Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are there any examples of other jurisdictions that do not have a timescale but which are still quite similar to what you have proposed with regard to the definition of terminal illness, and which have seen a gradual increase rather than the inverse trend that has been suggested?

On the basis of the cabinet secretary’s remarks, I am happy not to press amendment 61. I understand the legal point about Education Scotland’s status as an executive agency, which means that responsibility rests with ministers, but there is a governance point that the committee has encountered on lots of occasions in relation to Education Scotland, in that duties on ministers simply have not cascaded down effectively.

I understand the legal issue around drafting, so I am happy not to press amendment 61 and for us to work on the matter ahead of stage 3. We will need to take into account that duties that are placed on ministers are, quite frankly, often not fulfilled by the executive agencies that are accountable to ministers, so perhaps we need to tighten that up in this specific regard. Of course, there is a wider governance issue that is not for this committee to consider right now.

It is an anticlimactic end, I am afraid, convener: I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 75 not moved.

Sections 36 to 38 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

I understand the Scottish Government’s perspective and the need to strike a balance, particularly for a relatively small public body. However, given the reason why we are debating the matter and the urgency of the situation, is there any scope for compromise at stage 3 to allow a reasonable level of discretion for the bòrd but perhaps set a minimum timescale—not necessarily a year, but perhaps no less than every two or three years? Would the Government be amenable to an amendment that would at least set a minimum standard?

On the basis of those comments from the cabinet secretary, I am happy to withdraw amendment 38 and to not move the other amendments in the group. We will look to reach some form of agreement ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 38, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 39 to 41 not moved.

Amendment 42 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendments 43 to 46 not moved.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

On the face of it, amendment 55 sounds positive to me. More research and more data collection are, of course, valuable. My question is about the necessity for the amendment. Is there currently a barrier to ministers’ being able to commission such research and collect such data, or is amendment 55 simply a clarifying amendment, in that nothing currently says that you cannot do that, but the amendment makes it absolutely clear that you can?

It always feels awkward to come in before the member who has lodged amendments. The Deputy First Minister says that she agrees with the principle of amendments 4 and 5. I welcome them because there might be a situation in which a local authority has done all the community engagement right and has community buy-in, but the Government then decides to modify the scheme, which puts that community buy-in at risk. Does the Government agree that, in principle, if the scheme is modified by Government, there should be direct community engagement before the decision is made?

Amendment 66 would place a duty on ministers to conduct a review of the status of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig in order to consider in particular whether it should be designated as a higher education institution and have the power to award degrees. Ministers would be required to publish a report on the review and to lay that before Parliament. The most important element of amendment 66 is that the review is required to take place within a year from the proposed new section coming into force. That acknowledges the wider discussions that we have been having about the urgency of the situation.

There is a consensus across the Parliament on the importance of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig as an institution operating through the medium of Gaelic. It is the national centre for Gaelic language, education and culture, and it plays a significant role for Gaelic nationally and internationally. It is right and proper that, as part of our consideration of the bill, we should be reviewing its status. It is my position and the position of my party that Sabhal Mòr Ostaig should have degree-awarding power.

I do not want to bounce the college into that before it is ready—to put it bluntly—and a review process would allow us to consider all the issues and potential barriers to it having that power and that status, which would ensure that it has time to put together an adequate business case and that it receives the support that it requires. That should be the aspiration, in any case.

That is the motivation behind amendment 66. I recognise that Willie Rennie is very much coming at the issue from a similar position, but I will let him speak to his own amendment.

I move amendment 66.

I appreciate not just the cabinet secretary’s remarks on amendment 77 but the constructive way in which we have engaged on amendments to this point. She is right to point out that the amendment does not relate to the Gaelic language strategy, because responsibility for that is moving to ministers. It is about the corporate plan of an NDPB. In that sense, the rationale behind the amendment has nothing to do with the Gaelic language—it is about my and my party’s view about the transparency of public bodies in Scotland.

The cabinet secretary is right to point out the iterative process that exists for the production of corporate plans by NDPBs. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the provision in amendment 77 would come into place only at the end of that process. The iterative process is about drafting a corporate plan. It is an important point of transparency and public confidence that, if that process has taken place as normal but, at the end of it, an NDPB has produced a corporate plan that ministers believe is so deficient that they reject it, ministers should have to give a rationale for that.

I am being somewhat opportunistic in proposing such a provision in the bill, because the bill relates to a particular NDPB but, as a point of transparency in the public sector, I will press amendment 77.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her remarks and for her support for these amendments. I should give credit to Professor Wilson McLeod, who gave evidence to the committee at stage 1. Through my engagement with him, many of the proposals that I am making this morning came about, particularly the amendments in relation to inserting the word “national” to add clarity and amendment 18 on publicising the consultation. I also put on the record that amendment 78 is a proposal from the Law Society.

Amendment 2 agreed to.