Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much. That was very useful.

I am grateful for that.

I accept that there will be other significant differences in their legislative provisions and in the wider context, but you said that other jurisdictions that do not have such a timescale with regard to the diagnosis have seen a gradual increase in numbers, too. Are there any particular examples that you would cite in that respect, recognising that there will be other important contextual differences?

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.

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 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.