Paul O'Kane
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“It is clear that any ban on phones will have to involve young people. They will have to help to co-design it and they will have to be at the heart of how we implement it—we should not forget that in the debate. There are already myriad discussions about how we might do that.”
“That is why we have advocated for a national charter on behaviour and standards and national leadership on discipline in schools, to empower headteachers to set out consequences, look at the issue of community partners such as campus cops and restore the relationships that now do not exist in many local authorities.”
“I am pleased to contribute to the debate, and in doing so, I thank Pam Gosal for bringing the issue to the chamber, and I wish her well. Pam was one of the first MSPs I met when I was elected to this place; we were in the same little group on the first day.”
“I am sure that many of us who watched the first day of proceedings in 1999 never thought that we would sit in the chamber and help to form the next part of the story of the Scottish Parliament.”
“Her work with me and others across committees on drug deaths and drug harms was very important. I hope that we will all continue to focus on that in the next session of Parliament. She can be assured that her contribution in that space is very valued. I also pay tribute to you, Deputy Presiding Officer.”
“Given that it is the last day of the parliamentary session and that we are about to enter an election period, colleagues will expect some politics from me. It is clear that the Government has failed to grip these issues during this session.”
The complete record
Every one of 463 lines we hold for Paul O'Kane, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 10.
“No worker should face physical abuse or violence in the workplace. There has been a deterioration of behaviour and standards in recent years, and the present situation is the outcome of it. I have spoken to teachers in my region, who tell me that the scaffolding of support that used to sit around children and teachers to support young people with behavioural problems or other challenges has been hollowed out by the Government—through its neglect of education, its lack of leadership and its cuts to local authority budgets. Does the First Minister accept that this behaviour problem not only has happened on his watch but has happened because of his party’s failure to support our schools? The First Minister: No, I do not accept that point. The Government has strongly supported investment in education, and it has done that consistently.”
“Finally, and looking more widely, with mere weeks of this parliamentary session left to run, and at a time when resources for schools are already limited, I remain unclear as to why the Government felt the need to introduce the bill in the manner it did, and to allow it to be amended in such a way as to leave a bill that I think is confused and may do more harm than good. For those reasons, I and Scottish Labour colleagues will vote against the bill tonight. 19:22”
“We cannot simply walk by and pass a piece of legislation because we believe that it has to be done by the end of the session. I outlined that more widely in relation to the question of what has changed between the reconsideration of the UNCRC incorporation legislation and now to make the bill before us so urgent and so necessary—particularly in its latter parts, in relation to the UNCRC. I do not think that we received an answer on that point. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will be able to say, when she sums up, what has changed and what her concerns are that have led us to where the bill is now.”
“Labour members are supportive of the long- standing position in Scots law on the protection of faith education, but we also understand that, if we are going to have a wider debate about the UNCRC and children’s rights, we cannot rush that through our consideration of the bill. I referred to that in relation to many of the amendments that were offered by Green colleagues today. There is a fundamental and complex relationship between the rights that are advanced for children and young people and the rights of their parents. That will take a longer debate and a longer time to understand, and it cannot be rushed at this point in parliamentary proceedings. Of course we cannot disregard the concerns that have been outlined.”
“Substantial changes to practices in Scottish schools that have existed for decades— particularly those changes that affect denominational settings—should not have been rushed through by way of amendments in the last months of a parliamentary session. This policy required a much more considered approach and a fuller discussion. In my opinion, there has been a lack of understanding throughout the consideration of the bill about how denominational schools operate. We have seen that in the varied amendments that were considered earlier, which have resulted in the confused bill that we have ended up with. It was remarkable to see some of the interventions that were made in the intervening period. The Bishops Conference of Scotland gave a stark warning about its concerns at the conclusion of stage 2.”
“I referenced in my contribution on my amendment the reason why those pieces of legislation came into being and the opportunities that they have afforded generations of young people and their families in this country. As I said at the weekend in reference to that amendment, if people do not have a problem with faith schools in Scotland or with the continuation of Catholic education, they should have had no problem in backing that amendment. That is why I am disappointed that the amendment was not agreed to by the Parliament tonight, because it was an opportunity for the first time in the history of devolution to put those acts into and on the face of an act of the Scottish Parliament.”
