Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, all.

Amendments 76 and 96 are about the definition of “official status” in the bill. The giving of “official status” to Gaelic and Scots is a significant part of the bill and one of the key motivators behind it, but the Law Society of Scotland posed the question of what “official status” means. At the moment, we do not have a definition of “official status”. Amendments 76 and 96 are the Law Society’s proposals for how we should define that term. They define it as meaning that those languages—Gaelic in the case of amendment 76, and Scots in the case of amendment 96—command equal respect to that of English.

Amendments 16, 35 and 50 in the group further thread the principle of equal respect through the bill in relation to Gaelic. The term “equal respect” is already used in part 1 of the bill. Section 2(2)(c) usefully sets out the principle of equal respect, which I think should be seen as the touchstone for Gaelic policy across the board. Section 2(2)(c) relates to the responsibilities of Bòrd na Gàidhlig in supporting other public authorities. It says:

“the Bòrd must seek to give effect, so far as is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable, to the principle that the Gaelic and English languages should be accorded equal respect.”

I am simply taking language that is already used in section 2 of the bill and putting it elsewhere. Amendment 16 seeks to insert reference to the principle of equal respect in the section on preparation of the Gaelic language strategy. Amendment 35 seeks to do that in relation to the production of guidance by ministers, and amendment 50 seeks to do the same in relation to the preparation of Gaelic language plans. The amendments in this group simply take language that is already used in one section of the bill and thread it throughout the bill. I think that the principle of equal respect should underlie everything else that we do in relation to the bill.

I move amendment 76.

I think that Michael Marra and I have approached this part of the bill from the same place, which is our concern for the reality that Gaelic is on the edge, as a living language. My amendment 14 recognises the fact that, in the bill, ministers need to set out arrangements for monitoring progress towards objectives. My amendment adds that ministers need to define

“how such progress will be measured”.

That reflects the evidence that we took at stage 1 and the committee’s stage 1 report, in recognition that there is broad agreement about what we are trying to achieve and that it will probably not be difficult to get agreement on the high-level objectives for the strategy.

However, there is a gulf between the high-level objectives and the current reality. We need to be very clear, not just about what we are trying to do, but about whether or not it is working. We need to set out a very clear action plan, but we also need to know regularly whether we are making progress towards achieving it. There is a question about what we are measuring and what specifically we are trying to achieve in measurable terms. I have lodged amendment 14 to reflect the evidence that we took at stage 1. As I said, it comes from a very similar place to amendments 8, 13, 15, 37 and 41, which are in Michael Marra’s name.

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comments and I understand the Government’s position. At this stage, I am happy not to press amendment 76 and not to move amendment 96, but I would welcome further engagement with the cabinet secretary, if she is agreeable to that, ahead of stage 3 because I am conscious that, particularly with regard to Scots, the principle of equal respect is not particularly present throughout the bill. My amendments 16, 35 and 50 relate primarily to Gaelic, so, if we all agree on the principle of equal respect, there is perhaps more work that we can do ahead of stage 3 to ensure that that principle is also represented in the bill for Scots.

Amendment 76, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2—Functions of Bòrd na Gàidhlig

These amendments all relate to the duties of the relevant public authorities. I start with amendment 33. The current language in section 7 is that a relevant public authority

“must have regard to the desirability of—

(a) promoting, facilitating and supporting the use of the Gaelic language,

(b) developing and encouraging Gaelic culture.”

I think that “desirability” is too weak, frankly. The alternative wording that I propose is still caveated. It is:

“appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable”.

That is a more objective test than “desirability”. Desirable, to me, feels too subjective, because surely we are deciding that this is all broadly desirable, so the duties that we put in the bill should be about something that is a bit more objective and whether it is appropriate in the relevant public authority’s circumstances. We are the ones to decide on desirability here. The phrasing in the bill is a bit too weak for me, and with amendment 33, I propose replacing it with something more objective.

Amendment 54 is more substantive. It is about expanding to cover colleges, universities, ScotRail, the Caledonian sleeper and Scottish Water the obligations on public bodies that have existed since 2005 under the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005.

At the moment, there is ambiguity about whether colleges and universities are already covered by those obligations. If they are covered, the system is not working, because only a couple have effective Gaelic language plans, so it would be useful to clarify that.

