, leaving women with less access to a safe route home. The plan also mentions women’s health, but, as has been acknowledged, women still experience health inequality. That includes disabled women in Glasgow who have difficulties accessing cervical smear tests—in some cases, with deadly consequences. I thank members, including the cabinet secretary and Rona Mackay, for acknowledging that that is unacceptable.”
“It will require reform of public services and actions to shift systemic inequalities, as my colleague Paul O’Kane pointed out. It is important to consider the particular impacts on women and girls who face additional challenges as a result of the barriers that society places in front of them, as other members have noted, because of how their gender interacts with their race, religion, sexuality, disability or a combination of all of those. On various measures, there is a lot of work yet to do. As Tess White noted, women still earn less than men. Then there is public transport, which, the report notes, women rely on more than men do.”
“The UK Labour Government’s Employment Rights Bill also adds protections that will support women in the workplace, by expanding the preventative duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment and increasing the burden of justification on employers to accept flexible working requests. The UK Labour Government has also committed to making the right to parental and paternal leave a day 1 right. While we celebrate success, we must accept that there is still much to do, as many members, including Maggie Chapman, Ben Macpherson, Sharon Dowey and Clare Haughey, have acknowledged this afternoon. Gender inequality harms everyone, not just women and girls, and ending it should be a national priority. Addressing the remaining gaps in gender equality will take more than strategies and publications.”
“As members have highlighted, there are still too many barriers for women and girls in society, so when progress is made, it is important to celebrate that. Progress is not inevitable. It takes bravery, and it requires us to persuade people who disagree with us and to take them with us. That is the definition of leadership. Progress has been made, much of which has been outlined by members today, but I would like to comment on some further progress. This week, the UK Labour Government made progress by righting a long-standing wrong that women have experienced, by decriminalising abortion and enabling women to have control over their own bodies.”
“We have also increased public sector pay in Scotland, despite significant constraints on our budget. Increasing women’s pay helps to reduce child poverty, which is one of the Scottish Government’s four priorities. In 2025-26, we are investing £155 million to enable an increase in the pay of adult and children’s social care workers in commissioned services to the new real living wage rate of £12.60 per hour. That overwhelmingly benefits women, who make up the majority of that workforce. Scotland also has the most generous childcare offer in the United Kingdom. Parents of all three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds can access up to 30 hours of funded childcare each week in school term time. Supporting families by providing quality, affordable and accessible childcare supports women in work and keeps families out of poverty.”
“Today, the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill, which is currently at stage 3, proposes to create a statutory framework for Scotland’s first national, multi-agency domestic homicide and suicide review model. We have taken action to create a trauma- informed process for people who have experienced sexual violence, including the Forensic Medical Services (Victims of Sexual Offences) (Scotland) Act 2021. That act provides a statutory basis for health boards to provide person-centred, trauma-informed forensic medical services for people who have experienced rape or sexual assault. Since 2017, we have invested more than £17 million to enable sexual assault response co-ordination services to be provided in every health board area.”
“With the Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland) Act 2021, Scotland became the first country in the world to enshrine access to free period products in law. We continue to target all forms of violence against women and girls, through our world- leading equally safe strategy and by strengthening the laws that enable us to respond robustly to perpetrators and to protect women and girls. The Scottish Parliament passed the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, which created a specific offence of domestic abuse that covers both physical and psychological abuse and makes it easier to prosecute coercive and controlling behaviour.”
“We no longer can or should be talking only about “women”; we need to recognise the additional challenges and barriers that some women face—whether they are disabled women, black or minority ethnic women, or other women—in accessing public services. She raises a very important situation, and I agree that it is unacceptable. In the next phase of the plan, timely access to gynaecology services will be a priority. We have allocated more than £8.8 million to health boards to target long waiting times for gynaecology, and we expect that to deliver significant improvements in the coming year. In addition, work is under way to target cervical cancer and identify steps that we can take to eliminate it in our lifetimes. We have invested more than £53 million since 2018 to fund access to free period products across a range of settings.”
