Official Report 1065KB pdf
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Scottish Languages Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 39A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons or enter RTS in the chat as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
Section 4—Areas of linguistic significance
Group 1 is on areas of linguistic significance. Amendment 13, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is grouped with amendments 14 to 18, 1, 2, 19 to 23 and 65.
I will speak to amendments 13 to 16, 1 and 2, all in my name. Amendments 13 to 16 relate to the process by which areas will be designated as areas of linguistic significance. As it stands, the bill will already enable a local authority to designate part of its area as an ALS when certain criteria are met. However, as the legislation is currently drafted, that designation is discretionary. My amendments would strengthen the framework by introducing a clear duty that an area that
“contains a significant number of people with Gaelic language skills ... must be designated as an area of linguistic significance”.
That change is essential. If Gaelic is to be protected where it is most at risk and supported where it is most widely spoken, the bill should provide more than optional powers; it must create obligations.
Amendment 13 would introduce a new subsection into section 1A of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 to require that any area with a significant Gaelic-speaking population be designated as an ALS. Amendment 14 would delete the existing provision that will allow but not require such designations to be made. Amendments 15 and 16 would make consequential changes to ensure that the duty is fully reflected across section 1A.
Taken together, the amendments would shift the emphasis in the bill. We know from evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee and from decades of advocacy by Gaelic communities that policy must begin with place. Those amendments would make sure that it does.
Amendments 1 and 2, in my name, would be an important part of the local authority process for designating areas of linguistic significance. Those amendments would ensure that, at certain stages in the process, the local authority must consult community representatives from an area that is likely to be designated. That will be an essential part of the process: the local authority will designate—and that is important—but decisions to designate and the activity that flows from that designation will be for the local community, and it is right that its voice is clearly heard.
Amendment 22 in my name would provide for an important new democratic right: the ability for communities to request that their area be considered for designation as an area of linguistic significance. The bill already establishes a framework in which local authorities can designate an ALS, and other amendments that I have lodged would create duties to do so where Gaelic-speaking populations are significant. However, the amendment would go a step further and give communities the ability to trigger that process. That is important, because, too often, policy is done to communities, not with them—nowhere is that more true than in rural, island, and Gaelic-speaking parts of our country.
The amendment would do three things. First, it would allow any community to make a formal request to its local authority to consider designation. Secondly, if a local authority decides not to proceed with that designation, it would have to set out its reasons and make those reasons public. Thirdly, the amendment would create a right of appeal. Communities would be able to challenge a decision not to designate via a process that would be set out by ministers in regulations. The amendment would ensure that linguistic planning is not only responsive to community need, but accountable to it, and it would empower communities to speak for themselves.
Together, the amendments would create a vital step in realising the community-led approach that the bill aspires to.
I move amendment 13.
I call Emma Roddick to speak to amendment 17 and other amendments in the group.
Tapadh leibh, Oifigeir Riaghlaidh. The bill makes provision for local authorities to designate areas of linguistic significance. Those will be areas in which there are important numbers of Gaelic speakers or levels of Gaelic activity and that are clearly important for the future promotion and support of Gaelic language. However, in order for that approach to meet its potential, people must be able to trust that those areas will, indeed, be designated where appropriate.
Therefore, amendments 17 and 18 seek to strengthen the provision by requiring a local authority to consider whether any part of its area contains such a significant number of people with Gaelic skills and to consider submitting a proposed designation to the Scottish ministers if that test is met.
Amendment 17 would set a period of one year within which the local authority must give that consideration. As the committee’s stage 1 report acknowledges, there is a need for urgent action to ensure that our language and our language communities are protected.
Amendment 19 seeks to add to the provisions on the guidance that can be given to help local authorities with decisions, so that it may relate, in particular, to how they determine which areas could be designated as an area of linguistic significance. Amendments 20 and 21 seek to provide a ministerial power to require a local authority to reconsider in cases in which it has decided not to submit a designation proposal to the Scottish ministers.
Designating areas of linguistic significance will be a new development, with the potential to focus strong support on areas with Gaelic activity and significant numbers of Gaelic speakers. That important process will involve local authority decision making, community input, Bòrd na Gàidhlig advocacy and the involvement of the Scottish ministers.
I call Ross Greer to speak to amendment 65 and other amendments in the group.
Feasgar math. Amendment 65 would require local authorities to develop local Gaelic plans for the designated areas of linguistic significance, in consultation with the community, Bòrd na Gàidhlig and other stakeholders. That is somewhat equivalent to the provision that requires the bòrd to lead on the preparation of a community Gaelic language plan.
The amendment arises from concerns that the bòrd is not democratically accountable to local authorities and that the link between the local plan that it would produce for the ALS and the council-wide Gaelic language plan is not clear or strong enough.
Currently, the local plan must have regard to the council-wide Gaelic language plan, but not the other way round. The alternative way to achieve that would be for ministers to set out clearly in the statutory guidance that the council’s Gaelic language plan must include specific provisions for each area of linguistic significance within its geographical remit—that is, the community plans, as set out in the provision that I mentioned, should effectively form part of the council’s overall Gaelic language plan, even though those community plans would not originate from the council.
My concern relates to the lack of a sufficient connection between the council-wide Gaelic language plan and the community plans for each area of linguistic significance, which, as I said, would not be produced by the council but would be produced by the bòrd—in consultation, one would hope, with the council and, of course, with the local community. If the cabinet secretary could confirm that that will be addressed in the statutory guidance—that the community plan should form part of the council's overall Gaelic language plan, even though the council itself is not leading on that community plan—that would probably be sufficient for me not to move amendment 65.
Although this group will take slightly longer to deal with, and my remarks will therefore be longer than for the other groups, it is appropriate that we start the stage 3 process with the areas of linguistic significance, because that remains one of the most significant elements of the bill. It is therefore good to start with that.
I welcome the level of interest and the lively debates that we have had in the run-up to stage 3. I am particularly grateful for the amendments that have been lodged by colleagues in other parties, because they prompt a bit of debate, which is no bad thing.
I have some reservations about Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 13 to 16, because of the combination of a compulsory duty and the absence of sufficient detail on to which areas that duty would apply. That means that I am unable to support those amendments. They would lead to a measure of confusion for communities and local authorities, and the proposed duty might be implemented in impractical and unhelpful ways. We have grappled with this area extensively.
Will the Deputy First Minister set out which part of amendment 13 is unclear? My understanding is that it is quite clear. It creates a specific definition about the numbers of people who speak Gaelic in a particular area. Which parts of it are not clear?
I thank the member for that question, because it is a helpful cue from which to proceed.