The public companies—ScotRail, the Caley sleeper and particularly Scottish Water—are, in effect, public bodies for the purposes that we are talking about, so they should have the same obligations as other public bodies. That is the rationale for expanding the number of bodies that are covered by the provision in amendment 54.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that intervention and for the acknowledgment of that point. On that basis, I am happy not to press amendment 61, and to bring a version of it back at stage 3.

Amendment 61, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 17 agreed to.

Section 18—Gaelic education delivery planning

Amendment 62 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

Section 19 agreed to.

Section 20—Transport to Gaelic medium education: application of Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010

Amendment 83 is based on a proposal from the Law Society that there should be a requirement to publish the results of consultations, which has been well covered, as I have moved similar amendments in relation to various sections, so I will not repeat that.

Amendment 57 refers to section 13, which currently says that ministers “may” give guidance to public authorities about Gaelic education. That is the core of why we are here, so it should not be optional, and we should change “may” to “must”.

We recognise and have recognised for almost 20 years that Gaelic is one of our national languages, and there is a consensus that that should not change for the foreseeable future. If we ever ended up at a point at which Government ministers believed that it was no longer necessary to provide guidance on Gaelic education, that would be a significant enough change for them to have to come to the Parliament to change the legislation.

Amendment 57 makes a simple proposal to change “may” to “must”, to reflect the fact that such guidance is necessary; it is at the core of the bill and is why the bill was necessary in the first place.

I recognise that there was an assumption that colleges and universities were included under the 2005 act, and best practice has been mentioned. However, practice has not been consistent. There has been doubt, and the 2005 act has not been applied consistently by colleges and universities. Therefore, it is clear that some level of clarity is required.

I hope that this will be short. This is another proposal that originated from discussions that I had with the Law Society. Amendment 77 provides that ministers would have to give reasons for rejecting a corporate plan that had been produced by the bòrd. It is simply about ensuring greater transparency.

My expectation is that it would be extremely rare for things ever to get to the point at which any final corporate plan produced by the bòrd was rejected by ministers. My expectation is that, if there were any serious issues with a plan, there would be far greater engagement earlier in the process, when it was in draft form, and that back-and-forward dialogue would resolve issues.

If it were ever to get to the point at which the corporate plan produced by the bòrd was judged by ministers to be so deficient that they rejected it, it is an important point of transparency and a matter for public confidence that ministers should have to provide reasons for rejecting the plan, which is the rationale behind amendment 77.

I move amendment 77.

As amendments 70 and 97 are my last stage 2 amendments, I put on record my thanks to the bill team for all the work that they have put in and, in particular, their response to the very long list of proposals that I put to them over recent weeks.

Amendments 70 and 97 tread familiar ground for me. They are about a requirement to publicise how the public can input into the draft strategy for the Scots language, and, similar to previous amendments, about the publication of the results of that consultation.

I move amendment 70.

Yes, I am grateful for the member’s intervention on that important point. We will need locally appropriate plans and strategies across the country because different communities have different needs in relation to Gaelic and Scots, and those local strategies will require more flexibility. It is appropriate for Parliament to be a bit more prescriptive about what we want to see in the national strategy, but those local strategies should have that greater level of flexibility. My amendments are intended to clarify that, in the various sections that are relatively prescriptive about what should be in the national strategy, and which will perhaps be more prescriptive after the stage 2 amendments, we are prescribing for the national strategy alone, and that there is still the ability for local strategies and plans—whatever phrase is used—to be more flexible.

Amendment 18 simply adds that ministers must publicise consultation on the draft strategy. It is up to Government how that is done but, at the moment, there is no provision to share the consultation publicly or widely. Amendment 18 clarifies that, if the draft strategy is to be consulted on, that consultation has to be publicised at large.

On the same principle, amendment 78 is designed to ensure that there is a greater level of transparency to enable a more informed view to be taken of the basis on which the policy underpinning the strategy was formed. Accordingly, it requires the results of the consultation to be published. I have further amendments that we will come to later this morning to the effect that, wherever a consultation takes place, the results of that consultation should be published, simply so that we ensure that the process has maximum public confidence and buy-in.

Essentially, amendment 18 requires that the consultation is publicised, and amendment 78 requires that the results of any consultation are published.

I move amendment 2.