 Weli chi i gweithio i y gwaith y twfynol 29 yr edrych gyflwyngau a'r gymuned hanfoddiadau yn 2017. Prif Weiniddo am y tîm yn gwneud i gael iawn o'r ddymarfa hyn yn y gwneud i'w gweithio i gael y gweithi. Mae'n gweithio gweithio i gwaith ei gweithio i gweithio i gweithi sy'n gweithio ar fy angen. Mae'n gweithio i gweithio i George Adam a'r gweithio i Richard Lochhead i gweithio. My thanks to Colin Beatty and Claire Hawkey for their hard work in this committee. Colin had been on the committee and its predecessor for several years and Claire too has made a valuable contribution to the committee. Item 1 is an opportunity for George and Richard to declare any interests relevant to the remit of this committee, Richard. No relevant interests to declare other than please be back. Thank you. That's a good start. George. Ditto. yn eich byd erdogwad. The next item of business is the decision on whether to take agenda item 7 in private." Agree? The committee published its report on teacher workforce planning at the end of August. The report included recommendations on the workforce planning process, teacher training and on different ways to attract and retain teachers both in the classroom and its senior management level in schools. We have received responses to the recommendations, including from the Scottish Government, the GTCS, Education Scotland, the SQA and ADIS. The committee also agreed to consider research on the turnover intentions of teachers alongside these responses, and this is in paper 2 from SPICE. Before I invite comments from other members on any further action the committee might wish to take, I would like to put in record that I think that this committee's work on initial teacher education could lead to real progress in relation to course content. I therefore like to reiterate the committee's thanks to the hundreds of people who engage with us on this and other issues raised in the report. In terms of action points that set out in the report, the committee will highlight education authority and ADIS response to the Government. The committee will also take the responses into account as context for its work on proposed education reforms. I would also like to suggest that we write to the cabinet secretary highlighting the support from the GTCS and Education Scotland for the assessment of the delivery of initial teacher education courses to be undertaken by one organisation. Specifically, the GTCS or potentially, as is proposed by the Government, a replacement organisation called the Education Workforce Council for Scotland. The Government does not comment in detail on that recommendation and so I would like to seek further clarification on its position. Do members have any comments on that suggestion, or do members have any other suggested action points arising from the responses? Liz Daniel. I agree with what you have just said, convener, because I think that it is important that we understand exactly what remit that that new body would have and how that would impact on the existing role that GTCS would play and potentially Education Scotland. I draw members' attention to the fact that I am a member of the GTCS, but I think that it is important that we know exactly where that body would stand. The second thing that I think is quite important at the beginning is that a lot of this depends on good data collection. I am not yet convinced that we have a very good understanding of what formula is used when it comes to workforce planning, because there seems to be a conflict in the evidence that we have received between those who have a slightly different approach to the national planning and those, as we heard when we took evidence, who want to have a bit of a local input to that planning. I am still confused about what methodologies are being used. Therefore, it is quite difficult to set policy unless you are aware of just exactly how the data is used. First, I would like to echo those comments about the GTCS. I think that they are really quite important. The GTCS is often cited as being an exemplar in terms of its status. I think that making sure that we retain its strengths is really important. In writing to the Government about the ADES response in particular, I would like to suggest highlighting in particular the comments that ADES makes around the teaching of STEM subjects and also the teaching of bi-level and multi-level course contents. I think that this is the first time that we have seen this in writing. It is something that we have heard anecdotally, and I think that it is a serious issue that needs looked at, and one that I think both the Government and I can also gently suggest that perhaps the SQA in Education Scotland should also be taking heed on of. I would certainly like to know what all three of those bodies, the Scottish Government, the SQA and Education Scotland, are saying in response to what ADES is saying. I do not think that the response matched the seriousness of the report, if I was being honest. It starts off by saying that Scotland is unique in that we have over the years developed a very robust model for a workforce plan that did not feel that it matched the evidence. I do not doubt that there is a lot of work done. I think that I would be a bit concerned that there is quite a lot of push-back around the recommendations. We are actually doing this or we do not agree with that. Across the piece, there was quite a lot of important bits of evidence that came out of our conversations with people who were right in the front line. I suppose that I am just a bit concerned that it feels particularly from the Government response that we will take that into account. It is obvious that they do take into account, but the model is working, and it would seem to me that the model is not working. There is simply a level of vacancies. I think that the issue is about some of the hidden disadvantages that are there