The requirement in the amendment does not specify the size or the type of area that would be subject to mandatory designation. We grappled with this issue extensively in the run-up to the Government lodging amendments, because I was keen to explore all possibilities with regard to it. It would not be clear from the member’s amendments which area or areas must be designated. For example, if the requirement fell on a local authority, only one area of linguistic significance would be designated in Scotland. If it applied to electoral wards, only Skye would be added to that one authority. If it applied to census output areas, which are smaller in nature, a number of very small areas would also be designated, which would probably be artificially small. In any case, it would be impractical. For example, some districts in small towns would be designated, but not others in the same town. Some small output areas in islands would be designated, but not the entire island. Some of the areas to be designated would be too small for the practical implementation of policy or programmes.
Even if we step away from the census-area issues, there are unhelpful implications for other provisions. The amendment would reduce the involvement and ownership of authorities, communities and Bòrd na Gàidhlig.
I recognise that one of the reasons why there is support for Pam Duncan-Glancy’s approach is that, to some people’s minds, it cuts out the bureaucracy of a process. However, some of the feedback that I got when engaging with local authorities and others was that the process is quite important for bringing people with them—Pam Duncan-Glancy alluded to that in her comments, too.
The compulsory yet undefined nature of the duty could result in fewer areas being designated. The member’s approach would cause a measure of confusion about the size of the area, and it would remove the involvement of those who would be closest to the process and for whom that would make a difference.
I am not sure that I entirely agree about the confusion, given that, on the most important part of the change, the bill already says that an “area may be designated”. The same area that the bill refers to is the area that I am suggesting in my amendment that we “must” designate. The difference is that my amendment says that if an area contains enough Gaelic language speakers, we have to designate it. I am not redrawing the size of the area—the amendment relates to areas of the same size as the Government’s version of the wording applies to in the bill.
Yes, but the fact that the amendment says “must” and would therefore create a mandatory obligation to designate an area would lead to huge questions about whether the statutory duty had been met in particular areas. Having set out a process through the use of the word “may”, we have set out clear expectations for where an area of linguistic significance may be designated.
It is an iterative process. There is consultation and responsiveness. The member will know that there are a number of obligations, so that it could be an area in which significant activity relating to the Gaelic language takes place, an area in which teaching and learning by means of the Gaelic language is provided, an area that is historically connected with the use of Gaelic or an area where that 20 per cent figure is met. If we turned that “may” into a “must”, it would be very difficult to determine whether that statutory duty had been met. The criteria for “must” are much higher than for “may”, which would involve an iterative consultation process.
The member will know—I say this for the benefit of other members in the chamber—that I have grappled extensively with this issue, because I was quite drawn to the proposal that she has set out in her amendments. It was by considering what would happen in implementing her proposal that we came to the conclusion that, legally, if it is stated as a statutory duty that an area “must be designated”, but there are grey areas around exactly what needs to be designated, that would create a significant legal challenge.
[Made a request to intervene.]
I appreciate that the member disagrees with that and that she wants to intervene again. I am very happy to take that intervention.
What process does the Deputy First Minister think there is for people who believe that their area should be designated? If the legislation says only that an area “may” be designated, what process does the community have to challenge that?
As the member will know, we will consider a number of amendments today that will strengthen the provisions, and I will come on to those. Having heard loud and clear that, legally, a mandatory implementation of areas of linguistic significance would not work, my responsibility was to try to strengthen the provisions as far as possible, just short of mandatory. That is the commitment that I gave to a number of groups and bodies that fed back on the impossibility of implementing the “must” phrasing. I will go through the other amendments, because some of them touch on that.
Emma Roddick’s amendments 17 to 21, along with the bill provisions as strengthened at stage 2, provide a welcome and essential focus on areas with important levels of Gaelic activity and important numbers of Gaelic speakers. There is a very clear message from Gaelic communities that that is an important requirement at this time. The provisions and amendments on areas of linguistic significance also provide important support for Gaelic initiatives that are in place, the work of community bodies and officers, and the development of Gaelic community plans. We are happy to support amendments 17 to 21.
We are very supportive of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 1 and 2. The bill is a wide-ranging one that touches on many areas of Gaelic and Scots activity, and community activity is hugely important. I welcome those amendments, which strengthen the focus and remind us that the impact of the provisions will be felt in communities. The amendments will also sit well with the provision whereby Bòrd na Gàidhlig can ask a local authority to consider designation if the bòrd considers that there is evidence of demand from those living in a local authority area.
I will move on to amendments 22 and 23. With amendment 22, there is an overlap with the provision that is already in the bill that requires Bòrd na Gàidhlig to make a request to an authority to consider making a designation if the bòrd considers that there is evidence of demand.
On amendment 22, there are some questions to raise. In the first place, the definition of community is very broad. There could also be questions about exactly what the area is for the requested designation, as we have touched on. The community request could be based on areas that are not recognised census areas, so relevant information on Gaelic skills would not be available, or the area requested could be too small for the practical implementation of programmes. At the same time, it would not be appropriate for a community group to request designation of the entire authority area if people in that group live only in one part of the local authority. For example, people living in Skye cannot request that the entire Highland Council area be designated as an area of linguistic significance. It is difficult to understand how that would work with the standards and the requirements that are to be made by regulation.
Also, amendment 22 does not contain a mechanism to prevent repeated requests, so a local authority could face multiple requests from small groups, which it would have to consider and publicise a decision on each time. The existing provision that provides for requests to be channelled through Bòrd na Gàidhlig is a more streamlined, evidence-driven and appropriate approach.
On amendment 23, at present, significant numbers of Gaelic development officers are in post and operating in communities. Bòrd na Gàidhlig was, for the start of the current financial year, provided with £0.5 million to support the Gaelic development officer scheme, and with a separate funding package of in the region of £500,000 to ensure that key Gaelic bodies had increased investment. That includes funding for bodies such as Comunn na Gàidhlig, which has in the region of 17 iomairtean officers across Gaelic-speaking communities.
At stage 2, the bill was amended to give Bòrd na Gàidhlig a duty to support communities with the preparation of community plans in particular areas. That will ensure that Bòrd na Gàidhlig works with the Gaelic development officers that are already in place.
Therefore, amendment 23 has a measure of overlap with provisions that are already in place. It would also introduce a burden on the authority to make an appointment at the point of designation. On the appointment of development officers, it would be unusual for central Government to regulate local authority staffing decisions. I would prefer to outline our priorities in the Gaelic strategy and standards and look to authorities and the bòrd to implement and interpret those. The regulations will make provision for what needs to happen in an area of linguistic significance, and it will be for local authorities to employ appropriate staff to fulfil those functions.
I am sorry, Presiding Officer, but I did warn you at the beginning that my comments on this group would be a bit longer.
