Seòmar agus comataidhean

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].

I am afraid that this is the start of quite a long run of amendments from me, but not all of my speaking notes are too long.

In this section, amendments 2, 9 to 12, 17, 19 to 25, 36, 42, 48 and 49 all simply insert the word “national” at various points in the bill. The intention is to ensure that there is absolute clarity that, when the legislation talks about the Gaelic language strategy, it is talking about the national strategy for which ministers have responsibility and which is replacing the national Gaelic language plan that exists as a result of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005. There are lots of other documents that will be referred to as strategies, plans and so on that will be produced as a result of the bill, so the intention is to ensure that there is absolute clarity in that regard. That is the rationale behind all of those amendments, which I hope is simple and agreeable to members.

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.

In the conversations that I have had—albeit, they have been largely informal—no one has raised concerns with me. As it happened, the institutions that I engaged with the most turned out to be those that had Gaelic language plans, and it was perhaps more of a struggle to engage with institutions that did not have plans in place. I will be the first to admit that I have not spoken to every institution in that regard, but no concerns were raised with me about the amendment, which I lodged relatively early in the process. Certainly, no objections have been raised with me by Colleges Scotland or Universities Scotland, which I raised the matter with previously.

On amendment 68, past experience is much of the reason why we are here discussing this bill, and it is relevant to the discussions that have just taken place between Michael Marra and the cabinet secretary about the urgency of the matter. Past experience tells us that there will probably often be reluctance to fulfil the duties and that they will not be prioritised in the way that we would wish to see. Amendment 68 simply gives ministers stronger enforcement powers in that regard. They are largely replicated from the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, so they are not unprecedented. To a significant extent, the powers are copied and pasted from a set of enforcement powers that ministers already have.

Although is to be hoped that we do not get to the point of needing to use such powers, as I said, past experience indicates that their use is not unlikely. I want ministers to be able to take effective action if any public body is failing in the duties that Parliament has placed upon it. Even putting aside the content and purpose of this specific bill, I would want ministers to be able to rectify that situation. That is the rationale behind amendment 68.

I move amendment 33.

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 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?

I move amendment 38.

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?