“Due to that, I want to put on record that I cannot support the bill at decision time. The detail of part 1 of the bill is, I think, confused, and was further confused by the amendments that were lodged at stage 2. Fundamentally, I regret that the Government did not support my amendment, which would have sought to offer a degree of reassurance to those in the denominational sector. I do not believe that it was too much to ask that the Education (Scotland) Act 1918 and the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 be put into the bill for the avoidance of doubt. I say that because those pieces of legislation are totemic for those in the faith sector in Scotland and, in particular, for those in the Catholic education sector.”
“Coming to today’s proceedings, we were faced with a range of amendments that could shift, change or reset whole parts of the bill and amendments that could result in fundamental shifts in the position of parents’ rights, as we have heard, and in the position of denominational schools and how they deliver RE and RO in Scotland. That cannot be the outcome that the Government was looking for at the start of the process, and it speaks to much of what I referenced in the proceedings on amendments. The heart of the matter is that the Government has introduced a bill without a clear answer to the fundamental questions that we should all ask ourselves when considering legislation, which are, “What is it for?” and, “Why are we doing it now?” As a consequence, the bill has had a chaotic, short journey and has caused a level of uncertainty.”
“As we have concluded the amendment stages of the bill, I join others in thanking the legislation team for their ever-present support with drafting amendments, all those who have taken an interest in the bill and who have engaged with me and colleagues on it, those who have prepared briefings and, of course, committee colleagues for their work at stages 1 and 2. At the start of the bill’s passage, the cabinet secretary sought to reassure Parliament and the wider public that it would be a short technical bill and that she was seeking consensus across the Parliament. Instead, she has managed to unite some unlikely bedfellows in opposition to the bill. What has been created is a halfway house that appears to please nobody.”
“My amendments in the group, along with Elena Whitham’s, would provide clarity by defining what constitutes religious observance, which helps us as legislators to understand the definition and ensures that parents, young people, children and schools are clear about the different elements and know how to treat them. As Paul O’Kane might accept, those lines might be fuzzy or blurry, but there is a distinction between observance and education. The Scottish Greens whole-heartedly support the role that religious education plays in any curriculum, but particularly in helping children to understand the diversity of the society in which we live. I ask members to support my amendments. I move amendment 6.”
“15:45 Maggie Chapman: I disagree. RE and RO do not have to be intrinsically linked, even in a denominational school. They might be, but they might not be. Paul O’Kane: Tomorrow is Ash Wednesday, which is a good example. In Catholic schools across the country, children will learn about Lent. They will learn about it in an academic sense, probably write down what they will do for Lent and likely write a prayer to help them do that. They do all that in an RE class, but it is also RO. Does Maggie Chapman recognise that that is what I am talking about? Maggie Chapman: In his contribution, Paul O’Kane separated the two things out. Learning about one thing is not the same as practising it, which is what we need to be clear about. It is what young people and their parents have told us that they want clarity about.”
“I will, of course, refer to much of what Maggie Chapman described in my contribution in this group, so I do not intend to detain the chamber in that regard. However, Maggie Chapman has made a number of assertions in her speech thus far, and I want to point out to her that, as we referred to at stage 2, there is a clear difference between denominational and non-denominational schools, in terms of religious education and religious observance. As I said to Maggie Chapman at stage 2, I can understand where she is coming from on decoupling religious education and religious observance in a non-denominational setting, but does she understand and respect that RE and RO in a denominational setting are intrinsically linked, which would mean that some of what she is trying to do would actually be very difficult to implement in a faith school?”
“Like colleagues, I recognise the concerns that have been raised, not least by the EIS and others. Daniel Johnson will very clearly outline his response to that. He is very willing to engage and has engaged throughout the process, and stages 2 and 3 will allow us to do more of that. I recognise at the outset of the debate that there is a genuine will across the Parliament to ensure that we get this right by putting it on a statutory footing that no young person will have to experience the situation that Calum and other young people have experienced. We must make a statement from this Parliament that says that children will be protected and equally safe under the law. 15:06”
“The bill is built on the substantial work that has been undertaken, such as the children’s commissioner’s “No Safe Place: Restraint and Seclusion in Scotland’s Schools” report and Enable Scotland’s “In safe hands?” work. There is a myriad of data and reporting that share people’s experiences of some of the dreadful things that have happened to our children in school settings and other settings across Scotland. In concert with colleagues, I recognise that we have an opportunity today to make a legislative change that will be a turning point. It can be a moment when we say that this sort of seclusion and restraint is no longer acceptable, and that the recording and the duty of candour that will exist will be put on a legislative footing, which is important.”