On amendment 65, I thank Ross Greer for focusing on the important issue of community plans, which has come up time and again. I state for the record that the areas of linguistic significance will operate effectively only if we have community plans. The question is whether the amendment is the way to do it.
Amendment 65 overlaps with provisions that are already in the bill. At stage 2, the bill was amended to give Bòrd na Gàidhlig a duty to provide
“advice, assistance and support to any person in the preparation of a plan for the development or promotion of the Gaelic language, Gaelic education and Gaelic culture in relation to a community in a particular area.”
The amendments on guidance will also be important for that provision.
Guidance will be provided on how to determine which areas are appropriate for designation as an area of linguistic significance, which factors should be taken into account when making such determinations and the process for making them. In addition, standards will set out expectations of how public authority functions are to be exercised in those areas. If an area has been designated as an area of linguistic significance, the relevant authority’s Gaelic language plan must set out the measures that are to be taken in that area, and ministers may make further provision about the required content of Gaelic language plans in respect of areas of linguistic significance.
Those measures will have an important community impact. The current area of linguistic significance provisions are a package of mutually supportive measures that combine local authority decisions, Bòrd na Gàidhlig involvement, community activity and ministers’ interventions. As has been mentioned, planning and community involvement are points that will be followed up in guidance, and we will take our lead from the proposed stage 3 amendments on guidance on areas of linguistic significance.
Under the current provisions, the focus is on Bòrd na Gàidhlig supporting the wish that emerges from the community. Although the idea behind amendment 65 has much to commend it, it is preferable to have an initiative that originates in the community and is supported by Bòrd na Gàidhlig.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for offering points of reassurance around the guidance. Will she address my specific concern that there is a requirement for the community plans to have regard to the local authority-wide Gaelic language plan but no equivalent requirement the other way round? In situations in which a council might be producing a new Gaelic language plan, it is not required to have due regard to existing community plans in those areas of linguistic significance. Could that be addressed in the statutory guidance to ensure that the work is all joined up and consistent on an on-going basis?
That is a very fair point. One criticism that has been made is that there is a lot of duplication and overlap. If we believe in grass-roots community work, we know that it should start with the community. We will take that into account, and I am happy to express my desire to consult extensively with relevant bodies and other members on the substance of the guidance.
I recognise the importance of local authority support at every level, but, as I have said, amendment 65 creates a measure of overlap.
I want to come back to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s question about what we are doing if we are not supporting her amendments 13 to 16. I mentioned that we have concerns about the mandatory implementation of areas of linguistic significance without details on which areas the duty applies to. At the moment, census data, which goes to output areas, is the main source of data when it comes to knowing whether obligations to people with Gaelic skills are being met.
Two backstops strengthen the approach that we have taken to how an area can determine its plan: a local authority can designate if an area falls under certain descriptions, which we have covered, and, if the local authority does not proceed, Bòrd na Gàidhlig can request that the local authority consider making a designation. If Bòrd na Gàidhlig makes such a request, it can do so on the evidence of demand for designation from those who reside in the authority’s area. Essentially, a referral from the community who are unhappy that a designation has not proceeded goes to Bòrd na Gàidhlig, which can request that the local authority make the designation. If the authority does not submit a proposed designation, the local authority must publicise the decision and the reasons for making it. The authority has to publish up front the reasons why it is not proceeding.
A third backstop is that, if a local authority does not submit a proposed designation, the Scottish ministers may require it to reconsider the decision. A local authority must submit a proposed designation or confirm its original decision and notify ministers of the reasons for it.
16:00As part of the debate on whether the duty should be obligatory, rather than the bill including the word “may”, I consulted Western Isles Council, Highland Council and Argyll and Bute Council in particular to get their views on the matter. There was a range of views, but they were all keen on proceeding at pace with designation, although they all expressed to me that they have very different geographical and demographic spreads. For example, in Argyll and Bute, it would not be obvious to designate an entire ward, because there are multiple islands in one ward, so it would make more sense for the designated area to cover an island rather than a ward. In relation to Highland Council, as I have referenced, Skye would be an obvious contender, and each part of the Western Isles could, arguably, be designated. There was certainly an appetite in that regard from all local authorities.
If Pam Duncan-Glancy’s primary concern is about the pace at which the provisions will be implemented—which is my primary concern—I heard reassurance from local authorities that they want to move at pace, but they stress the importance of there being an iterative process, with engagement with the community, to ensure that the size of the area matches what the community wants. As we are all aware, if we proceed with a designation that does not work for the community because the area is the wrong size—either too big or too small—that might create more challenges.
I hugely respect the work that Pam Duncan-Glancy has done, and I share her sentiment, but I am struck by the operational challenges in implementing what she has set out.
Presiding Officer, you will be delighted to know that that concludes my comments.
I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to wind up and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 13.
I have listened carefully to the Deputy First Minister’s comments. She highlighted three specific backstops in the bill, but I would argue that those backstops suggest that there is already a sense of a provision. My amendments would make it much clearer that communities will be at the heart of the decision-making process, as the bill would say that they “must” be consulted, not that they “may” be consulted. In addition, if a community’s request was denied, the reasons why the request had been denied would need to be published.
I heard what the Deputy First Minister said about Bòrd na Gàidhlig development officers, but my amendment 23 seeks to ensure that somebody from the grass roots will be in designated areas to help to build and sustain the community. As we know, much has been said about whether the bill will achieve the difference that is needed in Gaelic-speaking communities across Scotland. To ensure that the Gaelic language survives, communities must be provided with support on the ground, so I still think that amendment 23 is really important.
I press amendment 13.
The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
There will be a suspension to allow members to log in to the digital voting system.
16:03 Meeting suspended.
We move to the vote on amendment 13. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My system would not connect in time. If it had, I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Leonard. I will make sure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My apologies. My system was not updating. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Ms Slater. I will ensure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am having some issues with my app. I am not sure whether my vote registered.
I can assure you that your vote was recorded, Mr Choudhury.
Thank you.
We have a point of order from Alex Cole-Hamilton. [Interruption.]
I move on to a point of order from Ariane Burgess.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Ms Burgess. I will make sure that that is recorded.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer]
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 13, Against 91, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 13 disagreed to.
Amendment 14 not moved.
Amendment 15 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].
The question is, that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Apologies. Again, my system would not connect. If it had, I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Leonard. I will make sure that that is recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms McNeill. I will make sure that that is recorded.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer]
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 12, Against 93, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 15 disagreed to.
16:15Amendment 16 not moved.
Amendments 17 and 18 moved—[Emma Roddick]—and agreed to.
Amendments 1 and 2 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.
Amendments 19 to 21 moved—[Emma Roddick]—and agreed to.
Amendment 22 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].
