Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a couple of questions about amendments 63 and 65, but I thought that they would be best placed in a separate contribution rather than interrupting the flow of the Deputy First Minister’s speech.

In the first instance, can she address the question whether amendments 63 and 65 are compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? Much as I welcome the amendments overall, the proposed new section 13A of the 2016 act gives parents, but not young people themselves, the ability to make a request. Under the proposed new section 13B, however, young people themselves—“pupils”—can make an input once the process is triggered.

That seems to be a little inconsistent. If we are, under proposed new section 13B, allowing young people to have a role as part of the process, should we not, in particular given that the UNCRC is now part of our domestic law, give them an equivalent ability to make a request under proposed new section 13A?

Miles Briggs made the point that the experience of many parents is that they have to campaign for GME, but by the time they have achieved their aim, their children are no longer in school. Amendment 65 refers specifically to “parents of pupils” who are in school. I wonder whether we could change that to include the parents of pre-school children, who would be more likely to achieve the aim in time for their own children to benefit.

My third question starts with a plea for assistance from the Deputy First Minister to help me to pronounce the name of Comann nam Pàrant, the Gaelic education parents association.

The Law Society of Scotland had some questions about this. Is Comann nam Pàrant established in statute? If it is, I think that it is fine that it is referred to specifically in the proposed new section. If it is not, is it advisable to include in law a specific organisation that is itself not established in law? It could change form, name, status and so on at some point without an act of Parliament, which would then, if the amended bill is passed, require an act of Parliament to be changed.

The amendments are ultimately about teacher workload—an issue that the committee will be very familiar with, as it is a recurring theme in almost everything that we do. Teachers in GME schools face an additional and significant burden, because they have to do much of the work of translating materials that are produced in English by Education Scotland into Gaelic so that it is usable in their school settings. Education Scotland does some work, but, according to feedback that I have received from GME teachers, it is not routine enough.

We recognise the unsustainable workload across the teaching profession and it is only appropriate that we recognise the particularly acute additional workload pressures that GME teachers face. Amendment 61 in relation to Gaelic, and amendment 75 in relation to Scots, would simply put a duty on Education Scotland to consider whether any material that it produces in English should also be produced in Gaelic and Scots. They would not require it to do that in all instances—there will, of course, be instances where that is not necessary—but the amendments clarify that Education Scotland needs to take that matter into consideration. As far as I am concerned, Education Scotland has much more capacity to engage in that kind of work than a classroom teacher in a GME school does. That is the rationale behind the amendments.

I move amendment 61.

I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 51.

Amendment 51 agreed to.

Amendment 52 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendment 53 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

After section 9

Amendment 54 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendment 55 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

I am grateful for the debate on this group, and I am grateful to Emma Roddick for lodging amendment 34 and to Jackie Dunbar for explaining the rationale behind it.

For the sake of simplicity in relation to whether members should support amendment 34 or amendment 33, I am happy not to press amendment 33. However, I intend to move amendments 54 and 68, which the cabinet secretary supports.

Amendment 33, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 34 moved—[Jackie Dunbar]—and agreed to.

Amendments 35 and 80 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8—Reporting on Gaelic language strategy, standards and duties

Amendment 36 moved and agreed to.

Amendment 37 moved—[Michael Marra].

On amendment 67, and touching on some of the issues that we have looked at so far, would the reporting requirements be better placed against the national strategy, rather than against the bill—or what would then be the act—given that the Parliament has a role in deciding what it does and does not want to do post-legislative scrutiny on? The strategy should, I hope, include much more in the way of specific actions whose impact we are trying to measure.

On Michael Marra’s amendment 32, can you clarify the Government’s expected timescale? Is within a year of royal assent too soon? Is it realistic to make it within a year of enactment? Do you have an indicative timescale at this point?

I should clarify at the outset that these amendments are relevant only when a report has been produced that concludes that a public body has failed in its duties under the bill—or the act, as it will be—and the Scottish Government agrees with that report. I think—I hope—that such circumstances would be incredibly limited; nevertheless, they would be serious. After all, when Parliament passes law, we expect public bodies to align with and fulfil their duties under it.

Although I hope that such an occurrence will be very rare, I think it appropriate to have the amendments to cover circumstances in which a report is produced that concludes that a public body has failed in its duties, and the Government agrees. The amendments would simply clarify that the Government must direct the organisation in question to implement the measures that were included in its plan by a certain date. Giving such organisations a timescale would be important to ensuring that the duties were fulfilled; the fact is that such duties will be put on bodies only if Parliament has agreed to them, which means that they will have legitimacy and the weight of law behind them. The timescale is also important to give the community confidence that the Government is committed to taking effective action to ensure that what has been campaigned for, and what has been agreed by Parliament, is fulfilled.

That is what amendment 51 does, while amendment 52 simply cleans up section 9.

I move amendment 51.

The question was on whether parents of pre-school children could be included, given that—as Miles Briggs pointed out—parents of children who are already in school often have to campaign for so long that their children have left school by the time they have achieved what they were looking for.

Amendments 79 and 80 are, like the amendments that I moved earlier, proposals from the Law Society. I have explained the rationale for them in relation to transparency. The cabinet secretary has indicated the Government’s support, so I do not think that I need to add any more.

I will just echo the cabinet secretary’s remarks. It is important that there is a role for Parliament, which is why my amendment 66 says that the review would result in a report being laid before Parliament. There is strong cross-party consensus on the importance of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig and its getting to the point of having the power to award degrees. Therefore, it is important that we preserve that role for Parliament and keep the process going to that shared outcome.

As has been mentioned, my amendment and Willie Rennie’s amendment 95 have a lot of crossover, so I am certainly happy to support his. I recognise that there may be a requirement to do a little bit of reconciliation at stage 3 on the issue, but I encourage committee members to support both amendments, given that there is a clear shared desired outcome, and that we can resolve the areas of overlap with some tidying up at stage 3.

I will press amendment 66.

Amendment 66 agreed to.

Amendment 95 moved—[Willie Rennie].