“Everything that I know about the issues and about the alternative interventions that can be provided I probably know through her work. I associate Kate Sanger with that as well. She has worked closely with Beth and others in this space. That is the reason why we are here and why Daniel Johnson introduced the bill. In some ways, becoming shadow education spokesperson just in time to lead on the bill for Labour was probably meant to be, given my association with the early parts of the campaign. Today, we build on work by organisations such as Enable Scotland and the National Autistic Society, and by people who have supported the campaigners to drive forward these issues and ensure that they do not disappear off the agenda and, with the coming elections and changes in Parliament, are not forgotten about somehow.”
“We have heard already about the tireless work of campaigners that has brought us to today. I declare an interest: looking at the public gallery is, for me, to look at a group of old friends because, as colleagues who are in the chamber know, for seven years prior to coming to the Parliament, I worked for Enable Scotland. I am still a member of Enable Scotland. That is where I first got to know Beth, Peter and Calum and to work with some extraordinary people on these issues. As we have heard already, Beth is a ferocious campaigner. She is tenacious but she has compassion and her family brings her much joy in her life. That is her motivation in the campaign. Not only does Beth campaign and not only has she worked on the issues to bring us to this point but she educates. That is important.”
“I join colleagues from around the chamber in thanking my friend and colleague Daniel Johnson for his work on the issue and the bill. It is no small feat to bring together a member’s bill. Given his success with the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age- restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021 in the previous session of the Parliament, he knows that more than most. I also pay tribute to his staff, who have carried out the work with great aplomb and good humour in the Labour corridor even when they have been busy preparing to get to this day. As Scottish Labour’s education spokesperson, I am pleased to confirm that Scottish Labour will support the general principles of the bill at decision time—much, I am sure, to the relief of my colleague Daniel Johnson, who sits beside me on the front bench.”
“It is in the region of £40 million of investment, and at the end of probation, we do not ask local authorities for anything else. I do not think that that is good enough. We have to have a partnership approach. We also— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Cabinet secretary, I have been very generous in giving you a lot of latitude. You are well aware of what the response time is supposed to be. I am keen to get in those who are desperate to ask a question.”
“We therefore need to work with local authorities on different ways to support teachers in obtaining employment. It has always been the case that people need to apply for jobs after the completion of probation. People are not guaranteed a job in their local authority area, and I do not think that anyone in the chamber would suggest that that should change. Instead, we need to work with local authorities on a partnership basis. One of the things that I am interested in exploring further with COSLA, through our review of the probationer scheme, which has not been reviewed since 2002, is how we can jointly, with local authorities, work on a partnership approach to funding that. At the current time, it is solely funded by the Scottish Government.”
“Jenny Gilruth: I think that some of my commentary has been taken out of context. There are a number of teaching vacancies across the country, but I have said publicly that I accept that not everyone can travel or move. As members will know, I have used my own example of moving to Moray for a year, because I ticked the box to go and as a result, I received £6,000. There are financial incentives attached to that. I know that Mr O’Kane will be delighted to hear that it has now been increased to £8,000 to incentivise people to move. The interesting thing, from Mr O’Kane’s point of view, is that we see teachers opting not to tick the box in ways that they did previously. That might be for good reason, but since the pandemic, people are opting not to move in ways that they might have done.”
“I raised with the First Minister last week at First Minister’s question time the cabinet secretary’s comments, when, in response to the issue of teachers moving abroad to access jobs, she said that people are “opting not to travel to jobs” in Scotland, and that they are “much more expensive to employ”. The First Minister accused me of skating past his stellar record on education, but I suggest that he somewhat skated past the defence of the cabinet secretary’s comments. To go to the point that Willie Rennie made, does the cabinet secretary why teachers are so angered by what she said? Does she also accept that a recruitment campaign at this stage in the current parliamentary session, in which she promised recovery and made a very clear pledge on teacher numbers, is just not going to cut it?”
“However, there are really clear examples of what can happen when we do not educate, do not allow a space for debate and discussion or do not encourage young people to ensure they are accessing reputable and true sources. As we end this session of Parliament, my call to those of us who are fortunate enough to be here in the next session is for a rededication and for an effort to ensure that all young people, and all people more generally, can have high-quality Holocaust education and remembrance. 13:12”
“When asked if they had encountered Holocaust denial or distortion on social media, 23 per cent of young people surveyed said that they had and 20 per cent of survey respondents more widely in the UK believed that 2 million or fewer Jews were killed, while others did not know that 6 million Jewish people had been killed in the Holocaust. Those figures should concern every one of us, and it should be our duty to renew the call for education and remembrance among young people. As I said, we have wonderful examples of that happening in Scotland. I pay tribute to the Government, which continues to invest in that work, and I believe that there is a collective will across this Parliament to do that.”