The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 38, Against 68, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 22 disagreed to.
Amendment 23 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].
The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My vote was a yes.
Thank you, Ms McNeill. I will make sure that that is recorded.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 12, Against 94, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 23 disagreed to.
Amendment 65 not moved.
Section 5—Gaelic language strategy
Group 2 is on Gaelic language targets. Amendment 24, in the name of the Deputy First Minister, is grouped with amendments 25 to 30.
The bill requires that we prepare a national Gaelic language strategy that must set out ministers’ objectives in relation to promoting and supporting the use of Gaelic. That is an important ambition and one that needs to be measured against clear and demanding targets for Gaelic, which is a point that was made repeatedly in the stage 2 debate.
Amendments 24 to 26 seek to do that by requiring the national Gaelic language strategy to place targets on ministers in relation to promoting and supporting the use of Gaelic. Amendment 29 sets out that those may include targets for the number of people with Gaelic language skills, targets for education and training in Gaelic and targets for Gaelic activity in an area designated as an area of linguistic significance. Those categories are intended to be illustrative. They are broad headings under which more detailed, specific targets can be shaped, and they do not prevent other targets from being set if it seems useful to do so.
Michael Marra’s amendment 30 takes a very similar approach to my amendment 29. I have hugely appreciated Mr Marra’s engagement and commitment on these issues throughout the bill process and I think that we share a lot of common ground. His amendment 30 and my amendment 29 simply offer two slightly different alternatives in relation to what the targets may relate to. In the spirit of wishing to demonstrate that collaborative approach, I am minded not to move my amendment and, instead, to support his amendment.
Amendments 27 and 28 require the strategy to set out arrangements for the collection of data in order to allow progress towards meeting the objectives and targets in the strategy to be measured. Without a doubt, we need a national language strategy for Gaelic with clear objectives, and an essential element of that is having appropriate targets and a means of measuring progress towards meeting those objectives. The amendments relating to targets will ensure that action is taken and that progress is measured. If there is one thing that unites us all, it is the understanding that the legislation will be only as useful as the progress that it delivers once it passes.
I move amendment 24.
I call Michael Marra to speak to amendment 30 and the other amendments in the group.
Members on these benches have been concerned from the outset about the scope of the bill. We do not believe that it is commensurate with the scale of the challenge that the Gaelic language faces. Experts have warned that, without very significant intervention, Gaelic could cease to exist as a living language in as little as a decade. Where possible, my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy and I have sought to strengthen the bill. That is what my amendment in this group seeks to do.
I am glad that the Scottish Government now agrees with Scottish Labour that targets definitely need to be written into the bill, and I echo the Deputy First Minister’s words about our engagement and the pragmatic and open discussions that we have had to that end. I therefore welcome amendments 24 to 28, in the name of Kate Forbes. However, in order for targets to be effective, they must be meaningful, and I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s decision to not move amendment 29, in her name. Amendment 29 is a broader amendment. It uses the words
“numbers of persons with Gaelic language skills”,
which could include people who have spent a few hours on Duolingo. That would do nothing to arrest the decline of Gaelic as a living language in traditional Gaelic-speaking areas. If anything, I believe that it risks masking a precipitous and potentially terminal decline of Scotland’s ancient language.
Concerns were raised at stage 2 about the Scottish Government’s capacity to collect the relevant data for reporting on Gaelic, including targets. When I met the Deputy First Minister in February, her officials supplied a list of data that was already available to the Scottish Government and that would not require legislative change. We believe that there is also common ground in relation to not wishing to impose a great burden on public bodies in that regard, while trying to meet our shared ends and ensure that we have a robust set of rules. The categories that my amendment 30 proposes are covered by that pre-existing data.
Having suitable questions in the Scottish social attitudes survey and the Scottish household survey would help to capture the number of people, including the number of children, in our households who use the Gaelic language. School figures, the survey of school subject availability and the data on achievement of curriculum for excellence—ACEL—would all help to establish how much education and training are taking place in, or through the medium of, the Gaelic language.
The Scottish Government could conduct an analysis of economic and social data linked with Gaelic from bodies such as MG Alba and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which would contribute to an understanding of the number of businesses and other bodies that use Gaelic as their main language.
The Scottish Government could also do more to compile data on the economic and social impact of Gaelic. MG Alba and others already collect and publish data that would paint a picture of activity relating to Gaelic culture.
As we know, the Government’s targets across a wide range of policy areas have done nothing to guarantee progress. However, I believe that having targets in this context will strengthen the bill somewhat and keep the focus on the survival of our ancient language. We cannot wait a decade for another census to happen. There is every chance that that would be too late.
I ask all members to support amendment 30.
I invite the Deputy First Minister to wind up.
Amendment 30 captures precisely what the Scottish Government wishes to see happen in the years to come. I will be happy to support amendment 30, in the name of Michael Marra.
Amendment 24 agreed to.
Amendments 25 to 28 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.
Amendment 29 not moved.
Amendment 30 moved—[Michael Marra]—and agreed to.
Group 3 is on minor and technical amendments. Amendment 31, in the name of the Deputy First Minister, is grouped with amendments 39 to 42, 50 to 57, 59 and 61.
Amendment 31 seeks to make a minor correction. It will adjust terminology to ensure consistency throughout the bill. It will also reorder sections that were inserted by amendment at stage 2 so that they follow a more logical order.
I will be happy to support amendment 59, in the name of Ross Greer, which would make the position on which public authorities must have regard to our language strategies consistent between Gaelic and Scots.
I move amendment 31.
I call Ross Greer to speak to amendment 59 and the other amendments in the group.
At stage 2, I lodged an amendment to clarify that the public bodies that must have regard to the Government’s Gaelic language strategy should include the post-16 education bodies, Scottish Rail Holdings and Scottish Water. As the cabinet secretary said, I have lodged amendment 59 simply for the sake of consistency, to ensure that those public bodies also have regard to the Scots language strategy.
Deputy First Minister, do you have anything to add by way of winding up?
I have nothing to add, thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.
Amendment 31 agreed to.
Section 6—Gaelic language standards
Group 4 is on Gaelic language standards. Amendment 32, in the name of Michael Marra, is grouped with amendments 33 and 34.
My concern—and my party’s principal concern—with the bill’s provisions is that they are not commensurate with the existential threats that the Gaelic language faces. In its stage 1 report, the Education, Children and Young People Committee stated that the Gaelic language is in “a perilous state”. To put it simply, we do not have time to waste. It is 20 years since the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 was passed. I fear that, in another 20 years, there might not be a living Gaelic language left to save.