“I have a question on the point about the women’s health plan. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the situation for disabled women in Glasgow who seek to access cervical smear tests and find that there is difficulty in ensuring that there are accessible rooms for them, including in general practice surgeries, is not an acceptable position? Does she agree that more should be done to support GPs in the national health service to make sure that their services are accessible to disabled women? Shirley-Anne Somerville: I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for that comment. She points— probably not for the first time today—to a discussion that is exceptionally important, which is about intersectionality.”
“To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on the Scottish Government’s position on the funding of Scotland’s higher education institutions. (S6F-04201)”
“Those changes reflect what we heard in the committee and from others, which was that, for the Gaelic language to thrive, it must be visible, viable and valued not only in schools but in homes, workplaces and public life. The bill was not perfect, and the work does not end here, but, with the amendments that the Parliament has now made, we believe that it has a much stronger foundation. The challenge is now around implementation and the provision by the Government of the long-term resource and leadership that are needed. I am sure that, together, we will rise to that challenge, because Gaelic communities have waited too long for action, and it is time that we matched our words with delivery. I hope that today’s bill will make that happen. 18:02”
“Ross Greer, Miles Briggs and Willie Rennie have also spoken passionately and acted to give meaning to the bill for education, including parental rights, provision for schools and support for Sabhal Mòr Ostaig. Although we still believe that the bill could and should have gone further, many of those changes mean that the bill now begins to meet the challenge that many campaigners and academics have pointed to: that Gaelic cannot be revived solely in the classroom. It must live in communities, and, with the right structures and support, it can. I thank colleagues from across the chamber who worked together to improve the bill.”
“However, I hope that, in supporting the board to discharge the duties that the Deputy First Minister mentioned, the Government can ensure that the areas and communities that are designated in the act get the help that they need to grow their community and ensure that their language flourishes. Thanks to my colleague Michael Marra, with the support of the Government and others, there will now be targets in law, which are essential to ensuring that we meet the level of action that is needed for the language to survive. For the first time, the Scottish Qualifications Authority will be under a duty to ensure that a meaningful number of qualifications are available through the medium of Gaelic and that resources are provided to support that.”
“Academics and the report of the short-life working group on economic and social opportunities for Gaelic, led by Kate Forbes, agree that those matters are crucial, so I hope that the bill will be a catalyst to ensuring that they get the attention that they need. Nonetheless, we worked hard to have a meaningful role in strengthening the bill, because we know that, without significant action, Gaelic will cease to be a living language. Our amendments helped communities to have a key voice in action on Gaelic, and those people will now be involved in decisions about their community and their language. I am disappointed that the Government did not support the provision of a dedicated development officer, because that could have ensured that there would be a local resource working with communities.”
“Like others, we are committed to the language’s survival and revival, and to supporting the cultural, educational and community life that surrounds it, which others, including the Deputy First Minister and Dr Allan, have spoken passionately about today. The aim of supporting and enhancing that community life has driven our approach to the bill. Without a living community and a working economy, the Gaelic community and our ancient culture will cease to exist. As my colleague Michael Marra set out, we regret that the scope of the bill did not extend directly to such matters as housing, jobs and connectivity.”
“I apologise to the Presiding Officer, the Deputy First Minister and others in the chamber for my late arrival to the debate this afternoon. I am pleased to close today’s debate on behalf of Scottish Labour and to confirm our support for the Scottish Languages Bill at stage 3. I thank the legislation team, who I suspect have scored me off their Christmas card list this week after the significant number of amendments that I lodged. They work tirelessly, and I appreciate all the work that they do. I also thank the Deputy First Minister and her team for engaging with us on the bill. Finally, I thank my team and members across the Labour benches for their support in getting us to where we are today. A Labour-led Government introduced the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005.”
“The amendment would ensure that linguistic planning is not only responsive to community need, but accountable to it, and it would empower communities to speak for themselves. Together, the amendments would create a vital step in realising the community-led approach that the bill aspires to. I move amendment 13. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Emma Roddick to speak to amendment 17 and other amendments in the group.”