“Scotland’s senior rabbi, Rabbi Moshe Rubin, who will be known to many here, spoke at the East Renfrewshire Holocaust memorial day commemoration on Monday night and raised concerns that the number of schools in the United Kingdom participating in events to mark Holocaust memorial day is reported to have fallen by 60 per cent since the 7 October terrorist attacks on Israel. Surveys also show that many young adults— indeed, a third of young adults in the UK—are unable to name Auschwitz or any other concentration camp or ghetto where the crimes of the Holocaust were committed.”
“We have heard a rich and diverse range of young voices in Parliament—they have been passionate and eloquent, and they have led by example. That really speaks to this year’s Holocaust memorial day theme of “Bridging Generations”, because it is the duty of all of us to ensure that we are bridging the gap that now exists between living survivors and subsequent generations. We now have a generation of young people who will encounter the Holocaust only through secondary sources and will not have the opportunity to meet survivors, many of whom, although they were children when they escaped the Holocaust, are now advanced in age. I pay tribute to the survivors who continue doing everything that they can to educate. In my remaining time, I will touch on something else that is really crucial this year.”
“One of the most encouraging things in the past five years, which have often been difficult years in terms of geopolitics, as members have referenced, has been the voices and the participation of young people in this Parliament and across Scotland in remembering the Holocaust, educating their peers and learning for themselves, often through encountering for themselves the places that Jackson Carlaw touched on and broadening their horizons and their understanding of the Holocaust and subsequent genocide. We can reflect on the wonderful ambassadors of the Holocaust Educational Trust and of the Anne Frank Trust; on the vision schools Scotland programme, which does such great work in our schools; on the drama work done in schools by Beyond Srebrenica; and on the time for reflection leaders that we heard from this week.”
“At this point in the parliamentary session, it is important that we all rededicate ourselves to Holocaust remembrance and education and that we put on record today the importance of continuing that into the next Parliament. We can try to read the runes, but none of us knows what that Parliament’s make-up will be. It is important that, whether we are hoping to come back or not, we all rededicate ourselves to ensuring that this place continues to lead the nation in our remembrance and our calls for education.”
“This is the fifth debate on Holocaust memorial day in the current session of Parliament. It has been an honour for me, in my time in Parliament, to participate in each of those debates, alongside colleagues from across the chamber. Holocaust remembrance in this Parliament has been a collective endeavour across the parties. I pay tribute to Kenneth Gibson for leading our debate today, and I pay tribute to Jackson Carlaw for his efforts over the years, along with myself. Indeed, I pay tribute to both members for their collaboration on the commemoration events in the Parliament last week and for their collaboration over many years.”
“There is tremendous strength in Scottish education and Mr O’Kane should join those of us who are very proud of it.”
“Does he think that underemployed and unemployed teachers across the country should have to uproot their lives and their families because of his Government’s failure to competently put together a workforce plan? The First Minister: The Government has had in place for many years incentives to encourage individuals to move to areas of the country where there are shortages of teachers. There are challenges in some of those locations, which is exactly why the Government has intervened to put in place those incentives, to ensure that that can be achieved. Mr O’Kane rather skates past the improvements that have been made in Scottish education. As we speak, there are record levels of literacy and numeracy in our schools, with an exam diet that shows the tremendous achievements that have been made by the young people of Scotland.”
“It was this First Minister who, at the beginning of this parliamentary session, promised a focus on recovery from the pandemic in education. He made a pledge that there would be around 3,500 more permanent teachers in this parliamentary session, yet he will fail spectacularly on that pledge. According to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, that should not be the responsibility of this Government. Rather, it is the fault of teachers themselves. She said that they are “opting not to travel to jobs”, and that they are “much more expensive to employ”. Does the First Minister agree with Jenny Gilruth’s analysis of the situation?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what cross-Government action it is taking to support island connectivity in the West Scotland region. (S6O-05388)”
“Fundamentally, as we have heard from across the chamber, the bill will pass this evening, but perhaps without the necessary degree of enthusiasm or vision moving forward. As I said in my contributions on amendments, the belief on this side of the chamber is that we will see change and move things forward in this area only by having a change of Government, and that will come through in the debates that we have as part of the election, which the people of Scotland are ready for. The Presiding Officer: I call Roz McCall to speak for a generous five minutes. 20:50”
“As I said, I am conscious that the bill will not make the change that we want to see right now and that some of that change is being pushed down the road. We know that the reform should be rooted in the Withers review. We agreed with the central conclusion of the Withers review on the need for structural and operational reform, which we have heard so much about throughout today’s process, as well as with the creation of the single funding body, but the bill falls short with regard to skills reform. It risks becoming that cosmetic, big- bang reorganisation that Willie Rennie spoke about, by rearranging structures without addressing underlying failures that are letting people down and holding the economy back.”