My amendments in this group aim to introduce specific deadlines so that the Government and other relevant bodies do not lose sight of the urgency of these matters once the legislation has been passed. The Scottish Government often takes a very generous approach to its own deadlines, with nebulous targets such as “autumn” giving little certainty to the Parliament or to the wider public. Deadlines are also allowed to slip, as members of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, of which I am a member, can attest to, given the particularly high number of important financial documents that are overdue.
I believe that the Government should be transparent about what it is trying to achieve and when it expects to achieve its outcomes. Constant shifting of goalposts erodes public trust and wastes time that the Gaelic language can ill afford. My amendments in this group therefore set a deadline of one year after the act comes into force by which time the Scottish ministers must lay draft Gaelic language standards before the Parliament.
Following discussions with the Deputy First Minister subsequent to stage 2, I am pleased to have arrived at a compromise with the Scottish Government on these amendments while still maintaining the sense of urgency that is essential to ensure that survival of the Gaelic language.
I move amendment 32 and I ask members to support all the amendments in the group.
16:30
I thank Mr Marra for lodging these amendments and for explaining their importance. I agree that the standards are going to be important for many areas of Gaelic activity—in fact, I often think that many of the questions that have been raised over the course of the bill will be answered in the standards. We need to ensure that they reflect the needs of the speaker community and, as these amendments require, we need to ensure that they are available without delay. We agree that prompt action needs to be taken to address the needs of Gaelic-speaking communities and I am happy to support the amendments.
I am aware that, with amendments 32 and 33, we are back to a bit of a debate between “must” and “may”, which Pam Duncan-Glancy introduced earlier. It may be helpful to explain why we are supportive of amendments 32 and 33. We are changing “must” make regulations back to “may” make regulations, because there is now an obligation to lay the draft regulations within a deadline. That makes the use of “must” unnecessary. It is clear that there is a duty, because the regulations need to be laid by that deadline. It is also expected that further regulations will need to be made in the future using that provision. I just wanted to explain that because I know that some members—not Mr Marra—had some questions about why we were happy to support his amendment, and that is the reason.
I call Michael Marra to wind up and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 32.
I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 32.
Amendment 32 agreed to.
Amendments 33 and 34 moved—[Michael Marra]—and agreed to.
Section 8—Reporting on Gaelic language strategy, standards and duties
Group 5 is on reporting on Gaelic language strategy and plans. Amendment 35, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendments 36 to 38.
The bill will deliver new interventions and build on initiatives that are already in place. As there will be a national Gaelic language strategy that includes objectives and targets, it is important that we have in place a clear and effective reporting regime for that. Gaelic is on the edge of extinction as a living language, so we need to have regular reporting against clear objectives and metrics in order to know whether we are turning the situation around.
Amendment 35 will amend the requirement for Bòrd na Gàidhlig reporting—the requirement that was inserted into the 2005 act by section 8 of the bill—so that Bòrd na Gàidhlig must report on a two-yearly basis on progress towards meeting the objectives and targets that are set out in the national Gaelic language strategy. I think that that strikes the right balance between not putting too onerous a reporting requirement on the body that takes away its capacity to deliver and making sure that we have regular reporting on a situation that is genuinely at crisis point.
I have two further amendments in this group, amendments 36 and 38, which propose that the Scottish ministers lay before Parliament any report about a public authority’s failure to implement its Gaelic language plan—that is, a failure of a public body in its statutory duties, as created by the bill. The purpose of those amendments is to ensure transparency and accountability.
I move amendment 35.
I agree with Mr Greer that reporting is necessary, and I also agree with him that two years feels about right. Reporting is an important part of the policy process, because it shows us where progress has been made and where new interventions need to be considered. In this case, it will provide a clear message to the Scottish Government, the Parliament and relevant public authorities.
I also believe that Mr Greer’s amendments demonstrate the important links between various provisions of the bill. Implementation is important, but the bill contains a strong package of mutually supportive measures for the future support and promotion of Gaelic. On that basis, we are happy to support amendments 35, 36 and 38.
Under section 6 of the 2005 act as amended at stage 2, Bòrd na Gàidhlig can report to ministers on a public authority’s lack of compliance with its Gaelic language plan. If ministers accept the bòrd’s conclusion, they must direct the authority to implement the measures in the plan.
Amendment 37 adjusts ministers’ direction-making powers so that they need only make such a direction if they consider it necessary or expedient to do so. That is to provide necessary flexibility, as the power of direction would be a power of last resort, even if the bòrd’s conclusion was accepted.
I call Ross Greer to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 35.
I have nothing to add. I press amendment 35.
Amendment 35 agreed to.
Section 9—Gaelic language plans
Amendment 36 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.
Amendment 37 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.
Amendment 38 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.
Section 9A—Interpretation: meaning of public authority
Amendments 39 and 40 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.
Section 9B—Scottish Ministers’ powers relating to research etc
Amendment 41 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.
Section 9C—Financial assistance for the promotion etc of the Gaelic language
Amendment 42 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.
Section 11—Duty of Scottish Ministers to promote Gaelic education
Group 6 is on education material in Gaelic and Scots. Amendment 43, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendments 44, 3 and 62 to 64.
I think that this is my longest set of speaking notes, but they should still come to only a couple of minutes.
Gaelic-medium education is a crucial part of the survival of the language. Over recent years, the value of GME and bilingualism has been increasingly recognised by parents. However, the provision of teaching resources has not kept pace with demand. All teachers in Scotland are struggling with workload pressures, but GME teachers have the additional pressure of often having to translate the resources that they need to deliver education in their classrooms. That work should be done at the centre rather than by classroom teachers across the country, who often reinvent the wheel on top of all their other duties.
The aim of my amendments in this group is to reduce and, ultimately, eliminate any deficit in the resources that are available, compared with English-language teaching resources. Resources for Scots also need attention, so that the language of home and community can become the language of the classroom.
Amendment 43 seeks to place a duty on ministers to promote, facilitate and support the provision of adequate education resources in Gaelic for use in school education by teachers and pupils. The duty in question is a general duty, which will ensure that the consideration of resources is embedded across the education system.
Amendment 44 seeks to place a specific duty on the Scottish ministers to consider whether to produce information, guidance or documents for use in schools in Gaelic when they produce them in English. In practice, that will be done by Education Scotland, which is the relevant executive agency.
Amendment 44 will also require ministers, if they are requested to do so by an education authority, to consider producing in Gaelic something that they have already produced in English. Councils are best placed to know which materials will be most beneficial in the classrooms in their area, and they will be able to target such requests accordingly.
Members will note that, like the amendment that I lodged at stage 2, amendment 44 contains a requirement to “consider” translation rather than an absolute requirement to translate in all cases. That is in recognition of the fact that some resources may be of no relevance to GME; for instance, they might relate to supplementary resources for specific subjects or qualifications that are not yet available through GME. If the primary subject is not available in GME, there would be no need to translate the supplementary resources.
