Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely. The phrase “community buy-in” is critical. My aim in working with Pam Duncan-Glancy would be to ensure that we gave effect to the principle of community buy-in without tying our hands to community councils. I know that, in some communities, there are really strong community trusts and other community representatives, who might be more reflective if a community council is inactive at the time.

I, too, am extremely sympathetic to and supportive of the principle. If we dealt with some of the drafting issues, we could come back at stage 3 with a really strong amendment in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, if that is of interest—with, I hope, Ross Greer’s support.

I move amendment 3.

I am grateful to Ross Greer for his extensive work in lodging amendments. In relation to amendment 77, Bòrd na Gàidhlig has submitted successive national Gaelic language plans to Scottish ministers under the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 since it came into force. Those plans have been successfully developed and approved through current provision.

The member will be aware that the bill provides that ministers will now have the role of issuing a number of documents that used to originate with Bòrd na Gàidhlig. That includes the statutory guidance on Gaelic language plans, the statutory guidance on Gaelic education and the new Gaelic strategy. That reinforces the importance that Scottish ministers place on those documents and the leadership role that should sit with Scottish ministers for the Gaelic language.

Amendment 77 relates to something quite different, which is the bòrd’s own internal corporate plan. The approval of a corporate plan for any non-departmental public body is a normal part of the internal processes and discussions between central Government and NDPBs, so it does not require parliamentary input. The amendment would add a stage that would sit quite strangely with the iterative process that exists between non-departmental public bodies and the Scottish Government.

I therefore do not support amendment 77. I ask the member not to press it, because it would have implications for how NDPBs do their iterative process of producing internal documents, which does not currently require parliamentary input.

The amendments provide clear stand-alone powers under which the Scottish ministers can provide financial assistance to any person for the purposes of promoting, facilitating and supporting the use of Gaelic and Scots. Financial assistance can include grants and loans. A range of interventions can support minority languages that require financial assistance. Although support for the sector tends to use powers that are primarily provided for education or culture, for example, these fresh powers will ensure that the Scottish ministers can turn to bespoke powers to use for language planning purposes across a range of sectors, and they will ensure that the necessary powers are in place to support the language for a strong future.

The amendments respond to comments that were made by the committee and stakeholders about the extent of interventions that would be available to Government and other public bodies when supporting the language in a particular local area. One comment was about economic interventions to support businesses, enterprises, initiatives or entrepreneurs who are working in an area that is suffering from depopulation and that could benefit from support.

I will make a couple of points. As I said in a previous debate, I would envisage that, in areas of linguistic significance in particular, an intensive monitoring exercise would be required. If we simply take the top level of figures, which is the overall number, that can tell us different stories. By and large, however, it is currently telling us that there is a rise in the number of speakers. We around this table know that that does not tell the full story, because the general national rise in people with Gaelic-speaking skills may mask what is happening in traditional communities, and we believe that those traditional communities would be the foremost contenders to be areas of linguistic significance.

I would envisage there being a requirement on public bodies, with the support of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, to evaluate the number of speakers, set out targets and monitor the success of those targets, which would inevitably require consideration of the number of speakers.

Their primary responsibility would be to increase the number of speakers and increase the depth of that understanding and that fluency in those local areas and, if we have not done so already, to look at a requirement to report in those areas. That is intensively local.

On parliamentary scrutiny, I dare not criticise the Parliament, but if there is a criticism of Government here, there is also perhaps a criticism of the Parliament for not taking sufficient interest in some of these issues—which this committee has done a lot to repair, to its credit. The way that this committee has taken evidence is commendable.

However, personally—if a Government minister dare say this—I would like to see the Parliament taking more of an interest, more regularly, in scrutinising the progress and the success of Gaelic language policies. I would like to see the Parliament asking ministers to report on that or to give further information—basically, for ministers to be scrutinised and held to account for what is or is not happening. There is nothing to stop that from happening right now.

I am heartened by your comments, convener. If we take what you, Ross Greer and Willie Rennie have all shared—and what I imagine other committee members may go on to share—we can see that there is a cross-party consensus on the need to move. The only difference between the two amendments in this group is the extent to which things would happen now or after some preparatory work. I emphasise that the Government would expect any preparatory work to happen at pace.