“That reminds us that the decisions that we make in this place have direct consequences for the employment prospects of individuals, so we need to act with care every time we are talking about big-bang reorganisation. We may think that it is a good political thing to do, but we need to fully understand the consequences for people’s livelihoods, as that person made clear to me. Paul O’Kane: I am shocked that anyone in north-east Fife would not greet Willie Rennie at the door with an embrace of joy. He makes a fair point about our decisions having an impact. We have heard from the trade unions at SDS and from those who work in those agencies about the concern and disruption that such decisions can cause. We need to take cognisance of that, and that has very much been put on the record this evening.”
“Yes, if we knock on someone’s door, they will probably not be enthused by a technical bill such as this one, but their actual concerns would lie with the level of apprenticeship starts and the opportunities that exist for people in their communities. I made this point in the debate on amendments. We know that learning providers requested 34,000 starts in 2024-25, compared with an actual 25,000 starts. This bill will not add a single apprenticeship—that is the reality of where we are. Willie Rennie: I did have somebody raise it on the doorstep—they were an employee of SDS. They did not quite grab me with joy—it was probably the opposite.”
“This evening, speakers in the debate, such as Willie Rennie, Ross Greer, Daniel Johnson and Miles Briggs, have set out a lot of the context around how we got here and all the work that has been going on ever since the Audit Scotland report, which Willie Rennie referenced, and the Withers review, with the stark challenges that it outlined. I do not think that the bill is addressing many of the wider issues that were at the heart of that. Douglas Ross’s contribution was interesting. He posed the question about what the public think and how much they will judge this work in the election that we are about to enter into.”
“That is the core of many of our concerns this evening. The minister spoke about technological change and facing that future challenge. The reality is that a lot of that challenge is present here and now. Jobs are changing and the industries of the future are moving at pace, not just in Scotland but internationally. We see that particularly in relation to the growth of artificial intelligence, digital tech, the defence sector and medicines. That is why we feel that, in this bill, we have missed an opportunity to make the demonstrable change that we need in training and upskilling young people, in particular, for the jobs that are already here, when other countries are perhaps moving ahead.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer. At this stage in the evening, and given the many contributions that we have heard already, I might not go beyond that generous four minutes. It is important to pull together some of the threads that we have heard, as well as our reasoning on this side of the chamber for not supporting the bill this evening. Daniel Johnson outlined quite clearly several significant concerns that we still have around the bill and, crucially, about what it will not do for the wider skills landscape in Scotland. I echo what colleagues have said about the minister’s efforts. I appreciate that, like me, he has come into the bill process as it has advanced. That is not always easy, but he has tried to engage. I acknowledge that, in a lot of what he has said, he recognises the challenges that will exist for a future Government.”
“Ultimately, it would ensure that consultations are not treated as tick-box exercises but are a meaningful part of the shaping of policy. I move amendment 2.”
“Amendment 2 is an important amendment as it would introduce a new requirement on anyone who carries out a consultation under the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 to publish a summary of the responses that they receive, along with an explanation of how the responses have been taken into account. The amendment would build greater transparency into the consultation process and help to ensure that those who take the time to contribute can see how their views have influenced the final outcome, if at all. Importantly, the amendment includes a sensible safeguard that would allow the person who conducts the consultation not to publish where doing so would be inappropriate. The straightforward and proportionate measure that I propose in the amendment would strengthen accountability and improve public confidence in decision making.”
“In light of the minister’s offer, his comments and, in particular, Mr Rennie’s amendment 113, which we will come to later and which I hope the Parliament will agree to, I do not intend to press amendment 1. Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 4 is on publication duties. Amendment 2, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is grouped with amendments 46 and 47. Jeremy Balfour: Members will be pleased to hear that amendment 2 is my final amendment and, in speaking to it, I will be a lot briefer than I was last time.”