I hope that statutory guidance on GME could set out in further detail circumstances in which translation might or might not be relevant, so that authorities might be confident in knowing when translations would be produced. Amendment 44 is designed to strike the right balance in creating the mechanism but not being too onerous or prescriptive. Guidance can add to that.
Amendment 44 also seeks to place a duty on ministers to keep under review the adequacy of Gaelic resources for school education. It will require them to prepare and publish reports that set out the steps that are necessary to address the issues that might be identified by the review, which will ensure that there is a process of continuous improvement.
Amendments 62 to 64 seek to achieve all those aims for Scots. The quality and availability of resources and support for teachers and pupils are core elements of learning and teaching.
Taken together, my amendments in this group will bring improvements and make a real difference to young people and teachers in Gaelic-medium education, in particular, but also to those who are learning in Scots.
I move amendment 43.
An important area for the progress and development of Gaelic-medium education is continuity and more young people progressing from primary to broad general education and on to the senior phase. It is vital that young people are empowered to continue their Gaelic learning throughout their school career and beyond school, and to use their Gaelic skills in training and employment.
My amendment 3 will contribute to that ambition by ensuring that an appropriate number and range of qualifications are available through the medium of Gaelic. Proposed new section 16B, which amendment 3 seeks to insert into the Education (Scotland) Act 2016, will place a duty on the Scottish Qualifications Authority to ensure that its qualifications
“include an appropriate number and range of qualifications”
that are available in Gaelic. In deciding what is an appropriate number and range of qualifications, the SQA must seek advice from the Scottish ministers, Bòrd na Gàidhlig and others with an interest or expertise.
Through proposed new section 16C of the 2016 act, amendment 3 will also place a duty on the SQA to ensure that appropriate material is available in the Gaelic language. That applies
“When the Scottish Qualifications Authority produces information, guidance or documents in the English language for use in connection with qualifications it has devised”,
and it requires that equivalent Gaelic versions must be produced when the relevant qualification is available in Gaelic. The Glasgow Gaelic school, for example, has said that such a duty would be hugely beneficial to the school and its learners.
Translation of such material must be produced
“on request from the Scottish Ministers”,
thereby ensuring that there is a mechanism for all relevant material to be translated. That will mean that young people who are learning through the medium of Gaelic are not disadvantaged, compared with their English-medium counterparts.
Members will have noticed that amendment 3 will place duties on the SQA, which the Education (Scotland) Bill proposes to replace with a new qualifications body. I am sure that, in due course, we will debate that matter at great length. I understand that the procedure will be that, although my amendment 3 reflects the current position, if the education bill is passed, references to the SQA will be replaced as part of the implementation of that bill. I say that to reassure members that, should the education bill be passed, my amendment would stand the test of time.
The bill strengthens support for Gaelic-medium education in various ways, and I welcome the amendments that Ross Greer has lodged in that area.
I commend the many authorities that have made good progress with Gaelic-medium education, and I believe that my amendment 3 will strengthen the continuity of Gaelic-medium education and the pathway for young people to secure Gaelic qualifications and continue their use of Gaelic throughout their educational journey.
I thank Ross Greer for lodging and explaining his amendments. He talked about the pressures on classroom teachers. In my youth, the issue was the pressures on parents, all of whom put Gaelic translation labels on top of the English materials that we took home. That was how I was educated at primary school.
At all stages—early years, primary and secondary—we need to ensure that young people and teachers have access to attractive, high-quality Gaelic and Scots resources. It was not so long ago that there was a lack of good-quality resources that were specifically produced for Gaelic-medium classes. There have been improvements, but there is still some way to go. I think that the amendments in this group support that progress.
I am also happy to agree to a review duty to ensure that we continue to move forward in supporting teachers and young people. I will certainly look at how the statutory guidance can assist with illustrating the scope of the duty to translate.
I massively appreciate and commend the work that bodies such as Stòrlann, Scots Hoose and Yaldi Books have done over the years. We are happy to support amendments 43, 44, 62, 63 and 64.
Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 3 is important. We need to see Gaelic-medium education strengthened at secondary level, especially in the senior phase. That has been a strong point of feedback throughout my consultation conversations. Amendment 3 will strengthen the pathway from school to training and study and on to the world of work; it is welcome and will make an important contribution.
For example, the SQA currently makes national 5, higher and advanced higher papers, through the medium of Gaelic, in a specific range of subjects, such as cruinn-eòlas, geography, eachdraidh, history, nuadh-eòlas, modern studies, and mathematics. The proposed provision will ensure that, for those subjects—or any subjects that are offered in the future through the medium of Gaelic—core documents, such as course specifications and supporting documentation that is prepared for pupils or teachers, will also be provided in Gaelic.
I confirm that Pam Duncan-Glancy’s understanding is correct. The Scottish Government will ensure that the duty, if approved, is appropriately carried forward and placed on the SQA’s successor body, as part of the implementation of the Education (Scotland) Bill. I am happy to support amendment 3.
I call Ross Greer to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 43.
I have nothing further to add, other than to welcome the consensus on the issue.
Amendment 43 agreed to.
After section 13
Amendment 44 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.
After section 18
Amendment 3 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.
After section 22
Group 7 is on Gaelic-medium education requests. Amendment 11, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendment 12.
16:45
I am pleased to have worked with the Deputy First Minister to lodge these amendments, which would change the process by which requests can be considered for access to Gaelic-medium education. I also welcomed the opportunity to work on them with the wider Gaelic community, which has experience of the process, and I am grateful for the advice that it has given me.
Amendment 11 would make key changes to the process that was established by the Education (Scotland) Act 2016. I will go on to explain some of the detail, but, broadly speaking, the amendment would simplify the process for parents and local authorities. It would extend the request process to parties that were not previously included and it would mean that a request could be made not just for Gaelic-medium primary education but for Gaelic-medium early learning.
Although the Gaelic community welcomed the introduction of the process that is in the 2016 act, some concerns have emerged over the years about how that process works in practice. There are two key issues. First, the parental request must be
“accompanied by ... evidence that there is a demand for GMPE from parents of other children who are ... in the same year group”.
That can be hard for parents not only to source but to administer.
Secondly, the assessment is in two stages. The initial assessment proceeds to a full assessment only if there is evidence of demand from at least five children. Parents have found those two stages of the process to be frustrating, and the threshold of five children might not be appropriate for many geographical areas.
My amendment proposes a single-stage assessment process. It would remove the requirement for parents to provide evidence of demand for GME from other children and their parents, and it would therefore be for the local authority to consider the wider demand in their local area.