around one teacher teaching x number of levels across a class, which is unbelievably challenging. There is one wee bit just on the mentors, where it says that, of course, there is x amount of money, given that it is 0.1 full-time equivalent per probationer as part of the teaching induction. The implication is that local authorities and schools are funded to support new teachers and probation teachers through the mentoring process. What we heard was that that was very often not the case. Indeed, when teachers were doing it, they felt that it was something extra that they were doing. It may theoretically be that the school has got that allowance, but the evidence that we got was a suggestion that it was not as good as it could be, because the teachers who were trying to do the mentoring also had other unbelievable pressures on them. A number of issues are there. There are a couple of things. One is that the Government will get the official report of this discussion as well. We can add to the letter the issues that were raised by both Daniel and Liz, but we are going to be having a watching brief on this over the course of it, so we can always bring up those issues, particularly the likes of what you are saying that we have people in front of us about the practicalities of what is happening on the ground in holding on to the account. I do not see—sorry, you are wanting to come back in there. I am just going to say that I am not being disrespectful to the people who are managing this process in the group. I am sure that they are wrestling with all of this. I would be a bit concerned that the implication is that we have a very good system and that it needs to be tweaked. I think that we had some stronger concerns in that, and that is with everybody trying their best to make it work. There remain problems. I think that those issues around how effective the sport for probation and teachers' initial training is, is one that suggests that, basically, the system is okay and we just have to tweak it. I think that there is something slightly—the evidence that we have got suggests that there are slightly more problems to it than that, but that is not to say that the people in the front line trying to make it work are not doing their best, as evidenced by all the extra evidence that we have got from local authorities and from my desk and so on. In practical terms, moving on from this, I would be happy that we do the combination of we add these concerns to the letter to the cabinet secretary, and also we are going to have the opportunity when we are falling up the progress to make sure that it has been attended to. I move on to the next item and agenda, which is the EU reporter work consideration of paper 3, which is from the committee's EU reporter, Gillian Martin. The paper discusses the implications of Brexit and horizon 2020 innovation and research funding. Gillian, I understand that you would like to say a few words. The papers that we have brought to the committee are my roles as a European reporter. I want to bring an issue to the attention of the members relating to the European Union's horizon 2020 programme, which is a flagship programme at funds research and innovation projects in the EU. Between 2007 and 2014, Scottish organisations have secured 572 million euros in funds, and since January 2014, we have been awarded over 110 million euros. The next date for applications in the programme is December 2017. What is of concern to me as the reporter is the comments from the EU commissioners for science and innovation that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, any Scottish university that was successful in December will cease to be eligible to receive EU funding or be required to leave the project. That clearly brings a great deal of uncertainty and a very important source of research funds. I would also like to mention that, yesterday, in the economy committee, we were looking at statistics that showed the massive economic impact of having a Scottish research fellow involved in those projects. I hope that fellow members of the committee would agree with me that we need to get more information from our university sector on the issue, and perhaps make appropriate representations on a cross-party basis to both Governments. I am open to advice from the committee on what steps it would like to take, and I have set out my thoughts on the paper that you have today. Thank you very much for the paper, Gillian. I see the recommendations on page 3 of it. Does anybody have any comments on those recommendations? I thank Gillian Martin for raising those issues as a constituency MSP with a large part of Edinburgh University in my constituency. Those are issues that are of huge importance to that institution and all higher education institutions across Scotland. Thank you very much. I know what to be picky, but I would quite like us to make representations as a committee. It is very obvious that we are cross-party, but I do not think that we are doing it as a committee or as a committee. That is something that we want. I think that, in a sense, that carries more weight than the implications that there were. We are looking at it on a party basis, but we are not. We are looking at it in the responsibility as a committee. I thank you for the report as well. We are happy to accept the recommendations that Gillian has made on page 3 with that change that Gillian has suggested. Thank you very much for that, Gillian. The next item is that we have three statutory instruments to consider today, which are listed on the agenda. Those all relate to additional support for learning, and detail is provided in paper 4. Do members have any comments on those instruments? On that case, thank you very much. That brings us to the end of the public part of the meeting. I will wait for the gallery to clear before moving on to the next item. Take your time, Llywydd.