Chamber and committees

Do we have time for one more question from me, deputy convener?

Understood. Thank you—that is very helpful.

I appreciate the opportunity to put something on the record. My comments relate not directly to the specific provisions in these regulations but to provisions on fees in general. As members will know, the part-time student fee grant is available to students with an income of less than £25,000 per year, but neither the level of the grant nor the threshold to access it has changed in a decade.

Concerns are being raised, particularly by those from the Open University, as 69 per cent of its students are part time. One student has said that they received a cost of living pay increase from their employer that pushed them just over the £25,000 threshold, meaning that they could no longer afford their studies. Another student, who works in the national health service, said that the lowest-paid full-time NHS Scotland employee now earns £25,368, so they are outwith the bracket of people who can access the grant, even though they need to access their course as part of their work.

I draw members’ attention to that and ask whether there is anything that we can do to draw it to the Government’s attention.

Good morning. Thank you for joining us, and thank you for the work that you have done so far in this area. I am interested in exploring what you have said about education and schools, and computing science in particular.

At the committee’s evidence session in 2021, you highlighted—as you have done today—the challenges to do with the perception of computing science in schools. You suggested that, essentially, it was perceived to be a third-tier subject. I note the point that you have made about the need for it to be taken seriously, alongside other sciences. Do you think that any progress has been made on that? What are the barriers to progress? How can we address the issue in schools?

How do you think that we should change the perception of computing science? How could we attract more teachers? Earlier, you spoke about a “demographic time bomb”, given the number of people who are leaving the profession. What would you do to change that? How would you attract more people to the profession?

What would trying to do that involve?

What about your own processes and the staff in your own office? Have you changed anything as a result of the experiences that you have heard throughout this process? What training are you giving your own staff? There will be questions later about wider public bodies.

Good morning to the panel. Perhaps I can take the point about the right to express views—particularly with regard to article 12 of the UNCRC, on the right to be heard—a little bit further. First, how does the SPSO envisage the principles being used? Who would use them? Specifically with regard to article 12, how would you support children and young people in exercising their right to express their views?

Thank you, convener, and there is no need to apologise.

I want to pick up on something that was said earlier by, I think, Claire Cullen on the scope of the bill and the fact that it has come to the education committee. I understand and accept that it is the norm for Parliament to determine which committee looks at which bill, but I would imagine that it is for the Government and the cabinet secretary at the time to determine the bill’s scope. When I asked the bill team about the scope of the bill earlier in our evidence-taking sessions, the answer that I got was that the bill’s scope is quite narrow. I will ask the question again: is it the Deputy First Minister’s view that the scope of this legislation could go beyond education to perhaps address some of the infrastructure challenges considered in the report that was referred to earlier?

Thank you. Some of the evidence that we have had has supported what you just said, but it has also been suggested that the bill represents incremental and quite slow progress. Professor McLeod said that it is important for us to think about “outcomes, not outputs”. What outcomes could not have been achieved administratively and through existing powers?