Seòmar agus comataidhean

There was indeed discussion at stage 1 about whether the term “Scots” includes the different dialects of the Scots language that are used in the different parts of Scotland. As Emma Harper said, her amendments seek to provide reassurance to all who speak the language. The amendments in this group are therefore welcome, and I think that they offer that reassurance. They make it clear that the bill’s provision on Scots includes the different dialects, and we are content to support them.

Pam Duncan-Glancy is absolutely right to highlight that point. Our comments are not necessarily at odds with it. We believe that that requirement probably needs to be a bit more targeted. For example, some subject areas have the highest impact on fluency, and there should be greater focus on those subjects.

There are some concerns that a blanket duty is quite difficult to fulfil, as not all qualifications are available in Gaelic. Our position is probably not far removed from where the member wants to get to. I guess that the question is whether we should accept the amendments at this stage, then adapt the provisions at stage 3, or simply work on the drafting for stage 3, because we are happy to support the member in that regard.

Yes, we could definitely look at that. I am conscious that we are in December 2024. Purdah will probably be February 2026. The bill is at stage 2 and we have to get it to stage 3. We then need royal assent. In the spirit of realism, once we get royal assent, which normally takes a couple of weeks—sometimes a month—after stage 3, we are then into quite a tight year. Even if it were 18 months, you are looking at early in the next parliamentary session.

Perhaps the requirement is for us to demonstrate progress in the interim, short of laying the regulations. We could do something around a year from the legislation coming into force. Is that what you mean? We could definitely explore that. Rather than coming up with compromises here, I commit to coming up with a compromise prior to stage 3 that makes sense.

Amendments 79 and 80 require Scottish ministers to publish the results of consultations on Gaelic language standards and guidance. Not only am I hugely supportive of consultation, I am even more supportive of publishing the results of that consultation, so I am happy to support those amendments.

I think that that is a compelling argument, which balances the concerns that I raised in my opening paragraphs in relation to whether bodies need to be expressly referenced in order to be captured. Of course, our view is that the whole of the public sector should be captured.

All the actions that universities are engaged in contribute to the wider public visibility of and respect for the Gaelic language and the opportunities to use it in Scotland.

In addition, through the bill, we are taking a power to require the Scottish Funding Council to impose conditions on the funding that it provides to universities to ensure that funds are used to enable, encourage and increase participation in higher education in the Gaelic language. That will ensure that the objective of improving Gaelic participation is met without risking the independence of universities.

I am content to support Mr Greer’s amendment 54, which would put coverage of the 2005 act beyond doubt.

I turn to amendment 68. I am aware of the calls that have been made for enhanced enforcement mechanisms to reinforce the duties in the 2005 act. Concern about enforcement has been raised by a number of members, including by Michael Marra in the debate on the previous group. I thank Ross Greer for explaining his amendment 68, which I am happy to support.

Michael Marra has touched on something that is broader than the bill: the extent of independent research generally when it comes to Gaelic, and the work within civic Scotland to consider policy improvements and policy changes. I am very conscious that, in a number of other spheres of debate, we are often extensively lobbied by a number of different organisations that have contributed significant time and effort to researching, evidencing and data gathering on policy issues in particular. I would like that to be developed further when it comes to Gaelic, but the member is absolutely right—I do not think that that should be owned by Government. Government should be the recipients of that lobbying or that challenge.

I agree that it is important to hear a robust debate on Gaelic policy, and I commend the committee for what it has done even in gathering evidence from a number of stakeholders. I hope that that does not end with the passage of the bill but continues. I commend a number of different organisations, not least Misneachd Alba, which has done a lot of work in that space.

I think so.

I thank Ross Greer for his collaborative approach. The fact that he had so many amendments throughout the bill speaks to his ability to engage across parties and with external stakeholders.

We always publicise arrangements for engaging in consultations on draft strategies and other documents. We also have a practice of publishing consultation results where appropriate. As amendments 70 and 97 reflect that existing practice, we are happy to support them.

Amendment 70 agreed to.

Amendment 97 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 28 and 29 agreed to.

Section 30—Power for Scottish Ministers to give guidance

Amendment 71 moved—[Emma Harper]—and agreed to.

Section 30, as amended, agreed to.

After section 30

Amendment 72 makes the same provision for Scots as was made for Gaelic by amendment 55, which I believe the committee has already agreed to—I hope that my memory serves me right.

As with Gaelic, it is important that ministers have the necessary powers to support their functions for Scots, including the ability to undertake research and inquiries and to collect and publish statistics on Scots. That will assist with the implementation of the Scots language strategy and ensure effective information gathering for its further development.

As this is the last time that I will speak in the meeting, I thank everybody for their engagement. I recognise that we have set ourselves a lot of work for stage 3, but the debate has clarified the priorities. I have said in every evidence session that I want the bill to be the product of the Parliament and not a Government-imposed bill. The more amendments that we can accept and on which we can work with members, the better, so that the bill reflects Parliament’s priorities. I look forward to the engagement on that.

I move amendment 72.

Amendment 72 agreed to.

Amendment 73 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 31—Scots language education in schools

Amendment 74 moved—[Emma Harper].

Madainn mhath. I thank Ross Greer for explaining the purposes of the amendments. The bill as drafted grants Gaelic and Scots official status in Scotland, and our position is that the current wording gives both languages the requisite standing in Scotland’s public life. The inclusion in the bill of a clear statement of official status is an important part of recognising Gaelic and Scots. That was welcomed by Gaelic and Scots interests, because it is a means of countering some of the neglect and practices of earlier times. We want to reverse that neglect in the bill.

Our approach to drafting the bill is intended to signpost the high policy aspirations that we hold for these languages. Definitions in this area are difficult, and there is no standard universal understanding of concepts such as “official status” or “official language”. Those concepts have different meanings in different countries, which is why, instead of including a definition that cannot be consistently interpreted, we have carefully set out in subsection (2) of each provision how the statement that Gaelic and Scots have official status is given legal effect.

Therefore, we argue respectfully that amendments 76 and 96 would result in a lack of clarity on the legal effect of the statements on official status for Gaelic and Scots, which could create considerable legal and budgetary uncertainty and risk for public authorities. Of course, I believe in the principle of equal respect for Gaelic and Scots, but I believe that that can be better written into the bill through support for amendments 16, 35 and 50, which require that the principle should be considered at precise points, where that requires concrete and specific action by Scottish ministers and public authorities.

As Ross Greer said, amendments 16 and 35 modify the bill to require ministers to have regard to the principle of equal respect when preparing the ministerial Gaelic language strategy and guidance, and amendment 50 requires public bodies to have regard to the principle of equal respect when preparing their Gaelic language plans. Therefore, the principle must be considered at precise points.

We are happy to support amendments 16, 35 and 50 because they meaningfully strengthen the bill’s provisions in relation to equal respect at particular points and because they make the support for equal respect clear without creating the uncertainty that we believe would be the result of amendments 76 and 96. Therefore, we are disinclined to support those amendments and urge Mr Greer not to press them, while we fully endorse the principle of equal respect that his other amendments highlight.

I think that we should have a commitment to setting targets, but the nature of those targets should be clarified and defined in the subsequent strategy. We could support the principle of targets, and the principle of aims and ambitions, and there could be a role for Parliament in scrutinising whether we are meeting those targets.

However, with regard to the three targets that are set out in amendment 8, if you were to look at, say, the target for Gaelic speakers in isolation, you could say that we had met it this year, because the census has shown a marginal increase. However, you would not be getting beneath the surface of things.