Official Report 113KB pdf
Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
I welcome members to the 29th meeting of the Subordinate Legislation Committee this year. I have received apologies from Christine May, who is not able to be with us this morning.
What effect does laying the national Gaelic language plan before the Parliament have, in addition to the minister's ability to approve the plan? Is another mechanism available other than simply drawing the attention of the Parliament to the plan?
Various things can happen. Simply drawing the Parliament's attention to the plan would give more information to the Parliament. Murray Tosh will keep me right here. Secondly, a statutory instrument could be made. In that case, members could vote on it, whether it is a matter of annulling the instrument or whatever. There are various methods by which we could bring the plan to Parliament.
The national Gaelic language plan is a unique document: it is a blueprint for the development of Gaelic. We might want to do something to heighten the impact of the plan's coming to the Parliament. Perhaps some sort of procedure could be adopted for when the plan is first laid. It could take a different course thereafter.
That is quite a good point. Are you not sure about it, Gordon?
At the risk of having my Highland friends beat me over the head with a big stick, I would say that I am not sure and I do not care very much. I mean that almost in a sensible way. I suspect that most of us would not have the ability to form any view on what the bòrd suggests, one way or the other. It will be a difficult one for some members. Others in the Parliament will feel differently, however. That is what I meant when I said that I, personally, do not have much of a view on the matter.
Adam Ingram is suggesting that, on this first occasion, there could be an opportunity to let MSPs see a little more of the national plan.
On the face of it, that sounds like a sensible suggestion. Given that the language plans will be different every time—new plans will be produced—to have a procedure that involves scrutiny of the original plan only, but not of any subsequent plans, which might be completely different, seems slightly odd. If we are going to look at the first plan, we should look at all of them. If a new plan is submitted, we assume that it will be different in some way and that it should be examined. I do not understand why we would look at the first plan and not at any subsequent ones.
The first plan is a national development plan for the language. I would not anticipate that it would change very much. I think that a five-year span is proposed before the plan is reviewed, and I would not anticipate that things would change over those first five years.
Observing in passing that the microphones go live whether or not we put our cards in the consoles, I wonder if we could ask our legal adviser whether there is any precedent for a mechanism that involves a procedure for the initial stage or the initial introduction of a plan, with the possibility of subsequent revisions.
Yes.
Could the adviser give us some example of how that works in other contexts? That would inform the discussion.
There certainly is a precedent for that. The legislation on student loans is one example. The first student loan statutory instrument was made under the affirmative procedure; subsequent amendments to that legislation were made under the negative procedure. In this case, there is currently no procedure at all for the language plan.
Is there a precedent for providing a procedure for an initial plan without any procedure at all for subsequent revisions?
Such a procedure could be achieved if members wanted, although it would be rather unusual.
This is an unusual situation: we are not reviewing subordinate legislation; we are suggesting that we should invent some. Perhaps we can. There would not be anything technically wrong with the bill saying that the first plan had to be approved not just by ministers, but by the Parliament in the form of an instrument laid before it. It could either be stated or implied that subsequent plans would not require that parliamentary approval.
Do members agree that we should write back to the Executive and suggest that it should think about the procedure for the first plan that Gordon Jackson has highlighted?
We should ask whether the Executive thinks that that is a good idea.
Section 3(7) concerns the power by regulations to
Section 8 is on
In section 8, the preparation of guidance on public authority language plans is subject to slightly different procedures from the preparation of guidance on the provision of Gaelic education in section 9. I do not understand why there is that difference. For example, why is there no requirement in section 9 to publish a consultation draft of the guidance, as there is in section 8?
That is a good point. The matter is covered in paragraph 22 of the legal brief.
I am quite happy about that.
I am prepared to take on board the national language plan having a statutory instrument the first time round, but I would leave people to get on with the rest. I know that we are talking about consultation, but we are talking about a small and intense community, relatively speaking. Everybody with an interest in the matter will put in their oar. We do not need to worry too much about people who are concerned about the Gaelic language not putting their tuppenceworth into the debate.
Okay. Are members sufficiently happy with what is suggested for sections 8 and 9, and that we should take on board what Adam Ingram said, which relates to what paragraph 22 of the legal brief says about the difference in procedures for the preparation of guidance? We will ask the Executive about that.
Section 13(2) and section 13(3) concern the power to commence provisions by order. Again, the provisions are considered to be acceptable. Do members agree?
Paragraph 2(2) of schedule 1 concerns the power by order to vary the size of the bòrd. Again, it would normally be recommended that the exercise of the power be subject to the affirmative procedure. However, the issue seems to be fairly low level. Can we leave the procedure as annulment?
I would leave it as annulment.
Next
Executive Responses