“Future Governments can always amend legislation if they feel strongly about it, so I am not convinced that the argument about tying future Governments is always the strongest one. It is sometimes good to put things down that would require a change in legislation so that the whole Parliament can think about them. I thank the minister for our constructive dialogue on Friday and for his very public offer of the meeting with the disabled people’s charities, colleagues and others. I hope that members from other parties will attend that meeting, because it will be an opportunity to lay out the concerns and see how, in practical ways, they can be dealt with.”
“I hope that I have articulated and demonstrated why the Government does not believe that his amendments are necessary and that I have provided him with sufficient reassurance of the practical actions that I will undertake with him. I also hope that he will not press his amendments but, if he does, I encourage members to vote against them for the reasons that I have set out. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Jeremy Balfour to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 1. Jeremy Balfour: I thank Paul O’Kane and the minister for their contributions. With regard to Labour’s comments, I note that it is sometimes not a bad thing to tie future Governments. We do not know what future Parliaments will look like or what they will do. We know that at least one member with an obvious disability is not coming back next time.”
“The analysis of the results of that consultation will inform future policy and funding considerations whereas introducing parallel statutory reviews, as the amendments propose, would duplicate work that is already in progress. I am also conscious that Willie Rennie has lodged amendment 113 to ask for a more far- reaching review provision that would require a review of the operation of the entire act. We consider that proposal, which could include a review of funding, to be far preferable to amendment 9, making amendment 113 a better option. All that considered, I thank Jeremy Balfour for lodging his amendments in group 3 and for ensuring that the bill process has considered the needs of a specific and important group of people.”
“Guidance on disabled students allowance and on the additional support needs for learners allowance is already publicly available via SAAS and the SFC. Once again, that amendment would therefore duplicate existing provision. Amendments 8 and 9 would require reviews of the funding that is provided to students with support needs. A consultation on support for part- time and disabled students was undertaken between June and October 2025 and captured views from both FE and HE students, including those undertaking distance learning. The responses are currently being independently analysed. The findings are due to be published this spring and I will ensure that that happens before the dissolution of Parliament. I appreciate that Pam Duncan-Glancy asked about that earlier and hope that my response will give early clarity about her expectations.”
“Amendment 5 would duplicate a provision in section 10 that gives the SFC the power to issue statutory guidance to fundable bodies and to consult any stakeholders that it considers to be appropriate. Those to be consulted could include apprentices with support needs or organisations such as Lead Scotland. Amendment 6 would require bodies that provide funding to people with support needs to report on that funding. Any funding for those with support needs is already monitored and reported on annually by SAAS, so amendment 6 would therefore duplicate existing reporting mechanisms. Amendment 7 would require ministers to “prepare and publish guidance ... in relation to the effective use of funding provided ... to students with support needs”.”
“The bill already includes mandatory consultation requirements. Section 2E of the bill requires the fundable bodies to inform and consult the organisations that represent their students as a mandatory condition of receiving their funding. That is deliberately broad and already enables engagement with any organisation that represents students with support needs. Similarly, amendment 4 is unnecessary given my amendment 31 in group 8. Amendment 4 would require ministers to consult apprentices and persons who appear to represent apprentices’ interests. Once again, I consider that that is broad enough to include all kinds of apprentices, including those with support needs.”
“That enforceable legal obligation exists independently of this bill, so using the bill to create an additional statutory duty would not change or strengthen that requirement but would duplicate protections that already exist. Any funding obligation on ministers is more properly a matter for the annual budget process and not for the bill. However, I acknowledge that there might be inconsistencies in how those duties are applied and in the extent to which support is provided. I hope that we can explore that in the discussion that I have committed to holding to determine whether we can improve how support is provided. I understand that the intention behind amendment 3 is to ensure that the interests of students who have support needs are taken into account before any decisions that might significantly impact them are made.”
“15:30 I now turn to the amendments themselves and will set out my rationale for believing that they are unnecessary and that they threaten to reduce flexibility or to create duplication of existing measures and legal duties, and that such matters, as I said, would be better considered administratively. Amendment 1 would require ministers to “ensure funding is provided to meet the support needs of students.” As has been explained, all Scotland’s colleges and universities are already under a statutory duty, through the Equality Act 2010, to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled students, including those with long-term conditions, are not placed at a disadvantage.”