Representatives of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig have commented to me on the need for other bodies in the public sector to engage well with the college to reach the end point. Ross Greer’s amendment 66 is timestamped in requiring the proposed review to happen within a year. It would introduce a duty to ensure that the review is laid before Parliament, therefore inviting parliamentary scrutiny—it requires a report to be written, which considers all the various points.

I am very sympathetic to Willie Rennie’s amendment 95, although a few minor issues would need to be considered before it could progress. We would want to define in law the changes that would happen as a result of designation as a “small specialist institution”, because that does not have a definition in law right now. It should also be noted that it is not wholly within the gift of ministers to determine whether an institution has degree-awarding powers—that is for the Privy Council. There are some outstanding issues that need to be resolved that do not entirely sit on Sabhal Mòr Ostaig’s shoulders. In fact, other parts of the public sector will be required to engage well with those issues—for example, there are questions about funding.

Sabhal Mòr Ostaig is a very important part of the Gaelic community and of our higher and further education community. It is the national centre for Gaelic language, education and culture. In fact, we cannot meet any of the aims and objectives in the bill, or in our policy and strategy, without Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, so it must play an important role for many years to come.

Both amendments in the group indicate the need to move. Our position is that we will support Ross Greer’s amendment 66, on conducting a review. We want that review to be done well and for Sabhal Mòr Ostaig to be well supported at the point that it becomes either a small specialist institution or an institution with another status. That review needs to be done, and it needs to be done well, which requires a little time .

We will not vote against Willie Rennie’s amendment 95, in recognition of the important points that he highlights, but we think that it is important that the preparatory work is done and that other parts of the public sector engage well with that review, and that Parliament has an opportunity to respond to the report, which will be laid in a timestamped manner.

I want to be clear about the value that we place on Sabhal Mòr Ostaig and that we see the amendments as two different routes to get to our end goal. Some preparatory work is required first for Sabhal Mòr Ostaig to have the best chances of success.

I wonder whether we should consider that jointly with my earlier commitment to Michael Marra on regular reporting and evidence gathering in order to monitor progress. If I understand Ross Greer correctly, what he really wants to find out is whether we are making progress according to the aspirations that we have set. I would ask who is best to do the reporting and the evidence gathering, and how we ensure that that evidence is robust, because it is one thing to write a report that highlights all the activities that have been undertaken in a year and quite another to write one that monitors whether those activities have been in any way impactful. I wonder whether there is a bit of a crossover of the members’ aspirations here, so I would be very happy to consider in the round the issues of who is best to report, on what basis, how frequently and with what evidence.

Again, my thanks for the amendments.

Since the passing of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, data gathering in relation to Gaelic policy has been an issue. In this debate so far and in previous debates, we have heard about the consequences of the lack of data. My amendment 55 will improve the quality and extent of data gathering by public bodies in relation to their Gaelic policies and the implementation of the Gaelic language strategy. It will also create a framework for providing training and encouraging or assisting others to do those tasks. Those actions will be to the benefit of the strategy’s implementation and will address a concern that has been raised about the assessment of Gaelic language plans since the passage of the 2005 act. We recognise the importance of data and research.

I am happy to work with Michael Marra on including in the bill a commitment on targets. I would like a very localised approach to targets to be developed. In my mind, I envisage that working by creating a duty for places that are designated as areas of linguistic significance to have a community language development plan with specific local targets, the meeting of which all public bodies that work in the area would be required to support. That is definitely not necessary for the bill, although there are some amendments on community areas of linguistic significance.

Are you willing to work with me on both counts? We should protect local aims—for example, the north of Skye might need more houses—and we can explore a stage 3 amendment that commits the Government to establishing targets.

We could largely keep to that deadline, but, to give some flexibility in relation to those parliamentary moments, we could adapt it to two years. It is right to hold the Government to account for laying the regulations as quickly as possible, but two years would give a little bit more flexibility. It would be my aspiration to deliver as quickly as possible, but we could adapt the deadline.

On point 1, we will come back to you with greater consideration of what you perceive to be the difference between the two proposed new sections with regard to a child’s, or pupil’s, ability to make the request. We are dealing in some cases with early learning as well, so we will need to consider that.

On your last question, Comann nam Pàrant is not established in statute. Over the period of 40 years that Miles Briggs identified, it has evolved to become the primary national body for parents of GME pupils, and so it is the obvious group in that regard.

I have forgotten what your second question was, so feel free to intervene.