The process would start with a request to the education authority. I was pleased to support the Scottish Government’s amendment at stage 2 to introduce a process for requests for all-Gaelic schools. Amendment 11 would extend the right to make requests to Comann nam Pàrant and Bòrd na Gàidhlig to bring the process into line with all-Gaelic school request processes. A request would be made to assess the need for Gaelic-medium primary education or Gaelic-medium early learning, and the authority would have to designate a relevant assessment area and “consider” its provision of Gaelic-medium education and the level of demand in that area. The authority would then have to make
“an assessment of the need”
for Gaelic-medium education.
As is the case under the current full assessment process, there would be various considerations for the authority to take into account in the making of a decision—for example, the availability of premises and staffing. The authority would also have to “publicise arrangements” for parents, children and others
“with expertise or an interest”
to make representations, and it would have to take those representations into account when making a decision.
The authority would also have to decide to secure the provision of GMPE and GME early learning in the designated areas unless, having regard to those considerations,
“it would be unreasonable to do so.”
Again, that wording is maintained from the existing full assessment procedure.
Because my amendment 11 now incorporates the changes to the process that are in section 23 of the bill, amendment 12 would completely remove that section, as it would no longer be required.
I am confident that amendment 11 addresses the practical issues that have been raised by parents and the Gaelic community and that its provisions would be an improvement on the current process, which many parents have been frustrated with. I hope and expect that the amendment would be able to contribute to the growth of Gaelic-medium education as a recognised and successful sector in our Scottish education system.
I move amendment 11.
I thank Miles Briggs for those amendments. With Miles Briggs’s amendments, there will be two robust pathways in place: the process for requesting the provision of Gaelic-medium education, which his amendments would do much to clarify and improve, and the process for requests for local authorities to consider the establishment of an all-Gaelic school in an area, which I introduced at stage 2. The two processes are consistent while still recognising the different factors that are involved for education authorities. Together, they allow for the sustainable development and growth of Gaelic-medium education in an area.
Having said at the outset that I thought that our first group of amendments on areas of linguistic significance was one of the most critical parts of the bill, I would also say that this proposed new section to the Education (Scotland) Act 2016 is one of the most radical parts of the bill, because it responds to a concern that parents have consistently expressed about how to ensure that they have access to Gaelic-medium education.
I invite Miles Briggs to wind up, press or withdraw amendment 11.
I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 11.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Section 22A—All-Gaelic schools: viability of establishment
We move to group 8, which is on all-Gaelic schools requests. Amendment 45, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendments 46 to 49.
At stage 2, we added a process to allow parents and carers to request that councils assess whether GME could be provided locally. As we have just heard, Miles Briggs did much of the work on that. At that point, I flagged that the language that we agreed to in that amendment gave that option only to parents of school-age children when the biggest value would be from allowing parents of pre-school children to make such a request. It would be far better for a child to start in GME from primary 1 or, even better, from nursery, than to have them start in an English-medium school only to move a few years later, once a GME school was open.
The amendments seek to extend the ability to make that request to the parents and carers of pre-school children. They also seek to extend the consultation requirement to include children and parents of
“children resident or attending school”
in the authority area. Again, that includes pre-school children and their families. Given that I raised the issue at stage 2, I should mention that the definition of “parent” that is used in the provisions is the one used in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which includes guardians and others with parental responsibilities, and carers.
The aim of the amendments is to have an open process in which those with an interest can make a request, have their request assessed and make representation. All-Gaelic schools are good for Gaelic and good for Scottish education overall, and the amendments would give more parents and children the opportunity to have access to that process.
I move amendment 45.
The amendments in this group are important off the back of my stage 2 amendments to introduce the process for requesting all-Gaelic schools assessments. I am happy to support Ross Greer’s amendments 45 to 49.
The importance for minority languages of having a separate space from the dominant language is well recognised in language planning terms. For school settings, that can assist with fluency, confidence and a whole-school ethos around Gaelic.
In order to support delivery of that, I welcome Ross Greer’s amendments to ensure that there is wide access for parents and children to the process. I strongly agree with many of his remarks.
I call Ross Greer to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 45.
I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 45.
Amendment 45 agreed to.
Amendment 46 to 49 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.
Section 23—Extension of assessments to early learning and childcare
Amendment 12 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.
Section 25A—Review of status of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig
Group 9 is on Sabhal Mòr Ostaig. Amendment 4, in the name of Willie Rennie, is grouped with amendments 5 to 10.
Sabhal Mòr Ostaig is one of our national institutions, and it should be valued, protected and supported. Clearly, SMO is important for the Gaelic language at home, but it also has an international reputation. In addition, it makes a significant contribution to education, culture and economic regeneration in an area of low population.
Discussions about the status of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig have been taking place for some time—some would say that they have gone on for too long. I believe that the review that was committed to at stage 2 is necessary and will provide all parties involved with the information that is needed to make the necessary decisions. Central to the review will be both the future status and the funding of SMO, and I look forward to the review being commissioned and to its recommendations.
Sabhal Mòr Ostaig has always been a place of commitment and ambition, and we need to take steps to protect and sustain its important contribution and independent status. My amendments strengthen the position that was agreed at stage 2 by placing a duty on ministers to take appropriate action
“to support the development of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig as the national centre for Gaelic language, education and culture in Scotland”,
as is stated in amendment 4.
My amendments clarify that conducting the review is part of exercising that duty. They specify what the review must consider, including SMO’s funding and the question whether SMO should be designated as a higher education institution in its own right. They set out that ministers will comply with the new duty in amendment 4 by taking the actions to support the development of SMO that are set out in the report on the review, in order to bring legal clarity.
Ross Greer and I had slightly competing amendments at stage 2. I wanted to move straight to giving SMO the status of a small, specialist higher education institution; he was in favour of the more considered approach of reviewing the evidence and reaching a conclusion. Our amendments were consistent in many ways, and I have tried to work on the proposals through discussions with the cabinet secretary, her officials and Ross Greer. There were some concerns about what the “small specialist institution” status would mean for Sabhal Mòr Ostaig and whether it would enhance SMO’s funding arrangements. However, with amendment 4 and the review, I am trying to move SMO towards greater freedom, enhanced support and the partnership that will be required among the various institutions. There is no doubt that we need to bring benefits to Sabhal Mòr Ostaig to secure its future.
My new amendments bring the two amendments from stage 2 together, and, from what I can gather, everybody is quite content. Sabhal Mòr Ostaig is content with the review process being strengthened, and I believe that the Deputy First Minister is content. Even the Minister for Higher and Further Education, Graeme Dey, is content, which is quite a rare thing to happen. Members should grasp the opportunity and support my amendments this afternoon.
I move amendment 4.
I thank Willie Rennie for lodging these amendments. He has explained their benefits and the reasons behind them well.
Sabhal Mòr Ostaig makes a contribution on many levels. I am conscious that its principal, Gillian Munro, is in the public gallery, although I do not mean to totally mortify her. Her presence reflects the value that Sabhal Mòr Ostaig places on this debate and on the cross-party support of MSPs. I am delighted that there has been cross-party support for it and recognition of its importance.
Sabhal Mòr Ostaig has a significant history in terms of its economic contribution to the development and repopulation of the Sleat peninsula. It is vital for Gaelic adult learning, Gaelic teacher education and professional learning. Those are all things that we want to encourage and promote.
I welcome the duty on ministers in amendment 4, as well as the identification of the matters that the review must consider. I want to be clear that there is an expectation that the review will move at speed and will have some pace behind it, and that other public bodies will be able to provide support as necessary to get to the point of clarity on the next actions.
I am happy to support Willie Rennie’s amendments. I am grateful for the work that Ross Greer did at stage 2, as well—
[Made a request to intervene.]
I will happily take an amendment—sorry, an intervention.
I thank the Deputy First Minister for indicating that, but I think that both the legislation team and members across the chamber would be slightly concerned if I were about lodge or draft any further amendments. [Laughter.]
I wanted to make the point that Willie Rennie’s amendments are important for the college. However, we know that there is an impetus to get more housing around the college to support the people who work and learn there, because access to the college and to the surrounding area is one reason why the college has not always had the impact that it should have had on Gaelic speakers. Can the Deputy First Minister say for the record whether the Government will consider that issue as part of Willie Rennie’s amendments and the review that they propose?
17:00
As I said, I have long been very supportive of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig’s vision for developing the Sleat peninsula and supporting its repopulation. Repopulation depends on housing, and Sabhal Mòr Ostaig has taken a lead on the provision of housing.
Although this is not necessarily specifically referenced in the amendments, I encourage members to consider how the provisions on areas of linguistic significance could also be used to support the provision of housing in communities. We should consider the combination of a strong, resilient and Gaelic-oriented Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, the provisions on areas of linguistic significance to support the community, and the putting in train of the recommendations of the short-life working group on economic and social opportunities for Gaelic. Taking those three areas together, we have a healthy package of support for communities, including the provision of new housing.
I, too, am delighted that Gillian Munro is in the public gallery today. She is a very modest but determined woman. She is rightly determined to make sure that this happens.
The Deputy First Minister has set out a positive vision that involves bringing together different parts of the strategy, with Sabhal Mòr Ostaig being an important part of that process. I am pleased to hear her say those things. I hope that the people who are conducting the review hear not just my words but those of Ross Greer at stage 2 and of Pam Duncan-Glancy this afternoon, and understand that the review must be conducted at pace. I hope that the conclusion is positive, in the way that I would like to see. It is important that we enhance the role of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig to make it an important part of the vision that the Deputy First Minister has set out.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Amendments 5 to 9 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to.
Section 25B—Status of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig
Amendment 10 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to.
Section 25C—Power to enforce duties of public authorities
Amendments 50 to 57 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.
Section 27—Scots language strategy
Group 10 is on equal respect for the Scots language. Amendment 58, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendment 60.
I lodged amendments at stage 2 to make it clear that, when ministers are preparing the national Gaelic language strategy and guidance, they must have regard to the principle of equal respect for Gaelic—that is, equal respect to English. Amendments 58 and 60 mirror those changes for Scots. I believe that the principle should apply to Scots as well, but I am aware of members’ concerns that the measure might go further than they are comfortable with, or that it could have unintended consequences.
The significance of the bill for Scots comes primarily from the fact that it will be recognised in law for the first time. It is important—certainly to me—that Parliament is unanimous in that recognition. Therefore, to preserve unanimity, I will not press or move the amendments, although I ask the cabinet secretary to give a commitment that the Scots language strategy will be ambitious and will seek to undo the centuries of denigration that have led to millions of children and adults across this country being embarrassed about how they speak because society has convinced them that it is not proper.
I hope that, one day, we can embed the principle of equal respect in law but, for the sake of unanimity at this point, a commitment on the guidance from the cabinet secretary, if forthcoming, would be enough.
I move amendment 58.
I totally understand the sentiment behind Ross Greer’s amendments. We have all heard damaging and derogatory comments about the Gaelic and Scots languages. I always find it quite ironic, because I probably know Gaelic speakers and Scots speakers who vote for every party in this Parliament. That reflects the value and importance of all citizens in Scotland, irrespective of what language they speak.
Amendments 58 and 60 require Scottish ministers to have regard to the principle of equal respect in preparing the strategy and guidance, but I can tell Ross Greer that I unequivocally commit to an ambitious strategy that is built from the ground up—in other words, one that is based on consulting with partner groups and MSPs across the chamber to deliver the end goal that he has outlined.
I call Ross Greer to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 58.
I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s remarks and hope that we will be able to embed the principle of equal respect in law at some point soon. However, for the sake of unanimity on the bill as a whole, which I consider to be important, I seek to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 58, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 29—Effect of Scots language strategy
Amendment 59 moved—[Ross Greer].
The question is, that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms Sturgeon. Your vote will be recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Whittle. Your vote will be recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms Gilruth. Your vote will be recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am in a similar position, because my app is still not connecting. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms Grahame. Your vote will be recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app could not connect. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Torrance. Your vote will be recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes. I had tech issues.
Thank you, Ms Hamilton. Your vote will be recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms Adamson. Your vote will be recorded.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Fairlie. Your vote will be recorded.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer]
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 83, Against 15, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 59 agreed to.
Section 30—Power for Scottish Ministers to give guidance
Amendment 60 not moved.
Section 30B—Financial assistance for the promotion etc of the Scots language
Amendment 61 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.
Section 31—Scots language education in schools
Amendment 62 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.
After section 33
Amendment 63 moved—[Ross Greer].
The question is, that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect to the system, but I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Ms Adamson. Your vote will be recorded.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer]
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 91, Against 13, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 63 agreed to.
Amendment 64 moved—[Ross Greer].
The question is, that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app is telling me that I have not voted, but I did, and I voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Kidd. Your vote will be recorded.
On a point of order. I could not connect to the system, but I would have voted no.
Thank you, Mr Smyth. Your vote will be recorded.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer]
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay]
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 91, Against 12, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 64 agreed to.
That ends stage 3 consideration of amendments.
As members will be aware, under standing orders, the Presiding Officer is required to decide whether, in her view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In her view, no provision of the Scottish Languages Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.
I suspend the meeting for a comfort break.
17:15 Meeting suspended.Previous
Business Motion